To be fair, I believe that your assessment here is qualitatively correct, i.e. that the music and publishing industries were unhappy seeing their products devalued in the eyes (and wallets) of the consumer, and both Amazon and Apple had their motives for negotiating their deals in the respective industries. I am not concerned about those motives, and I have no problem with either... even Amazon's. So to answer your question: no, I don't favor either industry. You may have a problem with those motives, but I do not.
The problem I have with Amazon's approach is that they purposely operated at a loss. They paid the publishers more per title than they charged the consumers. This artificially low price prevented any possibility of competition in the eBooks market, and that is illegal. In order for Apple to get into the game and not also operate at a loss, they modified their strategy in a way that broke Amazon's strategy. Thus Amazon was forced to stop its predatory pricing, and it got the competition it deserved. Note that this enabled not just Apple, but several other - albeit smaller - competitors to try their hand as well. Fair outcome, in my opinion. If there is an analogous situation in the music industry, whereby competition for iTunes was deterred by the price point, then I would be forced to argue the same against Apple. But the analogy simply isn't there.
Such is my perspective: I don't care about the low prices in and of themselves. I care about the deliberate stunting of a market place through predatory pricing.
Thompson - Apple could have simply offered the books at a even lower price and competed as Amazon does and most other companies do. And if what you say is fact and it was illegal then why didn't any publisher ever sue Amazon?