If you read the Steve Jobs mails, it's clear that Apple was trying to create a sustainable marketplace, while Amazon was, as you oddly imply at the end of your

If you read the Steve Jobs mails, it's clear that Apple was trying to create a sustainable marketplace, while Amazon was, as you oddly imply at the end of your thought, controlling the marketplace by artificially setting prices lower than the cost. Of COURSE they would stop doing this after some time. This practice kept small players out of the game and while Apple could afford to play along, they knew it was a foolish game. It's a dangerous precedent that a new player bringing new customers to a market, refusing to engage in monopolistic tactics, and refusing to sell above a certain price, is price fixing. Price fixing hurts consumers by many sellers agreeing to artificially raise the price of something such as to avoid the pain of competing on price. Apple convinced publishers to accept a lower price - nominally - and to sell at a reasonable market price, or they couldn't be stocked in their store. A brick and mortar retailer could never be faulted for refusing to sell products at a loss!!! I'm not saying Apple is perfect, but in this case they behaved more responsibly and in the interests of content creators and consumers, in the long run, than all other parties involved. The true price fixing was Amazon and the publishers, pre-iBooks, agreeing to sell some items as high as 24.99 for eBooks - something Steve Jobs refused to do. Average price higher, highest price lower. I still buy books on Amazon instead of iBooks because my Kindle is handy as a dedicated reader and hey, I want to pay less out of self interest. I also got my Kindle for free. But it must be clear this is surely fucking the authors. Also, to those who think eBooks should be far cheaper than print, what do you think it costs to print a thousand page novel? You think the hardcover costs $10-15 more, or that it's a premium sell?