It's a little more nuanced than simply "some compensation" - and IANAL but it seems like the court is saying this fee should as Sweeney posits be very small:

> Apple should be able to charge a commission on linked-out purchases based on the costs that are genuinely and reasonably necessary for its coordination of external links for linked-out purchases, but no more.

> In making a determination of Apple’s necessary costs, Apple is entitled to some compensation for the use of its intellectual property that is directly used in permitting Epic and others to consummate linked-out purchases.

> In deciding how much that should be, the district court should consider the fact that most of the intellectual property at issue is already used to facilitate IAP, and costs attributed to linked-out purchases should be reduced equitably and proportionately;

> Apple should receive no commission for the security and privacy features it offers to external links, and its calculation of its necessary costs for external links should not include the cost associated with the security and privacy features it offers with its IAP;

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lgvdqxweopo/...