There is literally a ton of existing software out there that is keeping MS from doing exactly that. When it comes to avoiding breaking legacy applications MS scores far higher than any other operating systems out there.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with them coming up with better approaches then discussing them with industry for potential roll out, adoption, etc.

But instead, now they're in trouble they're trying to blame the EU for stopping their monopoly.

Do you honestly believe MS being unhindered by competition restraints would lead to better results?

Are you forgetting MS has already demonstrated how that goes, and been literally convicted for it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission

(there are plenty of other examples)

Let me try to make it extremely simple so that maybe you might understand something.

Say I am running a shop, the EU tells me that under no circumstance can I not allow a product to be sold in my shop, even if that product is a ticking time bomb that can blow up the shop. And so hearing this, I create a document “Good approaches to sell time bombs”, and I mention helpful stuff like ensure the timer in your bomb is switched off when it is in shop. I also create an industry wide forum with all time bomb manufacturers and discuss best practices and time bomb methods with them to best sell it in the shop etc.

In spite of all this, there exists an idiot timebomb manufacturer who ignores all best practices, does not consider industry and builds a shitty time bomb that blows up the shop.

Now please educate me, apart from doing the only surefire thing and banning shitty time bomb manufacturers from selling in their shop, what should MS do?

> the EU tells me that under no circumstance can I not allow a product to be sold in my shop

That doesn't seem to be a good faith representation of what the EU was requiring.

> ... so that maybe you might understand something.

It looks like there's literally no getting through to you nor other MS apologists. :( :( :(

sigh

Here's an actual compliant at MS to the EU from an anti-malware vendor: https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/news/450420491/Mic...

This is and has been a thing for quite some time. Windows is a highly regulated OS.

Seems like a complaint that MS was using underhanded tactics, so Kaspersky complained to an organisation that might do something about it.

It doesn't really seem like an example of MS coming up with a better solution then discussing it with industry, unless I'm misunderstanding it?

Instead it seems a lot like MS figuring out a solution that advantages themselves then just rolling it out, at the expense of others. (?)

As someone that worked at MS, on a team that worked directly on this issue (among other things) some years ago, MS did figure out better solutions and did discuss it with industry.

MS has an entire forum for discussing these things with industry (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-xdr/virus-initiat...) and has had variants of said forum for some time (I think the first effort was in 2010).

Kaspersky was running an SSL/TLS Proxy in the kernel IIRC and didn't want to have to move it elsewhere due to the fact it would require them to rework their product quite a bit.

The solutions MS (we) proposed were agnostic and overall better, the anti-malware industry simply doesn't want to make the changes as these things do impose technical work on existing products.

No worries. That wasn't at all evident from the above complaint.

Was the drive for this industry forum coming from dealing with the EU, or was it more from MS trying to make things better without needing the prodding?

Industry forum was external, MS did not start that.

I do not know enough to properly answer on the concrete reasons why, only that it was external. Sorry.

As opposed to Apple, who's gone and just done that for their operating system?

Apple isn't (yet) a convicted monopolist, though it seems like there's a strong case to be made about just that. ;)