I think the biggest takeaway from this ruling is being overlooked, read page 159
Apparently the Sherman Antitrust Act only applies to a service if it strictly cannot be replicated otherwise.
In other words, since iOS allows the installation of and does not control the distribution of "web apps", it therefore has the right to control the distribution of "native apps"
It doesn't matter that web apps don't have access to most of the iPhone's API, it doesn't matter that they can't send notifications or run in the background, it doesn't matter that they can't run fullscreen or in 64bit, what matters is that they get an icon on the homescreen, they thereby fit the definition of an "app" so technically Apple does not entirely control app distribution on iOS
Apparently the Sherman Antitrust Act only applies to a service if it strictly cannot be replicated otherwise.
In other words, since iOS allows the installation of and does not control the distribution of "web apps", it therefore has the right to control the distribution of "native apps"
It doesn't matter that web apps don't have access to most of the iPhone's API, it doesn't matter that they can't send notifications or run in the background, it doesn't matter that they can't run fullscreen or in 64bit, what matters is that they get an icon on the homescreen, they thereby fit the definition of an "app" so technically Apple does not entirely control app distribution on iOS