I'm unable to find where Gruber says that Apple "largely won" (not that I would be surprised to see Gruber making such a claim). His latest headline literally begins with "Apple lost." Where are you seeing that?
> Keep in mind this whole thing stems from an injunction from a lawsuit filed by Epic Games that Apple largely won. The result of that lawsuit was basically, “OK, Apple wins, Epic loses, but this whole thing where apps in the App Store aren’t allowed to inform users of offers available outside the App Store, or send them to such offers on the web (outside the app) via easily tappable links, is bullshit and needs to stop. If the App Store is not anticompetitive it should be able to compete with links to the web and offers from outside the App Store.”
I don't buy into the analogy. Cable providers can't prevent you from watching free OTA channels on your television, but Apple prevents Epic from publishing iOS apps outside of the App Store. Considering Fortnite was removed from the App Store specifically due to offering outside payment options, denying its return will likely lead straight back to court.
It's not exactly what he said. The fact the they agreed to a contract prohibiting them from using an outside payment method and then willfully violated that contract is a detail that courts may not be so willing to overlook.
Contract law allows you to sign away many rights you would otherwise retain. I'm not sure that a contract provision being found illegal under antitrust law has the effect of it being retroactively considered unconscionable or excuses agreeing to the contract in bad faith.
It's in the text of his blog entry. Right there. In black and white. Word for word.
Keep in mind this whole thing stems from an injunction from a lawsuit filed by Epic Games that Apple largely won. - emphasis his.
And he's right, Epic "largely lost" that case, Apple only needed to concede the minimal things they didn't win and it would have been an epic win (as opposed to an Epic win) for them. Sweeney didn't get much of what he wanted, Apple mostly got everything they wanted.
He has several blog entries, the latest of which says explicitly that Apple lost ("the ruling was clearly a significant and reputationally-damaging loss for Apple"), hence asking for guidance toward the entry that contained that text. I don't understand the reaction toward that.
