Developer Blix claims new evidence of App Store 'monopoly' in court filing
Developer Blix, maker of apps Followapp and BlueMail, on Friday filed an amended complaint against Apple claiming it has fresh evidence that the tech giant favors its own apps over similar offerings from third-parties in the App Store.

Apple SVP Craig Federighi presents "Sign in with Apple" at WWDC 2019. | Source: Blix v. Apple
The filing, lodged with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, augments a lawsuit from October claiming Apple infringed on BlueMail's patents with "Sign in with Apple" technology. Blix, founded by Ben and Dan Volach, also alleges Apple exerts a monopoly over its various App Stores to artificially suppress the reach of apps competing with apps like Mail.
According to the original filing, Sign in with Apple apes BlueMail's signature "Share Email" feature, which enables users to communicate "using manageable public interaction addresses, without revealing their private interaction addresses." (Emphasis in original.) Share Email generates a "reverse list" of contacts that ties user actions to their public address, a technique that creates a digital fence through which parties can send and receive messages to a unique public account without divulging their private email address.
Apple's Sign in with Apple feature includes a similar tool to protect users from unwanted email marketing that often comes part and parcel with single sign-on authentication systems. Apple's solution presents an option called "Hide My Email" which, when activated, obscures private email addresses by generating a unique Apple-hosted address specific to an app or web service. Subsequent communication sent to the generated address is forwarded to a user's private account. Further, relay addresses can be disabled at any time.
Along with patent infringement claims, Blix alleges Apple, after seeing a momentous rise in popularity on the macOS App Store, pulled BlueMail in May 2018. At the time, Apple attributed the takedown to a violation of App Store Review Guidelines, later explaining the app duplicated functionality of the Blix-owned TypeApp. Blix informed Apple that TypeApp had been removed from the App Store "weeks before" the tech giant accepted BlueMail. Still, Apple maintained the app was not in compliance with developer guidelines.
Following BlueMail's eviction, the Volachs penned an open letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook, imploring the executive to reinstate the app in a "struggle for fairness." Apple's response to the letter, the first communication with Blix since June, is included in Friday's filing and claims TypeApp was not properly removed from the App Store.
In order to "remove" an app from the App Store, developers must adhere to a specific procedure that involves archiving a title. Apple said Blix failed to follow these App Store rules, according to the filing.
"These shifting explanations were themselves not credible, and at times internally inconsistent. A developer removing their application from the App Store would, Apple acknowledged, remove the application from sale -- making it unavailable, rather than currently available on the App Store,' as Apple claimed when rejecting BlueMail," the document reads.
Further, the revised filing asserts Apple does accept "duplicate" -- in form or function -- apps from the same developer, noting the "highly similar" Telegram and Telegram Desktop are currently on offer on the macOS App Store.
Blix also takes issue with Apple's recent decision to make its own apps ineligible for customer ratings. The policy "immunizes" Apple from the negative feedback and comments other apps routinely face, according to the complaint.
Building on Apple's allegedly anticompetitive App Store practices, Blix claims the iOS version of the online software marketplace is intentionally designed to dissuade users from selecting apps that compete with first-party offerings. For example, paid advertisements and App Store Stories take up a significant portion of a search results page. This is in contrast to search features employed on the Google Play Store and Amazon Appstore, which immediately surfaces a variety of choices.
In its original filing, Blix cited a New York Times article that claimed Apple artificially suppressed BlueMail from appearing in App Store search results. Following publication of the report, Apple supposedly updated its search algorithms and as a result BlueMail jumped from No. 143 to No. 13 in results for simple keywords like "email."
Perhaps not coincidentally, Blix titles have enjoyed high rankings on competing App Stores.
"It was not an easy decision to proceed with this lawsuit against the largest tech company in the world," Ben Volach told The Washington Post on Friday. "Blix, and its BlueMail product, are the latest in Apple's long line of victims. Apple's monopoly over app distribution forecloses competition and harms consumers. Apple has also harmed additional developers who would otherwise compete fairly."
Volach is suing Apple for patent infringement and illegal monopolization of the App Store, and seeks an injunction, damages and legal fees.

Apple SVP Craig Federighi presents "Sign in with Apple" at WWDC 2019. | Source: Blix v. Apple
The filing, lodged with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, augments a lawsuit from October claiming Apple infringed on BlueMail's patents with "Sign in with Apple" technology. Blix, founded by Ben and Dan Volach, also alleges Apple exerts a monopoly over its various App Stores to artificially suppress the reach of apps competing with apps like Mail.
According to the original filing, Sign in with Apple apes BlueMail's signature "Share Email" feature, which enables users to communicate "using manageable public interaction addresses, without revealing their private interaction addresses." (Emphasis in original.) Share Email generates a "reverse list" of contacts that ties user actions to their public address, a technique that creates a digital fence through which parties can send and receive messages to a unique public account without divulging their private email address.
Apple's Sign in with Apple feature includes a similar tool to protect users from unwanted email marketing that often comes part and parcel with single sign-on authentication systems. Apple's solution presents an option called "Hide My Email" which, when activated, obscures private email addresses by generating a unique Apple-hosted address specific to an app or web service. Subsequent communication sent to the generated address is forwarded to a user's private account. Further, relay addresses can be disabled at any time.
Along with patent infringement claims, Blix alleges Apple, after seeing a momentous rise in popularity on the macOS App Store, pulled BlueMail in May 2018. At the time, Apple attributed the takedown to a violation of App Store Review Guidelines, later explaining the app duplicated functionality of the Blix-owned TypeApp. Blix informed Apple that TypeApp had been removed from the App Store "weeks before" the tech giant accepted BlueMail. Still, Apple maintained the app was not in compliance with developer guidelines.
