This reminds me of the time when I was driving I-70 during a snowstorm and 2 pickup trucks went roaring past me... and within 2 or three miles I saw both of them spinning separately off the highway in (thankfully) single vehicle accidents. I laughed and laughed.

I could see Spotify try to get new premium users directly from the app like they used to. That’s one situation where I could see Apple get into deep shit if they banned them (if I’m understanding this right at least)

Its not abuse to sell applications without paying apple a 30% tax on all your profits. It’s was standard practice to sell your apps for with no taxes until these anticompetitive practices were normalized on phones.

Thats not right they have to allow external links yes but also allow buttons that don’t open external links. Legal wording is external links OR buttons. It's very specific that there is a difference and both are covered.

This isn’t quite true. It specifically says the in app purchase can be done with an external link OR button. So the payment could just be a button in the app that doesn’t open a browser or leave the app or send any money to Apple.

Except that it takes a lot more than an accusation to take someone to court for a violation. Nothing is forcing Apple to divulge its reasoning for refusing an app; it even says right in the ruling that they retain the right to determine who and what can be on its storefront. Moreover, they have done that very thing on…

If you hide behind “for any other reason” to violate a judge’s order you are playing with fire. Because violations of injunctions skip a lot of the normal legal steps it would be much more possible for a small developer to complain of a violation than to mount a suit against apple.

Except that Apple retains their ability to remove an app from or prohibit entry to an app for any reason. You really think they won’t make up whatever reason they want? Hell, they’ve been known to refuse entry with no reason given beyond “does not meet our standards of quality”. Even if it’s really because they don’t…

Could this potentially be abused? Could a developer release an app for free and then turn around and make you pay for the app via a weblink? Kind of like having free/pro versions of existing apps except for the pro version they give you a link.

They cannot ban apps simply because they have an alternative payment system. That’s basically the entire order (insofar as it affects Apple’s conduct). If they ban an app because it has a different payment system, they’ll likely be taken to court and be held liable for violating the order.

Eh, if the app charges you less for a direct payment, I think a sizeable number of people wouldn’t mind handing out their credit card.

The Verge actually has a very interesting take on this issue! The crux of the matter is that the order mentions both buttons and external links:

If Apple (and Google) started banning apps that opened up their own in-app purchases, and then couldn’t make a good excuse for it, then they would be seen as running an monopoly.

To be fair, the choice of words used in the decision is confusing, leading to varying interpretations. I've seen other outlets like The Verge and CNBC news getting it wrong until I read Sweeney's tweet. 

There have been a lot of lazy headlines on these stories today. The whole point of this was to use Fortnite as a way to claw the Epic Games store onto iOS. Now each app can have its own payment processor, but nobody wants to go and hand over their credit card to some random app.

Actually the substantive holding is that Apple is not a monopoly but did violate California rules on anti-competitive practices. The judge didn't foreclose the possibility that Apple could be found to be a monopolist but their language was unequivocal that evidence in the case fell well short of the mark.

Not a lawyer, but reading the ruling I suspect the answer is that wouldn’t be wise. The judge held that Apple engaged in anti-competitive practices and violated California’s “anti-steering” rules. I suspect that banning Epic and similar developers from their platform in retaliation for losing the injunction would…

While I agree its in no way a simple "Epic wins" narrative, it does give a ton of other app devs a big lever in negotiating with apple.  Will apple simply ban any app with a proposed 3rd party payment processing system, or will they negotiate terms on a per app basis?  My guess is the latter, but you wonder if Epic is…

They tried that with Amazon and lost about 10 years ago.

Epic was found guilty of Breech of Contract and Apple does not have to allow them back on their platform at all so Epic still is SOL...