The author makes quite a few leaps in logic that I am unable to follow. Maybe they are right but their reading of the judgement is contrary to how most in and out of the media are reading it and I’d expect a clearer explanation than this.
It's also telling that Apple's official stance on this is that they've won[0], and Epic's is that they're disappointed and will appeal. Apple would not be so happy about this if they had to allow other in-app payment systems and forego their 30% cut. And if they did, Epic would be a lot happier about this ruling, and might even just call it a win right here.
[0] The one concession that Apple must make under this injunction -- allowing app developers to link to information about alternative payment methods on other platforms -- is a concession they are already making due to a recent ruling in a Japanese antitrust case[1].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-says-japan-fair-tra...
The judge ruled 9/10 claims in apples favor
>SAN FRANCISCO/TOKYO, Sept 2 (Reuters) - Apple Inc (AAPL.O) will let some apps like Netflix Inc (NFLX.O) provide links to their websites for user payments, a small concession that would allow app developers to bypass the controversial 30% App Store fee the iPhone maker charges.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-says-japan-fair-tra...
They might want to challenge the notion that a California law can be used to force a change in the way you do business in other states, but that's about it.