Kaspersky Lab Files Antitrust Complaint Against Apple Over App Store Policy

[dialogos]

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.

It's just unbelievable how many people will just jump to support everything Apple related! I'm not an expert and I don't know the details of this case but I assume neither do you. Keep defending everything Apple does.

As far as the apple ecosystem you do realise there are users who use apple products for more than 10-20 years right? We have every right to complain if there's something we don't like. It's childish to suggest to consumers that either to use android or to shut up.

 

[bryn0076]

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.

I kind of agree ... but screen time isn’t an app you can launch, it’s core functionality now. And I’m not comfortable giving that kind is access to a 3rd party. If you don’t mind malware, go Android

 

[dilbert99]

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.

You are thinking about it all wrong. A company should never be allowed to abuse its position of power.
If I did what you suggest and avoid every company that I have a dissagreement with I would never be doing business with any company and as such your argument of if you don't like it go elsewhere is simply a cheap shot strawman argument.
[doublepost=1553082527][/doublepost]

It's childish to suggest to consumers that either to use android or to shut up.

Well said. Some Apple fans will defend Apple to the ends of the earth, no matter what Apple does no wrong.

 

[err404]

I do get some of these companies point, Apple does play in the store with different rules than the competition. They don’t have to pay the fees and are able to use OS features and APIs that others can’t.
But I wonder if Apple could get around this by simply pulling their own Apps from the store and putting them in a section of the Settings app instead.

 

[rodpascoe]

I do get some of these companies point, Apple does play in the store with different rules than the competition. They don’t have to pay the fees and are able to use OS features and APIs that others can’t.
But I wonder if Apple could get around this by simply pulling their own Apps from the store and putting them in a section of the Settings app instead.

They already do that with lots of their apps. Better still would be to spin of a separate company called Apple Software and then have that company pay the 30/15% too.

It would be wooden dollars as all the income would eventually end back at the same place but the argument about being treated differently would go away.

 

[YaBe]

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

I see your point, but data is one part of the equation, what you do with it and how you use it (for the app purpose i mean) can be different.

Say you get one data, and Apple thought you could use it for one purpose, but a 3rd party thought of a way of using the same data to give you another useful information, why would you want to lose that possibility?

Take screen time, Apple tells you how much time you spent in an app, I would like to know where I was when I used for most of the time said app. It might not be useful for others or usefull to a minority, Apple would not develop for a minority, let a developer do that .

 

[canadianreader]

I don’t know if one should trust antivirus softwares Russian or not.

 

[Abazigal]

You are thinking about it all wrong. A company should never be allowed to abuse its position of power.
If I did what you suggest and avoid every company that I have a dissagreement with I would never be doing business with any company and as such your argument of if you don't like it go elsewhere is simply a cheap shot strawman argument.

To me, it’s common sense.

I don’t go into a french restaurant and then complain that it doesn’t serve Japanese cuisine.

I don’t go to China in May and then complain that the weather is too hot.

And I don’t see it as a case of Apple abusing their power. I am a happy Apple user precisely because I expect Apple to use the control that they wield over their ecosystem to make the hard choices for me so I don’t have to, including what apps to allow and what apps not to allow.

If that’s what it takes to create a safe and secure platform for its users, then so be it.

 

[LovingTeddy]

I kind of agree ... but screen time isn’t an app you can launch, it’s core functionality now. And I’m not comfortable giving that kind is access to a 3rd party. If you don’t mind malware, go Android

I always find amazing when people think about malware, they automatically print their finger to Android. I mean for the years that i have been dealing with Android, i have never encountered any malware for myself..i am pretty sure the malware issue is overblown by Apple fans.

See why not let user judge what should be allowed and what should not be allowed. Why there can’t be a pop up that let user grand access? Apple already do this anyway... so why just blocking one app?

 

[darksithpro]

Since you're not root, unless you jailbreak I see no logical reason why someone would need an Antivirus/malware app for iOS. All apps are reviewed by Apple and signed. This isn't Windows, where almost everyone is administrator.

 

[ApostolisApo]

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.

--

 

[Abazigal]

I see your point, but data is one part of the equation, what you do with it and how you use it (for the app purpose i mean) can be different.

