Pressed By Antitrust Complaints, Microsoft Changes Third-Party Antivirus Policies

[Lucian Armasu]

Microsoft announced that it changed some of its policies for how it treats third-party antivirus software on Windows. Most of the changes seem to directly address the antitrust complaints Kaspersky has been making to both the Russian and EU authorities.

Pressed By Antitrust Complaints, Microsoft Changes Third-Party Antivirus Policies : Read more

 

[kinggremlin]

Why would Microsoft intentionally try to hurt 3rd party anti-virus makers, when Windows Defender is free and generates no revenue for Microsoft? Microsoft gains absolutely nothing by having users use Defender. It's purpose is only basic protection for users too ignorant to install a more robust 3rd party app. I've always used 3rd party anti-virus software and never noticed MS pushing their own software or in any way discouraging me from using someone else's.

 

[Kennyy Evony]

You're missing the point. You have to think like a russian to understand what's going on.

 

[ChewieUK]

kinggremlin: I'm sure you mean 'why *did* Microsoft make these changes and hurt third party vendors?'
I remember MS telling us that Defender wasn't supposed to be a front-line solution in the first place - despite it being a top-drawer antimalware product before they bought it, rebadged it, and left it to fall into failure.

Mind you, Kaspersky's installations have been doing the same to third party on-demand malware scanners for years - and KIS/KAV still calls out FoolishIT's OS branding tool as a virus even now.

 

[shpankey]

This does not help users, this helps 3rd party virus spammers...

"Microsoft said it has also changed how users will be warned when an antivirus program has expired and no longer protects them. Until now, Windows would show a warning only once, which users could easily ignore. Starting with the Windows 10 Fall Creators’ Update, the warning will persist until users decide whether to renew their third-party antivirus subscription or stick to the free Windows Defender."

 

[tom10167]

"Why would Microsoft intentionally try to hurt 3rd party anti-virus makers, when Windows Defender is free and generates no revenue for Microsoft? Microsoft gains absolutely nothing by having users use Defender. It's purpose is only basic protection for users too ignorant to install a more robust 3rd party app. I've always used 3rd party anti-virus software and never noticed MS pushing their own software or in any way discouraging me from using someone else's."

How much did Netscape Navigator cost? 1Pass? Photobucket? Snapchat Today it's a common method to really screw everybody: Offer a great product for "free." Then, once userbase has reached critical mass and everyone is very comfortable with it, either force people to now pay to use the service, or just start injecting the mandatory updates with tons of unavoidable ads and a free program that generates no revenue is worth half a billion overnight.

 

[therogerwilco]

I actually enjoy Defender. Tons less spam, popups, and bluescreens from false positives on system files.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

<quote>...Microsoft would then allegedly disable the incompatible antivirus software after a Windows update and obfuscate the third-party antivirus notifications, ...</quote>

You mean like it does with re-enabling things that you went out of your way to disable? Things that don't affect security but does affect data collection?


You mean almost like what they did in the 90s? No Windows Certified seal for a product if the same product had an active version on a different platform?

You mean like integrating what was stand-alone software they owned to a point where disabling it or attempting to remove it, harmed functionality beyond, and outside of, what said software was intended to do?

 

[kinggremlin]

How much did Netscape Navigator cost? 1Pass? Photobucket? Snapchat Today it's a common method to really screw everybody: Offer a great product for "free." Then, once userbase has reached critical mass and everyone is very comfortable with it, either force people to now pay to use the service, or just start injecting the mandatory updates with tons of unavoidable ads and a free program that generates no revenue is worth half a billion overnight.

None of those are Microsoft products, so I don't see the relevance. I do remember retail versions of Netscape. When has MS ever started charging for a built in Windows utility that was free? If they were planning on doing that, built in antivirus would certainly not be the first choice.

 

[alextheblue]

Kaspersky likes to whine, but they had TONS of time to make their software compatible. From the day software firms had their hands on pre-release versions of Win10 (or even public previews!) until launch was quite a big stretch of time. But MS is trying to appease FAS, so they'll make changes that didn't really need to be made.

 

[beayn]

I work in IT and have never noticed the issues Kaspersky claim. If Windows is telling you that your PC is unsafe, it's because Kaspersky didn't properly integrate with Windows which ends up in reporting your PC isn't safe. Other AV programs have worked perfectly fine.

The one thing I have noticed is Windows telling you there's a problem with your default programs and reverting them all back to MS Products.

 

[beayn]

I work in IT and have never noticed the issues Kaspersky claim. If Windows is telling you that your PC is unsafe, it's because Kaspersky didn't properly integrate with Windows which ends up in reporting your PC isn't safe. Other AV programs have worked perfectly fine.

The one thing I have noticed is Windows telling you there's a problem with your default programs and reverting them all back to MS Products.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

I work in IT and have never noticed the issues Kaspersky claim. If Windows is telling you that your PC is unsafe, it's because Kaspersky didn't properly integrate with Windows which ends up in reporting your PC isn't safe. Other AV programs have worked perfectly fine.

The one thing I have noticed is Windows telling you there's a problem with your default programs and reverting them all back to MS Products.

Where I work, Corporate went with McAfee both for drive encryption and anti-virus... a resource hog, so I can't comment on Kaspersky performance and integration.