Isn't it early for you to be back at this?
As I have said, over and over, if "good for consumers" means "cheaper books today" then sure, it's "good for consumers."
However, I do not believe "cheaper books today" should be the goal of a free market place when "cheaper books today" is driving out competition and all but guaranteeing crappy products for higher prices once competition is driven out.
I take into account the costs of creating such material, of building viable marketplaces, of having competition that improves quality AND price. I believe the pressures created by Apple's actions here, whatever their legal (as opposed to right or wrong as some of you seem to think all things that are "illegal" are also "bad") status, were more beneficial than detrimental in the long term. I believe Amazon benefits from this ruling to the long term detriment of the consumer. I believe those who are just excited about cheaper products are exactly the kind of voters that get us into stupid regulatory messes all the time.
You're wrongly assuming that "less competition" is the result of a free market and/or cheaper products. According to that theory there wouldn't be any competition right now for most products. Clearly there is.
People seem to have hysterical paranoia about Amazon or whatever successful company (except Apple on this forum, since it's their designated home it seems). It just doesn't have any basis in fact. Apple beat MS against all odds, and countless other examples which makes this sort of thinking utterly wrong.