Quote:
Originally Posted by rkomar
Well then you're free to ignore it. It's also up to you prove that it is "just a guess that could be very wrong" if you want to convince others to ignore it, too. You're equating "not 100% correct" with "could be very wrong". Judging by all the effort put into the numbers, it's likely that they are "not far off 100% correct", which makes them worth paying attention to. Your hand-waving argument isn't even close to being as rigorous, yet you expect people to believe you more than the reports.
|
I have to disagree with that. We know that these numbers are simply estimates because we know that none of the companies involved be they ebook stores or publishers, release the real numbers. We know that some authors who do have the real numbers say that the estimates are way off. That would indicate that the estimates are not "not far off 100% correct".
Is it likely that the gross relationship between the 4 books stores is more or less right? I suspect so, it at least passes the smell test. However, when you start to talk about total ebook sales going up or down by a few percentage points, which likely are well within the margin of error, well then you are in a situation much like the political polling numbers in various elections over the past year. People assume they are accurate, yet when the actual returns came in, those polls proved to be very inaccurate simply because they made assumptions in their methodology that didn't accurately reflect reality. It may have been their best estimate, but it wasn't accurate.
Are indies squeezing out the big publishers? Well, that certainly squares with some posters favored narratives, yet it's just as likely that the estimates are biased towards indies for various reasons. Models are only truly worthwhile as a predictor if they can be validated against real numbers. This particular model can not.
Another reason that I tend to be skeptical is that if you ever follow the financials of various publicly traded companies, you would know that they come out with quarterly financial statements. A lot of analysts are paid a lot of money to come up with estimates on what a company is going to do in a given quarter, yet the vast majority of the time, those analysts are quite wrong in their financial estimates. If they can't get it right with all their resources, why would I think this guy can get it right on a shoestring budget?
Are you free to assume this guy is divinely inspired and 100% accurate? Sure, if that's the way you roll, you are are free to assume whatever you want. But doesn't make it true.