Regardless of where you are on this issue - You have to love Apple's position that they are protecting their customer's security and privacy. This has heart.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
BlueMail Antitrust Case Against Apple Dismissed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can you name a few examples where their app is the first result? That’s not my experience when searching for “word processor “ or “spreadsheet “. Sure, amongst the top results but never on top.
I think the Delaware court holds a lot of sway, though. Sure, other courts are not bound by their decisions but other courts often look to this court because they have very high familiarity with business law. It's one reason why so many companies choose to incorporate in Delaware.
Glad to see this ruling. Hopefully, the bullseye will be focused on another company for a while.
Nope. It’s true that they are the premier venue for business law, but antitrust is not business law, and every jurisdiction has their own business laws so they don’t pay any attention to what Delaware says about Delaware business law.
Mail, tv, music gives Apple first. Not that I have a problem with it. Reading later comments I remember when I first got my ipad, deleted numbers, pages etc. Later wanted to try one of them, can't remember which, but I couldn't remember it's name. I made some generic search, and it's was annoying to search through the results one by one, looking for Apple's given product.
in one judge's opinion. If the case was filed in a different state (Texas) the outcome may have been different
The macOS App Store has a monopoly on distribution of macOS Apps from the macOS App Store. For any App that’s bought through the App Store, the only way to download it is through the App Store.
I think this thread is confusing several points in regards to the ruling:
1) This is a federal case brought in Federal District Court of which the court has subject matter jurisdiction (patent law and The Sherman Act). There is no question of state law.
2) The case was dismissed with prejudice as it pertains to the patent claim due to a factually deficient complaint.
3) The case was dismissed without prejudice in regards to the Sherman Act claim due to a deficient complaint. But the court concluded that an amendment to the complaint could cure the defects so the Court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.
4) The Plaintiff will be amending the complaint, for a second time, so the case will continue.
5) The case was brought in District Court. Generally speaking, District Court rulings are not binding either within or outside the district, or even upon the same judge within the District. In other words, the ruling has no binding effect outside of the specific case. Of course comity may apply and if the rational is strong any court may use the ruling as persuasive. (note: this is not a settled area of law and there is variance from District to District).
In short, any talk of precedence is pointless as it relates to this decision. Once this trial is complete and is appealed, the Circuit Court's decision might have some influence on other ongoing cases against Apple (or at least give us all a clue as to how successful these other cases might be).
1) This is a federal case brought in Federal District Court of which the court has subject matter jurisdiction (patent law and The Sherman Act). There is no question of state law.
2) The case was dismissed with prejudice as it pertains to the patent claim due to a factually deficient complaint.
3) The case was dismissed without prejudice in regards to the Sherman Act claim due to a deficient complaint. But the court concluded that an amendment to the complaint could cure the defects so the Court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.
4) The Plaintiff will be amending the complaint, for a second time, so the case will continue.
5) The case was brought in District Court. Generally speaking, District Court rulings are not binding either within or outside the district, or even upon the same judge within the District. In other words, the ruling has no binding effect outside of the specific case. Of course comity may apply and if the rational is strong any court may use the ruling as persuasive. (note: this is not a settled area of law and there is variance from District to District).
In short, any talk of precedence is pointless as it relates to this decision. Once this trial is complete and is appealed, the Circuit Court's decision might have some influence on other ongoing cases against Apple (or at least give us all a clue as to how successful these other cases might be).
If you were being sarcastic it might have been missed by some judging by how I was interpreting the mood of the thread while reading the comments.
On a serious note, what to do about this monopoly? Isn’t that just normal business? If I buy a game on steam... I’ll only download it from steam. If I buy a game/app/add-on on the PSN/XBox/Nintendo store I’ll only be able to download it from the store I bought it from.
If I buy an Honda car from the Honda dealership, it’s suddenly an issue? It should have Suzuki boats and Nespresso coffee machines?... I have come to a point where I don’t get any of this.
That's because you searched for "mail", which is the same as "Mail". It would make sense for Apple to return the app "Mail" because it matches exactly what you searched for. Same with TV and Music.
Search for "mail client", Mail isn't first. Search for "on demand", TV isn't first.
