The big question here is why should Apple be entitled to any fee whatsoever if a user wants to buy something from a vendor without using Apple's payment infrastructure? Users should be free to transact directly with vendors without involving Apple if they don't want to involve Apple (which the court case approved) and if they aren't involving Apple, as in this case, a demand for a "commission" on non-Apple transactions is anticompetitive and should be prohibited by law.
The fight over alternative payment methods is fraught with misunderstandings. Apple has always stated their intention to collect the 30% regardless of what payment method you use, because as far as they're concerned it's not a payment processing fee. They view it as a platform fee that you pay for access to iOS, the App Store, and other services, and so far regulators and governments have agreed with them on that.
What's changed here is that Apple has now set a number to the "payment processing" portion of their fee. This gives them a way to cave on alternative payments while still retaining the bulk of their profits.
