The judge literally ruled that no matter who you use as a payment processor, Apple could still charge a commission for using it's intellectual property.
The same summary of the Apple v. Epic decision I linked to above has a good section on what the anti-steering section of the ruling means and people seem to misunderstand what happened there as well.
> "developers cannot communicate lower prices on other platforms either within iOS or to users obtained from the iOS platform"... "These provisions can be severed without any impact on the integrity of the ecosystem and is tethered to [California] legislative policy."
Notice the references to “other platforms”; those are the web, Android, or, in cases like Fortnite, other consoles. Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ argument is not that Apple has to allow different payment options within an app — as noted in the previous section, that is Apple’s right to control, and even mandate — but rather that Apple can’t stop a developer from telling users that they can go outside the app to another platform to acquire digital content.
https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/
Apple's move to open up alternate payment processors was not a result of the Apple v. Epic decision. That has more to do with preexisting regulatory rulings in places like the Netherlands and (of course) the DMA.
You can only pay (and create an account) by going to their website, so they have always effectively paid Apple nothing but the yearly $99 developer account fee under the old rules.
However, now they can now tell you where to go to set up a new account on their website next to the login account and password fields of their app.
The ruling is meaningfully weaker than what I'd expect from DMA, but this is natural, the legal case was argued on existing law, DMA is new.