> The ruling clearly stated that Apple has to allow other payment providers inside the apps, but obviously anything sold on the App Store can still attract the

> The ruling clearly stated that Apple has to allow other payment providers inside the apps, but obviously anything sold on the App Store can still attract the 30% payment fee. Incorrect. The ruling said that Apple cannot have anti-steering provisions that prevent developers from advertising alternative payments on content outside the app (web pages, emails). - Apple is still allowed to forbid in-app purchasing through alternative systems - Apple still has the option to require commission on purchases made externally in the future. Currently they do not, but they were previously able to draw a clear line using anti-steering provisions. Apple has used other techniques like minimal usability to pressure apps to support in-app payments - e.g. Hey.com was rejected because their app was unusable on download because they did not support in-app subscriptions and anti-steering meant they did not refer people to instructions on how to sign up. Presumably anti-steering solves this - right up until Apple changes their rules to say that the external payment needs to result in a commission payment.