Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadin
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?
|
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 Hachette is the angel and Amazon the devil in this dispute?
...
Oh, wait. We have a pretty good indication that Hachette
is the devil in this dispute. They are the ones who engaged in an officially-illegal price-fixing conspiracy, and thus have no credibility whatsoever.