Apple is a big company that makes phones and other devices. They have a special store where people can buy apps and games for their devices. In this store, Apple has some rules that make them get a part of the money when people buy things inside the app or game. Some developers, like Epic Games who made Fortnite, did not like these rules and wanted to use other ways to get money from people. They went to court to try to change Apple's rules, but the court said that Apple can still have their rules for now. However, they also said that Apple has to let developers use other ways to get money if they want to. So, Apple changed some of its rules and now developers in the US can use outside ways to get money from people who buy things inside their apps or games. But not everyone is happy with these new changes, like Epic Games' boss who still thinks Apple is being unfair. Read from source...

1. The headline is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that Tim Cook has finally decided to be generous and allow external payment platforms for US developers, when in fact, he was forced by the Supreme Court's decision to do so. This creates a false impression of Apple's motives and actions.
2. The article fails to mention the key details of the Epic Games v. Apple case and how it led to this change in policy. A more informative headline could have been: "Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Epic Games, Forcing Apple To Allow External Payment Platforms For US Developers".
3. The article does not provide any context or background information about the case, its implications, or the reactions from different stakeholders. This makes it difficult for readers to understand the significance and complexity of the issue. A more comprehensive introduction could have been: "In June 2021, the Supreme Court declined to hear Apple's appeal in a lawsuit filed by Epic Games, which accused the tech giant of antitrust violations. The court instructed Apple to discontinue its anti-steering rules, which prevented developers from directing users to alternative payment systems outside of the App Store. This decision marked a major victory for Epic Games and other app makers who have been challenging Apple's strict control over its platform."
4. The article only quotes Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, who is clearly biased against Apple and has a vested interest in promoting external payment options. It does not present any counterarguments or balanced perspectives from other developers, analysts, or experts. This creates a one-sided and skewed narrative that favors Epic Games' agenda.
5. The article uses emotive language and inflammatory statements to criticize Apple's 27% fee as "anticompetitive" and the rules governing the appearance and functionality of the links as "scare screens". These terms are subjective and not backed by any empirical evidence or objective analysis. A more rational and factual approach could have been: "Apple charges a 30% commission for using its in-app purchase system, which some developers consider excessive and unfair. Apple also imposes certain restrictions on how developers can display and operate external payment options, such as requiring them to use web links that redirect users to their websites. These policies have sparked controversy and debate among the developer community."
6. The article ends with a vague statement about why these changes matter, without providing any clear explanation or evidence. It simply refers to the Supreme Court's decision and the Epic Games case, but does not connect them to the broader implications for app developers, consumers