Following BlueMail's eviction, the Volachs penned an open letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook, imploring the executive to reinstate the app in a "struggle for fairness." Apple's response to the letter, the first communication with Blix since June, is included in Friday's filing and claims TypeApp was not properly removed from the App Store.
In order to "remove" an app from the App Store, developers must adhere to a specific procedure that involves archiving a title. Apple said Blix failed to follow these App Store rules, according to the filing.
"These shifting explanations were themselves not credible, and at times internally inconsistent. A developer removing their application from the App Store would, Apple acknowledged, remove the application from sale -- making it unavailable, rather than currently available on the App Store,' as Apple claimed when rejecting BlueMail," the document reads.
Further, the revised filing asserts Apple does accept "duplicate" -- in form or function -- apps from the same developer, noting the "highly similar" Telegram and Telegram Desktop are currently on offer on the macOS App Store.
Blix also takes issue with Apple's recent decision to make its own apps ineligible for customer ratings. The policy "immunizes" Apple from the negative feedback and comments other apps routinely face, according to the complaint.
Building on Apple's allegedly anticompetitive App Store practices, Blix claims the iOS version of the online software marketplace is intentionally designed to dissuade users from selecting apps that compete with first-party offerings. For example, paid advertisements and App Store Stories take up a significant portion of a search results page. This is in contrast to search features employed on the Google Play Store and Amazon Appstore, which immediately surfaces a variety of choices.
In its original filing, Blix cited a New York Times article that claimed Apple artificially suppressed BlueMail from appearing in App Store search results. Following publication of the report, Apple supposedly updated its search algorithms and as a result BlueMail jumped from No. 143 to No. 13 in results for simple keywords like "email."
Perhaps not coincidentally, Blix titles have enjoyed high rankings on competing App Stores.
"It was not an easy decision to proceed with this lawsuit against the largest tech company in the world," Ben Volach told The Washington Post on Friday. "Blix, and its BlueMail product, are the latest in Apple's long line of victims. Apple's monopoly over app distribution forecloses competition and harms consumers. Apple has also harmed additional developers who would otherwise compete fairly."
Volach is suing Apple for patent infringement and illegal monopolization of the App Store, and seeks an injunction, damages and legal fees.
Blix Amended Complaint by Mikey Campbell on Scribd
Comments
I just use App Store to search email app. The first one is not even Apple’s mail. It is Gmail.
Do these plaintiffs think Apple's App Store is some sort of public utility that was paid for with taxpayers money?
Monopoly? WTF, did Microsoft, the vast Linux community, Android, Chrome OS, and the Web suddenly go out of business?
Self serving, opportunistic, entitlement asserting, parasites.
Seems highly unlikely Blix has any case accusing Apple of stealing their ideas. The Prior Art would suggest otherwise.
This.
1. Apple makes MORE money from users purchasing 3rd party apps, not downloading their free 1st party apps.
2. Most of the Apple apps on the App Store come with the purchase of an iOS device. A device that's expected to have a certain amount of functionality built-in.
It is ridiculous to believe that the proprietor of a platform will not have an advantage over any 3rd parties they INVITE in to sell their own wares.
Did you read any of the court filings? Are you a lawyer? Do you know anything at all about patent law, antitrust law, or civil litigation practice?
Of course not.
Another armchair lawyer.
Ever seen that at Walmart? Sears when they were around? Other big retailers?
Yes, of course you have.
So if and I emphasize IF Apple did this they were only continuing a well established policy that stores have used for half a century or more. No "monopoly" just business. Retail is a hard nosed field.
Secondly he's claiming that his ranking suddenly went up after the story hit the New York Times. Hmmm, maybe because a few million people suddenly heard of his app and knew to search for it? Could that possibly be the reason the rankings went up? /S
As far as his app being ranked higher on other AppStores, let's see. Apple includes a perfectly good email app right out of the box. It's integrated with Apple's systems, and once you get your Mac or iDevice set up it's just there. There is little reason to look for another mail app, unless you need a specific function.
His suit has had one effect though. I am now making a point of not using anything from Blix. I can't stand whiners.
Methinks Blix is pissing against the wind...
There is a public transport app in Australia that has been abandoned by the developer .. nothing wrong with that, he had a crack, a good product but couldn't make enough $$$ and the author walked away.
Get this though. The app is still on the AppStore. When it was functional, the free version would not save favourite routes on exit but the premium version ($4.50) would. The non-functionality is either due to the app's backend servers being unable to download timetables (transport authority requires a subscription?) or the timetable format has changed and that breaks the app.. whatever. The app's Facebook page is full of comments for the past 9 months about the non-functionality of the free & paid version.
Emails to the app's support address bounce and the registered business address has closed. I finally tracked down the developer on Linkedin who has left Australia and is now working for Uber in LA.
There is NO WHERE (I can find) on the Apple AppStore to report a non-functional app that is asking for a paid upgrade to a premium version. I ended up at an Apple store and was simply given an email address. I duly sent all the proof of both the app's non-functionality and no active support to the email address about 4 weeks ago, requesting it be removed from the AppStore, due to violation of the developer terms of service. Easy to verify for AppStore staff, just download the free version and see that no train, bus or ferry timetables are available - send an email to the support address and it will bounce after a few seconds (mailbox closed).
At the time of writing, the app is still on the Apple AppStore and will happily ask for $4.50 to upgrade to the premium version.
AppStore police are quick to jump on other 'popular' apps for ad-hoc violations but seem disinterested in having a smaller app on the platform despite being supplied with easily verifiable evidence of violation of developer terms and conditions. I guess I just see the AppStore as lacking consistency in regard to 3rd parties and more than a few disagreements seem to involve app popularity and $$$. So my point is, when I read any article regarding the Apple AppStore like this one, I don't see it as black and white.