That text I typed represents the thinking that folks are forced to adopt in order to think that the iOS App Store is a monopoly. If one has to use the trademarked name of a company in their definition of a “monopoly”, then what they’re ACTUALLY defining is “a product a company makes”. Once they’ve accepted that the product of a company is an illegal monopoly that company holds, then they MUST also accept additional absurdities, like what I typed.
The other poster said “Arguing the macOS App Store is a monopoly is not even close to the same as arguing the iOS App Store is a monopoly.” AND, as you’ll see, they both include trademarked company names, so they are either BOTH monopolies or BOTH not monopolies. One can’t be a monopoly while the other isn’t.
What? I'm not sure I'm following. Are you suggesting a company that sells more than one product can't have a monopoly over one "relevant market" and not over another? This is simply not true.
One can define a “market” as anything you like. However, if you define a market such that it includes any trademarked name of a company, then that “market” as defined is just “a product or service the company provides”. McDonald’s has a monopoly of the Big Mac market, FedEx has a monopoly of the FedEx drop boxes market and Sony has a monopoly of the PlayStation App Store market by that line of thinking.
Could Apple have an illegal monopoly of cellular phone software downloads market? They absolutely could as “cellular phone software” as a market does not contain a definition of any company’s trademarked products. But, they can’t have an illegal monopoly of the Apple App Store. And, if anyone wants to say they can can, then they’re also supporting the idea that they have an illegal monopoly of the Apple Mac App Store market, McDonald’s can be said to have an illegal monopoly of the Big Mac market and IHOP can be said to have an illegal monopoly on the Rooty Tooty Fresh n'Fruity market.
Email, mail, music, podcast, book, TV, and other generic terms all return Apple apps as the first result. Yeah because Numbers is at #8 let's ignore the rest. Also try leaving a review for any of these "default" apps. You can't. The iWork suite is the exception (and their pro video apps).
Apple has in-house services for these apps that directly compete with other companies. Apps with Apple subscriptions are all #1 search results.
You searched for the apps by name - as stated previously, the key take-away: "because it's good UX to return what someone likely wants.".
Search for "mail client", Mail isn't first. Search for "on demand", TV isn't first. Not to mention that they're almost always after a sponsored result anyway. If Apple was really pushing / fiddling search results, the app would be in first place for every conceivable query.
Last edited:
I have a better understanding of what you are saying but I think there's some confusion over terms. The iOS App Store can be the subject of a Sherman Act (section 2) action but the "relevant market" does not have to be limited to software sold in the iOS App Store. The same can be true of the macOS App Store. While there is a lot of room for interpretation, the term "relevant market" has a meaning and a lot of case law that helps define what it might be in each case. For a product/services market (as opposed to a geographic market), one of the tests is to determine if there are alternatives available to people and what the barriers might be to a meaningful segment of consumers choosing that alternative.One can define a “market” as anything you like. However, if you define a market such that it includes any trademarked name of a company, then that “market” as defined is just “a product or service the company provides”. McDonald’s has a monopoly of the Big Mac market, FedEx has a monopoly of the FedEx drop boxes market and Sony has a monopoly of the PlayStation App Store market by that line of thinking.
Could Apple have an illegal monopoly of cellular phone software downloads market? They absolutely could as “cellular phone software” as a market does not contain a definition of any company’s trademarked products. But, they can’t have an illegal monopoly of the Apple App Store. And, if anyone wants to say they can can, then they’re also supporting the idea that they have an illegal monopoly of the Apple Mac App Store market, McDonald’s can be said to have an illegal monopoly of the Big Mac market and IHOP can be said to have an illegal monopoly on the Rooty Tooty Fresh n'Fruity market.
Given that, it is very possible that for the iOS App Store the relevant market is limited to iOS apps rather than mobile applications generally. So, Apple could have monopoly power here. But, the macOS App Store's relevant market might be all applications available for the macOS operating system (or even more broadly all software). Since it is easy (easier) to find alternatives outside of the macOS App Store, the relevant market might be defined broadly enough for a court to conclude that Apple does not have monopoly power over that relevant market. The result being Apple has monopoly power over one App Store but not the other.
