[Rinzler89]

> I can't help but think about the fact that Apple kicked security vendors out of kernel-mode a ways back, and that if Windows had done similarly, an issue like this probably wouldn't have been possible

Like others already said, Microsoft already tried to do that with PatchGuard in 2006 with the launch of Windows Vista and the likes of Symantec and McAfee complained to the EU about this would harm the sales of their products, so the EU told Microsoft to not do it in 2009[1].

Apple has the luxury of a small market share on the desktop PC space to not attract the attention of the regulators, plus a user base that's used to Apple constantly rewriting the OS, deprecating APIs, switching CPU architectures, etc. without giving a fuck about breaking backwards compatibility or cutting off developers access to OS features their products use and getting away with it, luxuries that Microsoft doesn't have.

IMHO, sticking with Window's default security and not using third party anit-malware has made Windows vastly more secure and rulabile than it was in the days when you'd be looking on installing the likes of Symantec or McAfee for your "protection" which ended up acting like malware after a while throwing dark patterns at you to milk more subsection fees, so as much as it hurts their sales, it's important for the regulators to understand that security is far more important than the regulations they put on Windows for Internet Explorer and Media Player and just like Apple's apps-store, it's sometimes better to let the original product maker handle security and not leave the product open at all points just so some of these bandits can make a living selling security for it. It's like foxes complaining to regulators how chicken wire is a threat to their existence.

[1] https://stratechery.com/2024/crashes-and-competition/

[Corrado]

I work in a heavily regulated industry (healthcare) and I can tell you that if anti-virus products weren't required to pass audits we wouldn't be using them. I'm not super familiar with Windows built-in security anymore but macOS (our platform of choice) is pretty secure without any additional products. In fact, I'm pretty sure that adding A/V "solutions" makes us more vulnerable, not less.

[aiisjustanif]

Crowdstrike is not an anti-virus solution though.

[nopcode]

Microsoft sells endpoint security products and it would be unfair if third party solutions couldn't leverage the same APIs, it makes a lot of sense that a regulator steps in. I'm not aware of Apple selling security products or competing with third party security products.

[self_awareness]

I don't know. Would it be unfair?

Cars are sold with integrated radios and players. But at the same time there were independent companies selling car radios back in times when they were exchangable. Now external players are gone, everything is integrated, and the market for custom car players is dead. And nobody cares! One could say that car manufacturers don't offer the same API for car player companies.

I think that Microsoft is the king of their system, and can do whatever they please. If that doesn't sound practical or trustworthy for a company, then maybe the company just shouldn't release the product on their system. Use a different platform. Because if you release a product on their platform, then you're saying that you're okay with their rules.