4 ms·

Some interesting points. But I think there are some specific reasons why some ebooks succeed... And why following the same model for news/publishing won't. I

Some interesting points. But I think there are some specific reasons why some ebooks succeed... And why following the same model for news/publishing won't. I notice the author doesn't have any specific advice how music publishers or news organizations can follow the ebook model and make gazillions. PG is talking about mainstream content/media. Pointing out a few scenarios where sad saps will buy quick-fix content doesn't really help. This is a linkbait title with a straw man argument and a little ad hominem sauce drizzled on top. But the story will get tons of upvotes and comments. Boo, internet.

dpatru 17y ago
What I took away from the article is that the "little guy" can make money selling content. Even though a lot of newspapers and content providers are suffering because of the internet, there are a lot of people making a lot of money selling content. So if my goal is to make a comfortable income (up to 5 figures per month), it's definitely possible to do this -- other people are doing it too.
- gilesgoatboy 17y ago
  I see strong reasons to suspect numbers in excess of five figures per month. I'm working on finding proof, but no offense Hacker News, when I find it, you might not see it. I didn't actually make that post to engage with HN or PG. An attack on PG drives the presentation of the research because the blog post comes verbatim from a larger blog post which criticizes tech blogging in general and several tech bloggers specifically. I piled on some research as I was going, and anticipate referring to it in the near future, so I copied and pasted that section into its own blog post. That got me hosting for free, and I don't have to remember where I left my research notes, since Google will remember it for me. Since people are discussing it, though, you can see this blog post about content as an extension of my criticism of HN in 2008, which is that the registration requirement, and incentives of the karma systems, for all sites of this nature, make groupthink inevitable. Sensationalistic presentation aside, my research indicates it may be possible to make a very significant income with very, very little upfront investment. My post points to plenty of evidence, also provides anecdotal evidence, and also tells you what to google if you would like to turn up more evidence (including evidence which Hacker News has already been discussing in the past). I think the fact that this research does not seem to excite the Hacker News user base demonstrates the groupthink that I warned about in 2008. I believe whoever posted this on Hacker News showed a group of would-be entrepreneurs signs of lucrative opportunity, and that group chose to only discuss footnotes and grammar in response. Re grammar, "raises the question" is the correct usage. The footnotes argument is invalid, however. This is an excerpt from a larger post which argues PG's footnoted decision was a bad decision. That's all I got time for. Thanks for reading.

dpatru 17y ago

What I took away from the article is that the "little guy" can make money selling content. Even though a lot of newspapers and content providers are suffering because of the internet, there are a lot of people making a lot of money selling content. So if my goal is to make a comfortable income (up to 5 figures per month), it's definitely possible to do this -- other people are doing it too.

gilesgoatboy 17y ago
I see strong reasons to suspect numbers in excess of five figures per month. I'm working on finding proof, but no offense Hacker News, when I find it, you might not see it. I didn't actually make that post to engage with HN or PG. An attack on PG drives the presentation of the research because the blog post comes verbatim from a larger blog post which criticizes tech blogging in general and several tech bloggers specifically. I piled on some research as I was going, and anticipate referring to it in the near future, so I copied and pasted that section into its own blog post. That got me hosting for free, and I don't have to remember where I left my research notes, since Google will remember it for me. Since people are discussing it, though, you can see this blog post about content as an extension of my criticism of HN in 2008, which is that the registration requirement, and incentives of the karma systems, for all sites of this nature, make groupthink inevitable. Sensationalistic presentation aside, my research indicates it may be possible to make a very significant income with very, very little upfront investment. My post points to plenty of evidence, also provides anecdotal evidence, and also tells you what to google if you would like to turn up more evidence (including evidence which Hacker News has already been discussing in the past). I think the fact that this research does not seem to excite the Hacker News user base demonstrates the groupthink that I warned about in 2008. I believe whoever posted this on Hacker News showed a group of would-be entrepreneurs signs of lucrative opportunity, and that group chose to only discuss footnotes and grammar in response. Re grammar, "raises the question" is the correct usage. The footnotes argument is invalid, however. This is an excerpt from a larger post which argues PG's footnoted decision was a bad decision. That's all I got time for. Thanks for reading.