Just like Spotify, Kaspersky Lab files an antitrust against Apple due to their alleged monopolistic practice

[captain_to_fire]

Sources: 9to5 Mac, Kaspersky Lab

 

Quote

Cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab today announced in a blog post that it has filed an antitrust complaint against Apple with the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service. This comes less than a week after Spotify filed a complaint with the European Commission and called Apple a “monopolist.”

 

The cybersecurity firm says that last year, Apple cracked down on its Kaspersky Safe Kids app, which used configuration profiles to help parents monitor what their kids were doing on their iOS devices:

Well it looks like Apple is in the hot water again due to alleged shady practices. This is not about Apple banning third party antivirus apps on the App Store but rather they've sent Kaspersky a notice telling them to update their "Safe Kids" app to stop using configuration profiles. Kaspersky however insist that it is a monopolistic practice because removing the said feature would cripple the app. To anyone who doesn't know, Kaspersky Safe Kids is an added feature to Total Security and Security Cloud Family (can be purchased separately) where a parent can monitor the content and apps their kid/s is using and block any shady stuff that is not intended for young audiences like pornography, violent games or profane language and keep it to the more wholesome content like My Little Pony, etc. 

 

The screenshots below is how it looks like on the PC side. 

 

This is how it looks like on iOS. The problem now is that the app has seen an update five months ago and it keeps on crashing. Kaspersky Lab can't update their app because they refuse to comply with Apple's policies that monitoring apps must not use configuration profiles.

 

 

Quote

The change in Apple’s policy toward our app (as well as toward every other developer of parental control software), notably came on the heels of the Cupertino-based company announcing its own Screen Time feature as part of iOS 12. This feature allows users to monitor the amount of time they spend using certain apps or on certain websites, and set time restrictions. It is essentially Apple’s own app for parental control.

 

From our point of view, Apple appears to be using its position as platform owner and supervisor of the sole channel for delivering apps to users of the platform to dictate terms and prevent other developers from operating on equal terms with it. As a result of the new rules, developers of parental control apps may lose some of their users and experience financial impact. Most important, however, it is the users who will suffer as they miss out on some critical security features. The market for parental control apps will head toward a monopoly and, consequently, stagnation.

 

One might argue that the App Store is owned by Apple itself, so why should the company not call the shots? The problem is that Apple does not allow the use of any other software marketplaces for iOS, so it effectively controls the only channel for delivering apps from developers to users.

By setting its own rules for that channel, it extends its power in the market over other, adjacent markets: for example, the parental control software market, where it has only just become a player. It is precisely in this extension of its leverage through possession of so-called “key capacity” over other segments, leading to restriction and elimination of competition, that we see the essential elements of antitrust law violation, which consist of erecting barriers and discriminating against our software.

 

We have repeatedly tried to contact Apple to resolve this situation, but no meaningful negotiations have ensued.

This is not the first time Kaspersky Lab files an antitrust against a tech company, remember prior to Windows 10 Fall Creators Update they filed a similar antitrust to the EU and Russia against Microsoft, accusing them of using their dominant position to dissuade people from using third party antivirus programs either by uninstalling them after the Creators Update or by bugging people to use Windows Defender instead with notifications. But few months after, Microsoft followed and tweaked Windows 10 in the Fall Creators Update and Kaspersky dropped the antitrust. In the blog post, Kaspersky cited Spotify's claims and other smaller monitoring apps too. Also, some security researchers have been complaining that Apple is selfish when it comes to malware signatures.

 

I think Apple has the right to do whatever it wants to do with the App Store and I've said it that their end goal is to become a vertical monopoly. But then again, can Apple survive by alienating their developers? Apple is a bigger company than Kaspersky (~$700+ million) and I wouldn't be surprised that they'd cripple other apps too. They certainly won't block Office 365 but they can choose to block password managers if they want to and force users to use iCloud Keychain (which I don't use). Unless of course Apple is doing this because of the allegations that Kaspersky has malicious ties with the Kremlin but that would be a discussion from threads two years ago. Just so everyone knows, Safe Kids is not an antivirus program like on Android where it can scan contents of the phone. Safe Kids is just a monitoring app like the ones used by corporate entities to monitor and track their employees given with company issued iPhones. I remember back when I worked as a pharma rep, I was issued an iPad with Symantec Endpoint Protection configuration profiles installed.

Edited March 20, 2019 by captain_to_fire

[Fnige]

2 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

can Apple survive by alienating their developers?

no. end of story.

 

[poochyena]

I don't see the problem. Apple has no obligation to provide an app on their platform.

[williamcll]

Yeah, Apple's own child filter is pretty poor. My brother's school macbook have tons of games installed.

