Last time people were accusing him of being an Apple shill, because he correctly analyzed the ruling as pro-Apple when the tech press and commenters were thinking Apple had a huge defeat. Shill accusations make more sense when backed up by actual argument and reasoning. Instead they're used when those things are lacking.

This line from the quote is doing some heavy lifting:

> It will probably be easy to see for the Ninth Circuit that those who support Epic do so because it's the right and necessary thing to do, while those who will support Apple are just going to have reasons to do Apple a favor.

It's the kind of thing I would definitely write if I were being paid to paint Epic as a humble yet valiant defender of the consumer.

Any analysis he makes is suspect, from then and indefinitely into the future.

You've got about 20,000 karma on this site, if we find one analysis of yours that's wrong does that give us the right to dismiss everything else you say?

Huh? It's not about right or wrong analysis, it's about improperly disclosed payment.