Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
I don't see it that way.
1. If Amazon's assessment of the situation proves correct, BPH's revenue will increase and they can pay all the big advances they want. I don't see how it's connected. My alternate funding thoughts were purely an aside to further the idea that BPHs should prepare to adapt to paradigm shifts in the industry.
2. You're saying Amazon will kill research-oriented books by forcing one price on most stuff. But, if fjorres's summary of the agency price fixing case is accurate, then BPHs wanted the exact same thing, just at a price $5 higher, and all Amazon is claiming is that they will all make more at the lower price.
|
Will you concede that those are very big IFs?
1. What if, instead, Amazon's assessment is wrong? Or what if Amazon's assessment is correct but only for Amazon and not for the BPHs? Or what if the BPHs' assessment is, in fact, the correct assessment?
2. What if Amazon decides that it isn't in Amazon's best interest to let the BPH charge $5 higher for that research-oriented book? That is, using fjTorres' "excuse" rationale, Amazon decides Amazon's sales of the book would decline thus hurt Amazon's bottom line so that even if the BPH's excuse would otherwise be sufficient, Amazon won't accept it because it favors the BPH and not Amazon? The big IF here being Amazon's altruism, something not previously displayed or able to be relied upon.
Will you concede that none of us have enough real facts, as opposed to speculation, interpretation, and preference for one party or the other, to draw the conclusion that Amazon is the angel and Hachette the devil in this dispute?