Kaspersky Lab Files Antitrust Complaint Against Apple Over App Store Policy

[MacRumors]

Cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab has filed an antitrust complaint against Apple with the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service relating to the company's App Store distribution policy. The action comes less than a week after Spotify filed its own complaint against Apple with EU antitrust regulators over the tech giant's "unfair" App Store practices.

Kaspersky's complaint is specifically to do with Apple's removal of the Kaspersky Safe Kids app. In a blog post on the Kaspersky website, the firm says it received notice from Apple last year that the app, which had been in the App Store for three years, did not meet App Store guidelines owing to the use of configuration profiles.

Kaspersky was told by Apple that it would need to remove these profiles for the app to pass review and remain in the App Store, but the Russian firm had argued this action essentially crippled the app. "For us, that would mean removing two key features from Kaspersky Safe Kids: app control and Safari browser blocking."

The first allows parents to specify which apps kids can't run based on the App Store's age restrictions, while the second allows the hiding of all browsers on the device so that web pages can only be accessed in the Kaspersky Safe Kids app's built-in secure browser.

Kaspersky argues that the change in Apple's policy regarding parental control apps coincided with the release of iOS 12 and Apple's own Screen Time feature, which lets users monitor the amount of time they spend using certain apps and websites, and set time restrictions. Kaspersky calls it "essentially Apple's own app for parental control," and claims that's why Apple changed its tune on the firm's Safe Kids app and other apps like it.

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.

Kaspersky says it wants to continue its "winning relationship with Apple," but on "a more equal footing," and hopes that its application to the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service will "benefit the market at large" and require Apple to "provide competitive terms to third-party developers."

Kaspersky's dispute has parallels with the antitrust complaint brought against Apple by Spotify last week. The music streaming service filed the complaint with the European Commission, accusing the iPhone maker of enforcing App Store rules that "purposely limit choice and stifle innovation at the expense of the user experience" and "acting as both a player and referee to deliberately disadvantage other app developers."

Apple responded to the complaint two days later, labeling it "misleading rhetoric" and arguing that "Spotify wants all the benefits of a free app without being free." A day later, Spotify fired back, claiming "every monopolist will suggest they have done nothing wrong" and that, consequently, Apple's response was "entirely in line" with its expectations.

Article Link: Kaspersky Lab Files Antitrust Complaint Against Apple Over App Store Policy

 

[peterh988]

Wouldn't it just be easier to list anyone who isn't taking legal action against Apple?

 

[drumcat]

You mean the same clowns that work with the FSB? Not a chance. This isn't security; it's malware by a different name.

In Soviet Russia, Mac Hacks You.

UPDATE— https://apnews.com/a3144f4ef5ab4588af7aba789e9892ed

 

[farewelwilliams]

Installing configuration profiles effectively bypasses a lot of App Store rules. This is extremely stupid of Kaspersky.

They just want to ride Spotify's PR wave.

 

[Abazigal]

Ironically, it’s cases like this which (I feel) end up making a stronger case for Apple having the level of control over their platform that they do.

When it comes to sensitive features such as screen time and screen recording which basically entail someone else taking control of your entire device, I would rather that company be Apple (whom I do trust) rather than a third party developer.

I feel that in such cases, Apple is justified in restricting the ability of other companies to perform such actions. If there is a need, Apple will handle it themselves.

Maybe this is Apple acting anticompetitively, but I would personally have it no other way. The safest hands are still Apple’s own.

 

[YaBe]

If there is a need, Apple will handle it themselves.

True, but then who get to decide if there is a need?
I mean Apple is not always right, they make mistake too, giving control to just 1 person (in this case 1 company), no matter how good that person (company) is, is a flawled procedure.

 

[AppleTrap]

Irrespective of the company, Apple is being pretty dictatorial with this one.

 

[5105973]

What you all say sounds valid, but then why did Apple permit this app to be sold until they finally built the same or similar functionality into iOS?

 

[garylapointe]

What you all say sounds valid, but then why did Apple permit this app to be sold unril they finally built the same or similar functionality into iOS?

Isn't the reason that it's now built-in and it's duplicating the OS enough?

 

[Marshall73]

Not sure why you would want to install their Russian malware anyway.

 

[YaBe]

Isn't the reason that it's now built-in and it's duplicating the OS enough?

Well who tells you one work better than the other?

Should we stop allowind developers to say create Affinity Photo , since it duplicates Adobe Photoshop?
I mean since when choice is a bad thing for consumers?

Edit:
There are lots of app that replicate the built in app in iOS, but they have more features, so no just because the built in app does something similar, it does not work as a good excuses, as you might be missing out on features Apple pretend you do not need.

 

[dialogos]

You mean the same clowns that work with the FSB? Not a chance. This isn't security; it's malware by a different name.

In Soviet Russia, Mac Hacks You.

So you're not using any Russian software because you don't trust Russian politics?

I assume you could extend this to any former communist country. How about Ukraine? Do you trust them? Because that's where Readdle apps were developed! (excellent apps by the way !)

 

[bbplayer5]

So you're not using any Russian software because you don't trust Russian politics?

I assume you could extend this to any former communist country. How about Ukraine? Do you trust them? Because that's where Readdle apps were developed! (excellent apps by the way !)