I get what you are saying, but there is a bit more meaning to the words than your suggest and the analysis is a bit more rigorous as well. In fairness, a lot of the posts you were responding to were guilty of the same thing. So, maybe it''s just a matter of the specifics getting lost in the general argument.
There’s not any confusion. Does a company have complete control over their products? They do. So, if you define a “relevant market” using a company’s product name, the answer to the question of “does a company have complete control over their products?” doesn’t change. By default, they ALSO have complete control over the “relevant market” you just defined. Is there a precedent in case law were an illegal monopoly was defined that includes a company’s product name? No, and the reason why is clear. Whenever you use a company’s product name to define a market you will ALWAYS be talking about monopoly control.
If you WANT to define the relevant market that way, sure. BUT, Apple has control over the libraries and API’s that make up macOS (of course they do, it’s their product). They could, I don’t know, make a decision that 32-bit libraries are no longer supported on the latest OS’s. This would affect ALL applications, whether they’re on the store or not. Is that an “illegal monopoly” move OR is it a company doing what they determine is best for their products and future roadmaps?
So, I went back and read the pertinent comments to see where the disconnect is.
I think it might just be semantics. If someone says Standard Oil is a monopoly, it is not suggesting that only products sold by Standard Oil is the relevant market. What it means is that Standard Oil was found to have dominant market share within the relevant market (e.g. petroleum products) thus satisfying the 1st part of monopoly power analysis. If someone says Windows was a monopoly, it should be understood to mean that Windows (a product of Microsoft) had a dominant market share within the Intel-based PC operating system market (i.e. the relevant market). It does not mean that the relevant market is Windows operating systems.
Likewise, saying that iOS App Store is a monopoly (not saying it actually is or not - just an example) suggests that Apple, by way of it's iOS App Store exerts a dominant market force in whatever the relevant market is. It should not suggest that the iOS App Store is necessarily the relevant market. [Note: Apple seems to suggest that the relevant market is smartphones and the House subcommittee thinks it's software distribution to iOS devices. This is why I stated earlier that I think its much more likely the the iOS App Store would be seen as the source of monopoly power as opposed to the macOS Apps Store. It's clear software distribution models are very different between the two platforms. There are many other places to get macOS software thus making the macOS App Store less likely to be seen as having dominant market share. (all of this assumes that software distribution to x devices would be the relevant market).]
Again, the determination of what is the relevant market is not a matter of choice. There is a definitive test that is applied to determine this. Of course, opposing sides in their pleadings, evidence and arguments will try to define the market narrowly or broadly to help their cause. That does not mean that it can be anything - especially the absurdity of having a specific product by a specific company be the relevant market or the equally absurd position that the relevant market is all goods sold anywhere on earth.
I don't recall seeing anyone define the iOS App Store as the relevant market. What I saw was someone expressing the opinion that the iOS App Store might be a monopoly where the macOS App Store might not. I took that to mean that Apple might have antitrust liability over it's iOS App Store, whereas they would not over it's macOS App Store. I agree with that.
It seems you moved between, "If one has to use the trademarked name of a company in their definition of a “monopoly”," and "if you define a market such that it includes any trademarked name of a company," as if they are different ways of saying the same thing? If I were to accept that as true, then all I can say is I have nothing to say since on it's face that would produce an absurdity. From my perspective, defining the market (or relevant market) is part of the analysis of determining if a company has monopoly power. So, they are related but not synonymous.
Different strokes... issue resolved.
Not for me. Email returns Edison mail. Mail returns gmail. Music returns amazon music. Book returns kindle. TV returns a “collection” including Disney plus, HBO Max, Hulu, and amazon prime as the four apps shown in the collection.
And I would think it makes perfect sense to include the built-in app near the top - saves them a lot of calls from customers who accidentally deleted a built-in app and want to get it back.
Not to mention, the “generic” terms (as you call them) also happen to be the exact names of apple apps. It would be weird if I searched for an app using its actual name, and the app didn’t show up in the first 2 or 3 results.
I can't see anything you said contradicts anything I said when reading the paragraph as a whole. In other words, we are in agreement.
And since you can install apps from outside the shop has zero monopoly fir the platform.
Edit: never mind, post I quoted was just being silly.
Last edited: