1. The judge affirmed Apple's right to terminate Epic's developer accounts for violation of the developer agreement and ban them from the App Store, including all developer accounts related to their Unreal Engine business.
2. The judge fully rejected Epic's entire monopolization claim based on the theory that Apple held a single-brand "monopoly" over the distribution of apps on its own devices, killing any hope they had of running their own app store.
3. The judge repeatedly made it clear that Apple was still entitled to a commission for the use of its intellectual property, even if developers did not use IAP to process payments:
> "Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional." (page 67)
> "Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission." (page 150)
> "The Court also notes that in the but-for world where developers could use an alternative processor, Apple would still be contractually entitled to its commission on any purchase made within apps distributed on the App Store." (page 155)
4. If, as discussed in the article above, the anti-steering provision only applies to telling users about lower prices on other platforms, this ruling basically changes nothing for developers on the iOS platform itself.
[1] The Hoeg Law video linked elsewhere in this thread is good place to start.