>Apple lied, and that Tim Cook "promised" in court that Epic would be let back in the app store if they promised to comply with the rules. Epic made that exact promise [1]. And now Apple's telling them: F you.
I think your post inadvertently makes things more confusing.
In short, the situation changed and got a little more complicated after Tim Cook previously said they'd reinstate Epic's account.
What are the new changes and complications created by the recent judge's ruling? Epic's "promise" has to be dissected into 2 component parts:
(#1) _direct_ in-app-purchases. This was the mechanism that originally got Epic kicked off the App Store last year. (The court ruling still doesn't force Apple to allow this and indeed, they reaffirmed this by ordering Epic to pay back $6 million (the "lost" 30% commissions) to Apple for bypassing Apple's in-app-purchases.)
(#2) _informing_ the user of alternative app payments via web links, etc. (the "anti-steering" in the court's ruling)
Apple's current guidelines don't allow for either (1) & (2). However, Epic wants to be back in the App Store and immediately use option #2 because they feel the judge's ruling to stop Apple anti-steering policy should be followed now. Apple disagrees because they think they have a right to impose anti-steering. Hence, everybody is still in appeals process.
Put another way, Sweeney's idea of "promise" does not match Cook's expectation of a promise which makes it invalid from Apple's perspective.
Contrary to public perception, "anti-steering" is not always illegal and Apple's legal team is probably aware of previous cases such as American Express winning their anti-steering case with The Supreme Court: https://www.pymnts.com/legal/2018/supreme-court-amex-case-an...
So you're saying that Apple won't be forced to comply with the anti-steering ruling because Epic's appealing, even though Apple didn't appeal? (and seemingly indicated that they won't) So Apple can indefinitely keep the anti-steering provision, until all appeals are exhausted? That would make sense.
Otherwise, I believe the court gave Apple 90 days to comply, and I can't see anything in Epic's letter that shows they want to be let back in immediately, so I'm unsure what this changes.
edit: I base my idea that "Apple hinted that they won't appeal" from this: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/17/22679724/tim-cook-epic-ap..., and also based on the fact that Apple, in practice, didn't lose anything (they can still force devs to pay 30% on "steered" purchases made through the dev's website). But it seems some lawyers believe it's possible Apple will still appeal, so I shouldn't have been so definitive.
I think if Epic dropped the lawsuit after they lost the court case then Apple would let them back in the App Store. Continuing to fight makes it seem like there's no reason for Apple to reinstate Fortnite.
I think your post inadvertently makes things more confusing.
In short, the situation changed and got a little more complicated after Tim Cook previously said they'd reinstate Epic's account.
What are the new changes and complications created by the recent judge's ruling? Epic's "promise" has to be dissected into 2 component parts:
(#1) _direct_ in-app-purchases. This was the mechanism that originally got Epic kicked off the App Store last year. (The court ruling still doesn't force Apple to allow this and indeed, they reaffirmed this by ordering Epic to pay back $6 million (the "lost" 30% commissions) to Apple for bypassing Apple's in-app-purchases.)
(#2) _informing_ the user of alternative app payments via web links, etc. (the "anti-steering" in the court's ruling)
Apple's current guidelines don't allow for either (1) & (2). However, Epic wants to be back in the App Store and immediately use option #2 because they feel the judge's ruling to stop Apple anti-steering policy should be followed now. Apple disagrees because they think they have a right to impose anti-steering. Hence, everybody is still in appeals process.
Put another way, Sweeney's idea of "promise" does not match Cook's expectation of a promise which makes it invalid from Apple's perspective.
Contrary to public perception, "anti-steering" is not always illegal and Apple's legal team is probably aware of previous cases such as American Express winning their anti-steering case with The Supreme Court: https://www.pymnts.com/legal/2018/supreme-court-amex-case-an...