Or you can read all the arguments from multiple threads on this topic and focus on the actual counter-arguments instead of just dismissing anyone that disagrees with you as a delusional fanboy.
Show the arguments. What are they? I've seen none that have any basis in reality.
You realize that you just made that up? Obviously, a large part of the industry disagrees with you.
You realize the difference between you and me... I've been in this industry for years with direct dealings with the actors involved in this case. You, almost certainly, have no experience in this industry and are speaking from a MacBook Pro in a cafe perhaps...
I can assure you that everyone involved in this industry that I know... the thousands of contacts from small publishers, authors, and eBook retailers support the government. I have demonstrated an example of this by pointing out a powerful, dominant eBook retailer... Kobo, filed an amicus supporting fully the DOJ injunction against Apple in this case. This is a big move by Kobo because they have Apps on Apple's App Store. This was a very public move where Kobo's voice is supported by many of us who are in regular contact with each other.
So it is NOT the case that the industry disagrees with me or that I'm making this up. You're simply not saying anything at all because you have nothing to say.
Hey! Look! It's the same argument. Except this time you dismiss everyone that disagrees with you as ignorant.
The facts show that Apple colluded with industry by rounding up all the publishers in a room, acted as a ringleader, and forced agency on the entire industry. The shared goal was to eliminate price competition. Written communications between the parties show Steve Jobs, publisher execs, etc. saying they don't want to compete on price. Jobs said they couldn't compete if they had to compete on price.
Jobs publicly states in an interview that the prices on Amazon and the iBookstore would end up being the same.
Here's the material support. Apple injected a clause in the iBooks contract that stated any publisher who sells under non-agency models outside the iBookstore would be, quoting directly, "severely financially punished". Apple did this to a) force agency industry wide b) ensure that all the publishers would cooperate, because they wanted assurances from Apple that they would make sure everyone would play fair elsewhere after they all signed the iBooks agreement.
All this came out in the trial, and was supported by written communications between the parties and witness testimony.
And comments like this make me think that you aren't as informed as you claim. There was no monopoly broken up by the DOJ. And there was no centralization of power.
In your last post, the first argument you posted was equally uninformed:
Nothing about that argument is reflects the reality of what happened. The publishers pushed for the change. If you disagree with that, than you are arguing that Apple did nothing wrong.
First, the monopoly I stated was in the sense that Apple moved to have complete control over the price of eBooks and the way the books were sold. This was a result of the centralization of power they acquired by colluding with industry and setting draconian, now illegal clauses in the contract. After signing with Apple, publishers couldn't sign deals with any retailer unless it was agency along with other concessions. No more wholesale model. No more ability of retailers being able to set pricing. It must be agency.
And Apple hiked the prices of new releases and bestsellers and forced these pricing tiers on the publishers to jack up prices. The DOJ demonstrated pricing went up after Apple entered the game.
The publishers AND Apple pushed for all this to happen. They are ALL guilty, which is why they were ALL found guilty. Not just Apple. And not just the publishers.
What also came out in the trial was that Apple blocked Random House's Apps from being approved for the App Store to force them to sign their iBooks contract. Random House held out because they weren't buying into Apple's BS. They ended up signing it. These facts came out in the trial and was supported by written communications that incriminated Eddie Cue, who actually wrote Emails saying this stuff.
There's a lot more evidence if you actually went and read and researched this properly. Rather just saying stuff off the cuff because you presumably like to argue on the Internet... yet there's a massive chasm that exists on your end where you lack facts and background because you haven't researched this other than reading the same headline news articles like everyone else.
The result of this trial is that consumers are going to win because the industry has been freed of being forced into 1 business model where retailers lose any power to price the products. Price competition is restored as is the ability of everyone to explore new business models.
When it comes to linking to stores inside Apps, that's also a major issue that appears to be prohibited because Apple took aim at Amazon and the eBook industry.
