Apple had to pay a lot of money because they were not playing fair with people in Russia. They made it hard for people to buy things inside apps without using Apple's own payment system, which costs more money. Now, Apple has to be nicer and let people use other ways to pay, but they still have to give some of the money to Apple. Some people are not happy with this and might cause more trouble for Apple in the future. Read from source...

1. The headline is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that Apple settled a huge fine with Russia because of its in-app payment tactics, but the article does not provide any evidence or details about how the two issues are related or what exactly were the terms of the settlement. A more accurate and informative headline could be "Apple Pays $13.7 Million to Settle Antitrust Case in Russia" or "Apple Resolves Dispute with Russian Regulator over In-App Payments".
2. The article lacks objectivity and balance. It presents Apple's actions as unfair, abusive, and controversial, without giving any counterarguments or acknowledging the potential benefits of its App Store policies for consumers, developers, and security. It also quotes only one source, which is a critic of Apple, without providing any alternative perspectives or data to support his claims.
3. The article does not provide sufficient context or background information about the antitrust case and the in-app payment issue. It assumes that the reader already knows what these terms mean and why they are important, but it does not explain how they affect Apple's business model, its competitors, or its customers in Russia. It also does not mention any previous similar cases or disputes involving other platforms or countries, which could help illustrate the scope and complexity of the problem.
4. The article uses vague and ambiguous language to describe Apple's actions and policies. For example, it says that Apple "limited" its services in Russia following the Ukraine conflict, but it does not specify what those limitations were or how they affected users and developers. It also says that Apple has "updated" its App Store guidelines, but it does not describe what these changes are or why they matter for the industry.
5. The article relies on outdated and irrelevant information to support its arguments. For instance, it cites a Supreme Court decision from 2020 that opened up the possibility for app developers to bypass Apple's payment system, but this has no direct bearing on the antitrust case or the in-app payment issue. It also mentions Apple's previous settlement of $12.1 million in another antitrust case, which is not related to the current one and does not reflect Apple's current position or behavior.
6. The article uses emotional and inflammatory language to appeal to the reader's feelings rather than their logic and reasoning. For example, it says that critics have described Apple's changes as "outrageous" and predict potential legal disputes, implying that Apple is acting unjustly and irresponsibly. It also implies that Apple is facing backlash from its customers and developers, without providing any evidence or examples of this sentiment.

Neutral

Summary:
Apple has agreed to pay a $13.7 million fine to Russia's antitrust watchdog for its in-app payment tactics. The company had previously paid $12.1 million in another antitrust case regarding alleged abuse of dominance in the mobile apps market. Apple has been facing backlash over its controversial App Store policies and has updated its guidelines, allowing U.S. developers to incorporate links to external payment platforms. However, critics argue that these changes are not enough and will still result in legal disputes.