Say you get one data, and Apple thought you could use it for one purpose, but a 3rd party thought of a way of using the same data to give you another useful information, why would you want to lose that possibility?

Take screen time, Apple tells you how much time you spent in an app, I would like to know where I was when I used for most of the time said app. It might not be useful for others or usefull to a minority, Apple would not develop for a minority, let a developer do that .

The issue isn’t so much whether that feature is useful or not, but how it could potentially be abused.

Let’s assume that Kaspersky had no ill will, and that this app was genuinely created as an app for parents to monitor their children (and nothing else). The very APIs which make this possible could also make it possible for another developer with more malicious intents to abuse them. Like how Facebook ended up using Onavo to spy on what users were doing on their smartphones.

And even if 99 out of 100 developers were honest, you just need that one bad egg. And it wouldn’t be feasible for Apple to monitor every single developer in this fashion. Easier to just ban the functionality outright, while creating a similar feature so your users are not left in the cold.

Does it suck for that developer? I am sure it does. But Apple is also responsible for hundreds of millions of users in their App Store, who trust Apple to weed out the bad players so they don’t have to.

Is Apple perfect? No. Does Apple make mistakes? All the time. But the good Apple does in this regard will far outweigh the bad. And that’s what counts at the end of the day.

I don’t know if one should trust antivirus softwares Russian or not.

Well, Kaspersky is banned by the US government, for whatever that is worth.

 

[horsebattery]

To me, it’s common sense.

I don’t go into a french restaurant and then complain that it doesn’t serve Japanese cuisine.

I don’t go to China in May and then complain that the weather is too hot.

And I don’t see it as a case of Apple abusing their power. I am a happy Apple user precisely because I expect Apple to use the control that they wield over their ecosystem to make the hard choices for me so I don’t have to, including what apps to allow and what apps not to allow.

If that’s what it takes to create a safe and secure platform for its users, then so be it.

Your analogies don’t really relate to this scenario. A better one would be:

1. Developer Bob releases app
2. Apple provides the same or similarly functionality
3. Apple hampers Bob’s app in some anti-competitive way

It’s steps 2 and 3 when put together that’s the problem here. In Spotify’s case, it’s that Apple releases Apple Music, charges the same price, AND requires Spotify to go through Apple’s payment system (when purchasing a subscription within the app). Kaspersky’s case is a little different in that it’s a different rule they’re in violation of, but it’s along the same idea: Apple doesn’t get to use arbitrary rules as a blanket excuse for anti-competive actions.

 

[dialogos]

Well, Kaspersky is banned by the US government, for whatever that is worth.

and I haven't stopped thanking the US gov for protecting the well being of humanity. Thank God there is this paradise where political motivations don't exist.

 

[TonnyM]

Kaspersky: ‘thank you Apple, we will take it from here, you can’t have monopoly on iOS functionality, we will do better job taking care of your customers’ security and privacy’

 

[icanhazapple]

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*

The US has a domestic communication interception system Russia/China could only dream of, courtesy of AT&T/Verizon. Most people in the US are completely oblivious to it. Also, who has active military bases 500 miles from Russia/China? You get one guess.

How would people in the US respond if Russia opened up a base in the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico? What if China had a base in Northern Canada?

 

[Abazigal]

and I haven't stopped thanking the US gov for protecting the well being of humanity. Thank God there is this paradise where political motivations don't exist.

Which is why I say, the safest hands are still Apple’s own. Let Apple be the one to handle matters like security and permissions, which then effectively removes the second-guessing from the equation.

No need to debate about whether Kaspersky is a legitimate antivirus company, or a Russian Spy (or maybe both!), when it can’t be in a position where either concern would matter.

 

[dialogos]

The US has a domestic communication interception system Russia/China could only dream of, courtesy of AT&T/Verizon. Most people in the US are completely oblivious to it. Also, who has active military bases 500 miles from Russia/China? You get one guess.

How would people in the US like if Russia opened up a base in Mexico?

Please keep informing us. We need to learn the truth.
[doublepost=1553084269][/doublepost]

Which is why I say, the safest hands are still Apple’s own. Let Apple be the one to handle matters like security and permissions, which then effectively removes the second-guessing from the equation.