[Fnige]

24 minutes ago, williamcll said:

Yeah, Apple's own child filter is pretty poor. My brother's school macbook have tons of games installed.

Do they run poorly?

[DrMacintosh]

They don't have the right to be on Apples platform. They also don't have the right to modify the way iOS functions without the blessing of a developer cert. 

 

Is it anti-trust? Maybe. But I have a feeling that because Apple is the owner/operator/and developer of their own OSes, multiple major eStores, and hardware puts them in a unique legal position for an anti-trust case. 

 

If you own a plot of land, are you being ant-competitive if you let some people sell elotes on it and not others? Or are you just exercising your rights as the owner to refuse service to anyone?  

 

Also Android exists, so its not like these companies can claim that Apple has a monopoly and is destroying their livelihoods. In reality Google has far more users than all Mac, and iOS users out there.

[mr moose]

22 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

They don't have the right to be on Microsoft's platform. They also don't have the right to modify the way Windows functions without the blessing of a developer cert. 

 

Is it anti-trust? Maybe. But I have a feeling that because Microsoft is the owner/operator/and developer of their own OSes, multiple major eStores, and hardware puts them in a unique legal position for an anti-trust case. 

 

If you own a plot of land, are you being ant-competitive if you let some people sell elotes on it and not others? Or are you just exercising your rights as the owner to refuse service to anyone?  

 

Also Android exists, so its not like these companies can claim that Microsoft has a monopoly and is destroying their livelihoods. In reality Google has far more users than all WP, and iOS users out there.

Made some changes.

 

See how silly that argument sounds.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Made some changes.

All you did was switch names and it still doesn't sound silly to me at all. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

All you did was switch names and it still doesn't sound silly to me at all. 

 

So you'd have no problems at all with MS dictating what programs can run in windows or google dictating what programs can run in android?

 

Please...

[DrMacintosh]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So you'd have no problems at all with MS dictating what programs can run in windows or google dictating what programs can run in android?

No. Microsoft and Google already do this to an extent with the Windows Store and Google Play. All app stores have rules about what you can and can't do as a developer. 

 

On a side note macOS is just like Windows in that it has an App Store but programs can still be installed from the internet. 

[Blademaster91]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

So you'd have no problems at all with MS dictating what programs can run in windows or google dictating what programs can run in android?

 

Please...

There seems to be no problem with what Apple dictates what you can run, but when it comes to MS everyone gets upset, like Windows 10S or the Windows store apps.

This is bad and really Apple should be allowing an app, especially if its better than Apple's own filtering options, also there isn't anything "alleged" about Apple's monopolistic practices.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

No. Microsoft and Google already do this to an extent with the Windows Store and Google Play. All app stores have rules about what you can and can't do as a developer. 

 

On a side note macOS is just like Windows in that it has an App Store but programs can still be installed from the internet. 

They do not,  you can write, distribute and use any app you want in any way* in both windows and android. END OF STORY.

 

 

*Unless it's malicious in which case it is not just MS who will remove it but every malware and antivirus out there too.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

hey do not,  you can write, distribute and use any app you want in any way* in both windows and android. END OF STORY

It's a cute story, that's for sure. 

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

It's a cute story, that's for sure. 

What's cute is the fact you think you need permission from MS or Google to write an app for their operating systems.

[DrMacintosh]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What's cute is the fact you think you need permission from MS or Google to write an app for their operating systems.

Oh I never said that. I'm talking about the store fronts, not loading your own apps from the internet. There are rules in place on all platforms for that. 

[justpoet]

Part of a larger crack down on developers abusing enterprise profiles.  In this case, invading the privacy of "kids", not all of whom are from parents, or used on kids, for the purposes of spying on the iOS user.  Really no anti-trust case here based on telling them to stop abusing profiles to bypass security.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Oh I never said that. I'm talking about the store fronts, not loading your own apps from the internet. There are rules in place on all platforms for that. 

Tell yourself that as much as you need to.  MS and google pose no restrictions on any developer while apple require you to meet all their criteria and have end say not only if you can even distribute the app but to stop it after the fact also. 

 

 

[Sauron]

11 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

I think Apple has the right to do whatever it wants to do with the App Store and I've said it that their end goal is to become a vertical monopoly.

While they can definitely do what they want with the App Store, if they're going to gate developers like this they must allow third party stores or, at the very least, app sideloading. This is a much smaller issue with Google Play because on Android you can install apps from outside the store without problems. Apple could get away with it if the iDevices were a niche product and they didn't market the App Store as, well, a store - but that's not the case.

 

It's kind of as if Microsoft only allowed you to install programs from the windows store on your windows machine, then banned developers for not following (in my opinion) overly strict terms of service.

