And that is ultimately the point I took from Biggs' post. Again, it's not new, but when so many outside observers feel the need to continually repeat it, maybe it's because the message isn't getting through to those who need to hear it?
Being sold for only slightly more than the revenue you brought in the prior year isn't exactly a signal that anyone believes the company has a lot of growth potential, especially not one whose roster theoretically covers the full gamut of shiny author services so many seem to believe are publishing's revenue streams of the future. Plus, ASI was apparently on the block for a while with no buyer, so I find Penguin's CEO John Makinson's claim odd, as reported by Publisher's Lunch, that he expects there will be a "new and growing category of professional authors who are going to gravitate towards the ASI solution rather than the free model." So then, what's the real angle here?
A large part of GOOD's appeal was its unique business model, its compelling mission, and its target audience: "For People Who Give a Damn." While not replicable in any scalable way, it had a far more noble mission than the mercenary and fickle "connecting advertisers to eyeballs" model of most magazines, and it looks like that mission ultimately forced a complete and radical rethinking of the magazine itself.
While it's interesting to see the affiliate script flipped on Amazon, with their redirecting traffic to purchase the ebooks (surely with a nice cut of the revenue), the user experience leaves a lot to be desired, especially if you're used to purchasing your ebooks via the Kindle itself and/or the apps. The whole setup seems to be targeting hardcore fans—most of whom have probably already downloaded the ebooks for free via a torrent site—while asking the more casual reader to jump through hoops Amazon and B&N, in particular, have worked hard to eliminate.
Amazon has always understood that readers are the most relevant market and that's why they're in the position of power they're currently enjoying. Do they wield their big stick aggressively? Definitely. And so did B&N and Borders before them, and presumably whomever the boogeyman was prior to them were guilty of the same thing.
As anyone who's actually worked within a "vertical" knows, whether from a niche consumer or business-to-business angle (or, heaven help them, for a non-profit organization or political campaign), just because a subset of people share a common passion doesn't mean they're a single-minded group that can be engaged in one templated way. Every vertical that presents a viable business opportunity is going to have its own sub-communities and overlapping layers, with some often in direct opposition to others.
There are a number of challenges indie booksellers face—a shit economy being the biggest of them—and there are many that won't succeed, not because Amazon put them out of business but because THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS TO MOST BUSINESSES. There are many neighborhoods that simply can't (or won't) support a local bookstore, and that's perfectly normal, too.