No need to debate about whether Kaspersky is a legitimate antivirus company, or a Russian Spy (or maybe both!), when it can’t be in a position where either concern would matter.

I'm not debating and this is definitely not my intention. But I believe that you should double think if you trust Apple so much. It's just a corporation after all with their own political motives.
You take for granted that android has malware (something I disagree with) and you just put your faith in Apple. That's what I understand from your messages.

Maybe Apple fans should take a step back and think again if Apple does things for their best interest. Let the judges decide where needed.

As a professional in a very sensitive area - healthcare - I can tell you that Apple doesn't give a damn.

 

[err404]

They already do that with lots of their apps. Better still would be to spin of a separate company called Apple Software and then have that company pay the 30/15% too.

It would be wooden dollars as all the income would eventually end back at the same place but the argument about being treated differently would go away.

This would force Apple apps to follow the same rules. Their current Apps use private APIs that are forbidden in the App Store.

 

[dilbert99]

To me, it’s common sense.

I don’t go into a french restaurant and then complain that it doesn’t serve Japanese cuisine.

No, but you would complain if you went to an all you can eat buffet, just for them to so put up some small print saying you can only have tomatoes.

I don’t go to China in May and then complain that the weather is too hot.

That would get you arrested.

And I don’t see it as a case of Apple abusing their power.

Look through rose tinted glasses and everything looks rosy to you.

I am a happy Apple user precisely because I expect Apple to use the control that they wield over their ecosystem to make the hard choices for me so I don’t have to, including what apps to allow and what apps not to allow.

Problem here is that Apple is judge, jury and executioner. I can see plenty problems with this.

If that’s what it takes to create a safe and secure platform for its users, then so be it.

No it is not what it takes to create a secure platform. Apple has a history of allowing apps and then for no valid reason, disallows the app sometime later.

 

[sidewinder3000]

What is Apple’s problem? Refusing to allow a Russian cybersecurity operation to access a user’s operating system at a fundamental level? What could go wrong?

 

[Abazigal]

Your analogies don’t really relate to this scenario. A better one would be:

1. Developer Bob releases app
2. Apple provides the same or similarly functionality
3. Apple hampers Bob’s app in some anti-competitive way

It’s steps 2 and 3 when put together that’s the problem here. In Spotify’s case, it’s that Apple releases Apple Music, charges the same price, AND requires Spotify to go through Apple’s payment system (when purchasing a subscription within the app). Kaspersky’s case is a little different in that it’s a different rule they’re in violation of, but it’s along the same idea: Apple doesn’t get to use arbitrary rules as a blanket excuse for anti-competive actions.

To me, I see it like this:

We pay a premium for our Apple products because of the unique user experience, made possible by the integration of hardware, software and services.

In order for Apple to be able to integrate their software or service at a system level, they need to first own and control it.

So if Apple wanted to release a cellular smart watch where one of its key selling points was the ability to stream music on the go, it made sense for Apple to own such a critical piece of technology. When you own your own streaming music service, you are able to tweak it to work with your own hardware in order to afford the best integrated experience (eg: consume less power, integrate with Siri).

This also serves as an important hedge. Imagine if Apple had partnered with Spotify to use their music streaming service for the Apple Watch, and Spotify decides to withhold their service from the watch a couple of months down the road because they want better terms from Apple. Under such a scenario, Apple would have no choice but to capitulate, or risk their product not working right.

Where you control the key technologies underpinning your products, there is no risk of Apple doing something to Apple Music that would jeopardise the functionality of their own hardware. It’s one less variable in the entire equation.

Which is precisely what happened with Google Maps, leading Apple to create their own maps service in response, and only then did Google finally release a proper third-party maps app of their own.

It’s something that developers will have to be cognisant about - that their apps will always be second-class citizens on the iOS platform.

 

[sidewinder3000]

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.

You buy Apple products because they are in control. If you want a product that is out of control, you buy Android.

 

[PlayUltimate]

They already do that with lots of their apps. Better still would be to spin of a separate company called Apple Software and then have that company pay the 30/15% too.

It would be wooden dollars as all the income would eventually end back at the same place but the argument about being treated differently would go away.

For internal bookkepping purposes, they may already.

 

[richman555]

The Russians and Chinese are after us and our technology. Apple is their biggest target. That is all.