Well considering the NSA tools were found on Kaspersky's network, ya, im gonna go with F them.

 

[Pangalactic]

Not sure why you would want to install their Russian malware anyway.

Oh yes, of course, it's the Russian hackers and malware. The US government, on the other hand, would never spy on its citizens *cough* Snowden *cough*

 

[az431]

True, but then who get to decide if there is a need?
I mean Apple is not always right, they make mistake too, giving control to just 1 person (in this case 1 company), no matter how good that person (company) is, is a flawled procedure.

Your argument is that since people and companies make mistakes, then it’s better to give control to many than just one.

Yeah makes sense
[doublepost=1553081346][/doublepost]

Oh yes, of course, it's the Russian hackers and malware. The US government, on the other hand, would never spy on its citizens *cough* Snowden *cough*

What does the US government have to do with App Store policies or this lawsuit?

 

[Scottsoapbox]

Apple has a history of banning or crippling apps that overlap with a new app/feature that they are about to launch themselves (long after the “offending” apps launch). It is straightforward use of a platform to stifle competition, regardless of what the Apple apologists say. If the Apple app/feature is truly superior, it would win without such tactics.

 

[dialogos]

Well considering the NSA tools were found on Kaspersky's network, ya, im gonna go with F them.

Fair enough. But still there is this political point of view among users that they will not touch anything from Russia or some ex communist countries. To my knowledge some of the best software was developed there. Readdle is one example.

And I think we could easily assume if such tools are in Russian software imagine how easier it is to install the same tools in US software. Just because we haven't discovered it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The way I see it is that Americans mostly will not trust Russians, now the new trend is they don't trust the Chinese manufacturers " huawei " but I hear nothing about american companies. As if they're some angels

 

[Abazigal]

True, but then who get to decide if there is a need?
I mean Apple is not always right, they make mistake too, giving control to just 1 person (in this case 1 company), no matter how good that person (company) is, is a flawled procedure.

I think in this case, it’s warranted because Kaspersky was basically requesting for system-level access to your device.

Contrast this with another app like say, Documents from Readdle, which lacks access to the same permissions. So there is a limit to what Readdle can access from your device, and consequently, what harm they can do.

So basically, an app like screen time, which basically monitors what apps you use on your device and for how long, should never be administered by a third party, because you simply don’t know what they might do with your data. By having Apple being the only one with such access, you effectively remove the ambiguity from the equation. No need to worry about whether said company is trustworthy or not, by making it such that they will never be in a situation in the first place.

Best of both worlds for both Apple and the consumer. As for the developer, well, they kinda had it coming when they tried to pull this stunt on ios in the first place.

 

[macfacts]

Ironically, it’s cases like this which (I feel) end up making a stronger case for Apple having the level of control over their platform that they do.

When it comes to sensitive features such as screen time and screen recording which basically entail someone else taking control of your entire device, I would rather that company be Apple (whom I do trust) rather than a third party developer.

I ....

Where does it say this 3rd party app is recording the screen?

 

[az431]

What you all say sounds valid, but then why did Apple permit this app to be sold unril they finally built the same or similar functionality into iOS?

Same reason people correct mistakes after they make them and not before.

 

[dialogos]

Same reason people correct mistakes after they make them and not before.

So for the last years Apple phones were not safe for people who had installed this "malicious" software..... Imagine how many similar apps may exist right now in ios app store - which of course they will be removed in the next years -

Time to stop using those unsafe iOS devices.

My perpsective is that it gets too political and things are not so straight forward as we believe.

 

[Abazigal]

Where does it say this 3rd party app is recording the screen?

It doesn’t. I am simply saying that apps like screen recording and screen time are better administered by Apple than third parties.

In fact, there was such an app called Vidyo (I think), that made use of a workaround using the airplay feature, which allowed you to do screen recordings on your iOS device. Needless to say, Apple took it down within a day.

 

[dilbert99]

Ironically, it’s cases like this which (I feel) end up making a stronger case for Apple having the level of control over their platform that they do.

When it comes to sensitive features such as screen time and screen recording which basically entail someone else taking control of your entire device, I would rather that company be Apple (whom I do trust) rather than a third party developer.

I feel that in such cases, Apple is justified in restricting the ability of other companies to perform such actions. If there is a need, Apple will handle it themselves.

Maybe this is Apple acting anticompetitively, but I would personally have it no other way. The safest hands are still Apple’s own.

Yet there are those of us out there that do not want Apple to be judge jury and executioner.

 

[Abazigal]

Yet there are those of us out there that do not want Apple to be judge jury and executioner.

Then perhaps these people should never have bought into the Apple ecosystem in the first place, when they knew very well what they were getting into when they embraced the walled garden philosophy.

To me, it’s not about right or wrong. It just is (the way that Apple does things), and if someone doesn’t like it, well, there’s always android.

 

[macfacts]

Then perhaps these people should never have bought into the Apple ecosystem in the first place, when they knew very well what they were getting into when they embraced the walled garden philosophy.

To me, it’s not about right or wrong. It just is (the way that Apple does things), and if someone doesn’t like it, well, there’s always android.

Except apple can't just go around doing illegal things.