[GoldenLag]

I mean. If Apple has a similar solution and doesnt let Kaspersky run theirs in paralell. Its kinda monopolistic. 

 

If the Apple solution was better they wouldnt need to block other similar solutions.

 

I mean, Apple can do this because its their own plattform, but its monopolistic. If Google or Microsoft did anything similar it would have backlash, especially with child security and protections features. MS bugging people to swap from Chrome or other Anti-virus was annoying and infuriating enough.

[Arika]

oh, right, so more anti-consumer practices from Apple that are okay because it's Apple..

 

it's not like there were rage fueled anti-consumer comments on this very forum when Microsoft did the equivalent of asking people nicely to "just try edge before switching your default browser" where were the people saying "well it's their OS/platform they can do what they like with it".

 

Apple is forcing it out because they have their own version, ignoring the fact that it's kaspersky because fuck those guys, still a dick move from Apple and the same defense would not be afforded to MS if they blocked programs being installed that were alternatives to their own inbuilt software,

 

 

5 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

their end goal is to become a vertical monopoly.

why do people keep saying this like it's a good thing? "if you want to use our platform you have to do it the exact way we want you to, nothing else"

 

 

[Guest]

This is pretty funny not going to lie.

[RejZoR]

I hope browser makers do the same. The shit they call Firefox on iOS is NOTHING like on Android. It's just a faint shadow of itself and not by Mozilla's fault. Opera doesn't even exist, it only comes in Opera Mini flavor and even that one feels dumbed down. The requirement by Apple to literally run a frontend on top of Safari is just absurd. I don't even give a shit if Apple demands that Firefox has no extensions support (which is the biggest "selling" point of mobile Firefox btw since no other browser has that), I just want basic functionality you expect from a functional browser. Coz right now you can't even damn rename the bookmark you save or god forbid you want to hand modify the URL of it. Like, how idiotic is that? Where Firefox for Android feels like desktop browser shrunk down to mobile format with pretty much entire functionality. On iOS it's pretty much garbage.

 

Oh and don't get me started on Apple's refusal to allow users to set their own preferred browser (not even with stupid Safari underneath requirement!)... It's freaking 2019, not 1995...

[mr moose]

27 minutes ago, Sauron said:

 Apple could get away with it if the iDevices were a niche product and they didn't market the Apple store as,

Exactly, the only way Apple can argue its not monopolistic because it's "their" product is if the product has by design a narrow end use, basically the product has to be the same as an embedded product.

[duncannah]

Windows and Android have a majority market share in their respective platforms unlike Apple, so comparing them is ridiculous

 

And it's quite obvious that a Russian court would have a bias towards a Russian company, so the result is pretty predictable

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, poochyena said:

I don't see the problem. Apple has no obligation to provide an app on their platform. 

5 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

They don't have the right to be on Apples platform.

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Made some changes.

 

See how silly that argument sounds.

Let's replace "Apple" with "Verizon" and "iOS" with "network" instead.

 

 

Should Verizon have the power to dictate which websites you as their paying customer can access?

I think most people would answer no to that, but to me I don't see how that situation is different from letting Apple dictate which programs you can install on your phone.

 

 

5 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

They also don't have the right to modify the way iOS functions without the blessing of a developer cert. 

Kasperky has a developer cert, and they are not modifying how "iOS functions". They are using a publicly available API to load a configuration profile, which is used by countless amounts of apps already. The difference is that Apple only wants that used for things like corporate MDM, while Kaspersky uses it for parental control.

 

 

4 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

There seems to be no problem with what Apple dictates what you can run, but when it comes to MS everyone gets upset, like Windows 10S or the Windows store apps.

This is bad and really Apple should be allowing an app, especially if its better than Apple's own filtering options, also there isn't anything "alleged" about Apple's monopolistic practices.

Well, there are a few things at play there I'd say.

1) It might not be the same people hating on MS that agrees with Apple on this. There is probably some overlap, but not everyone who agrees with Apple or hates on Microsoft is a hypocrite.

2) There is a dramatic difference in the quality of the platforms. Windows 10S is quite frankly terrible. iOS is pretty good (dare I say it, really good). It's easier to forgive a good platform doing bad things than it is to forgive a bad platform doing bad things.

3) Apple and MS have very different market shares and therefore can not really be compared. Microsoft potentially locking down 90% of the desktop market is a rather big deal. Apple locking down something like 30% of the mobile market is less of an issue.

 

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

While they can definitely do what they want with the Apple store, if they're going to gate developers like this they must allow third party stores or, at the very least, app sideloading.

I think that would be a good compromise. Let Apple do whatever they want on their app store, but forcing them to provide an alternative way for developers to distribute their programs just like on, well, all other major platforms. That would solve a lot of other issues too like them taking a large subscription cut.