That's not what the judge ruled at all so I'm confused by your statements about reading the injunction. All the judge "ruled" was that Apple needs to maintain the current status quo of their other arrangements until they actually rule on the main cause of the case. If Apple wins, then there's another matter to attend to. If they don't, then the status quo is still maintained and the matter is over. What the judge actually ruled was akin to "You go to that side of the room and you go to the other. Stop hitting each other while I figure out who broke the toy." The judge didn't make any kind of determination on the legality of anything and you can't make a legal judgement on a threat of doing something.

Apple threatened to cancel Epic's second account and cut off Epic from its macOS tools starting Aug 28th; Epic said that unfairly threatened its other lines of businesses and a court should prevent Apple from doing so until the antitrust suit finished (and should also reinstate Fortnite until the suit finished); the judge ruled that Apple cutting off Epic's second account from the Unreal tools before the court case finished was unreasonable and legally prevented it from doing so, but that banning Fortnite was not unreasonable and did not legally prevent it from doing so.

Judges make legal decisions. If a judge says you can't do something, that means it's illegal; judges can rule whether a future action is illegal, including based on a threat, and that's what this injunction does. This injunction references Apple's threat and, ultimately, says that they legally can't do it (for now), just as Epic can't legally force Apple to reinstate Fortnite (for now).

But anyway, as to your original assertion that this injunction is unrelated to Apple's threat to terminate Epic's account with the Apple Developer Program, here's a direct quote from the injunction:

"THEREFORE, APPLE AND ALL PERSONS IN ACTIVE CONCERT OR PARTICIPATION WITH APPLE, ARE TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from taking adverse action against Epic Games with respect to restricting, suspending or terminating any affiliate of Epic Games, such as Epic International, from Apple’s Developer Program [italics mine]"

Also, re: your assertion that "If Apple wins, then there's another matter to attend to. If they don't, then the status quo is still maintained and the matter is over." — I don't think anyone involved in the antitrust case, including the judge, ruled or believes anything like "the matter is over" and "the status quo is maintained" if Apple is found to be violating antitrust law. The status quo legally could not be maintained by Apple in that case. What exactly Apple would have to do would depend on what precisely the judge ruled, but maintaining the status quo would not be an option.