[ghshephard]

While I buy into many of the arguments being made here, Some of these points don't make sense. For example,

". And that 74% increase in copies sold makes it much more likely that the title will make it onto the national bestseller lists. (Any author who's trying to get on one of the national bestseller lists should insist to their publisher that their e-book be priced at $9.99 or lower.)"

Well, that's all well and good until everyone prices their e-books at $9.99 or lower, at which point we're back to square one. Unless the objective is to then have people who want a leg up to price their books at $8.99...

Also got a bit nasty when they mention, "ilegally colluded with their competitors" - was this ever established? I thought the publishers settled before it went to court, and only Apple was found guilty.

Finally, Love how Amazon is now trying to drive a wedge between the publishers and authors - "While we believe 35% should go to the author and 35% to Hachette, the way this would actually work is that we would send 70% of the total revenue to Hachette, and they would decide how much to share with the author. We believe Hachette is sharing too small a portion with the author today, but ultimately that is not our call."

This is Amazon turning up the heat on the publishers. Remember, Amazon/Bezos are ruthless - they could not care at all what is fair - but they are going to use every tool in their kit to win at this negotiation.

[shiven]

Amazon/Bezos are ruthless - they could not care at all what is fair

I fail to see how the authors getting 35%, unhindered by the publisher's whims, can be unfair.

[ghshephard]

The point I'm trying to make is that Bezos is suggesting that number because it drives a wedge between the authors and the publishers. It's entire purpose is to weaken the solidarity (such as it is) that exists between hachette and their authors.

[larrys]

What is interesting is that the technique (wedge) will work even if the authors are fully aware that that is what Amazon is doing.

[tjl]

If you read the John Scalzi piece on this, it's not working with him.

Everyone is talking about the price, but that's not the only thing they're negotiating. We've heard about some of Amazon's demands from some of their other negotiations, so I'm not surprised that Hachette is holding the line.

[tedks]

> Remember, Amazon/Bezos are ruthless - they could not care at all what is fair - but they are going to use every tool in their kit to win at this negotiation.

Does any company of that size care what's "fair"?

[ghshephard]

Not everyone realizes this. It's important to be somewhat cynical when evaluating the negotiating communications being made by megacorporations.

[jamesaguilar]

> was this ever established?

In what sense? In the sense that we know to a fairly high degree of certainty that it happened? Yes. In the sense that you would never lose a libel suit for saying that it happened? Also yes. In the sense that a final judgment was entered in a trial case to this effect? Only then would the answer be no.

[spindritf]

Well, that's all well and good until everyone prices their e-books at $9.99 or lower, at which point we're back to square one.

No. At least not according to OP. They suggest that books compete against other forms of information and entertainment and that below $9.99 a larger share of that market would be occupied by ebooks.