7 ms·

What is the negative affect they are having on authors? Isn't Amazon the reason we have access to such amazing new talents as Hugh Howey (Wool series)? The abi

by dsuth 13y ago

What is the negative affect they are having on authors? Isn't Amazon the reason we have access to such amazing new talents as Hugh Howey (Wool series)? The ability to independently publish into an established marketplace is a pretty great boon for aspiring authors.

mratzloff 13y ago
That's like saying that the iOS App Store provides us with amazing games at a cheap price, so it hasn't been a net negative to the games industry on the whole. It has. A handful of creators can make a living from that model, but most can't, because the glut of games drives down the prices substantially. It's a race to the bottom. And the App Store pays out 70% of the proceeds to creators. Amazon's Kindle publishing pays just 35% unless you agree to various conditions. Aspiring authors aren't really the ones who are experiencing problems. If success is a bell curve, either end of the curve is fine, but the middle of the curve--those authors who are published but who have seen only moderate success--are getting cut by publishers in favor of a kind of VC model. Publishers bet on new talent, but only continue to invest in authors that achieve wide appeal. This may seem fine, even optimal, to you, but there are lots of authors historically who did not achieve popularity until several books in, and many authors who were not successes in their own time but became successful after their deaths. F. Scott Fitzgerald, for example, would not have made it today. He was an author whose first novel sold well but every novel thereafter sold poorly (including The Great Gatsby). Today, he would have been dropped long before he wrote Gatsby. The publishing industry now is experiencing the same transformation that movies and games have already gone through. Sequels, for example, are favored over original stories. Heck, look at the author you cited. Sequel after sequel.
- dsuth 13y ago
  Then again, the iOS App Store has also allowed a huge number of amateur developers to produce apps, and has basically instantiated an entire industry around App development. Sure, it sucks for the incumbents like Nintendo, whose Gameboy devices are now a tough sell. But essentially this democratisation of the publishing chain has led to a widespread increase in publishing of creative works(apps, books, art & craft via etsy), and a better cut for the creators, whilst also increasing the size of the markets they sell to. Creators who are dropped by publishers have the ability to then self-publish. Hugh Howey is not publishing sequels, just completing (IMO) a series which is now done. His other works are receiving a lot of interest on Amazon as well. Not seeing a lot of downsides here, except to traditional publishing models, and frankly good riddance to them.
  - mratzloff 13y ago
    Yes, more people are publishing, but the glut means nobody can make any money. Prices have crashed; apps hover around $0.99, and $2.99 is now considered a tough sell. It's had a negative overall impact to the industry, both creators and publishers. Anyway, I've said my piece. Long threads tend not to be terribly interesting to anyone except the participants. ;-)

by dsuth 13y ago

mratzloff 13y ago

That's like saying that the iOS App Store provides us with amazing games at a cheap price, so it hasn't been a net negative to the games industry on the whole. It has. A handful of creators can make a living from that model, but most can't, because the glut of games drives down the prices substantially. It's a race to the bottom. And the App Store pays out 70% of the proceeds to creators. Amazon's Kindle publishing pays just 35% unless you agree to various conditions. Aspiring authors aren't really the ones who are experiencing problems. If success is a bell curve, either end of the curve is fine, but the middle of the curve--those authors who are published but who have seen only moderate success--are getting cut by publishers in favor of a kind of VC model. Publishers bet on new talent, but only continue to invest in authors that achieve wide appeal. This may seem fine, even optimal, to you, but there are lots of authors historically who did not achieve popularity until several books in, and many authors who were not successes in their own time but became successful after their deaths. F. Scott Fitzgerald, for example, would not have made it today. He was an author whose first novel sold well but every novel thereafter sold poorly (including The Great Gatsby). Today, he would have been dropped long before he wrote Gatsby. The publishing industry now is experiencing the same transformation that movies and games have already gone through. Sequels, for example, are favored over original stories. Heck, look at the author you cited. Sequel after sequel.

dsuth 13y ago
Then again, the iOS App Store has also allowed a huge number of amateur developers to produce apps, and has basically instantiated an entire industry around App development. Sure, it sucks for the incumbents like Nintendo, whose Gameboy devices are now a tough sell. But essentially this democratisation of the publishing chain has led to a widespread increase in publishing of creative works(apps, books, art & craft via etsy), and a better cut for the creators, whilst also increasing the size of the markets they sell to. Creators who are dropped by publishers have the ability to then self-publish. Hugh Howey is not publishing sequels, just completing (IMO) a series which is now done. His other works are receiving a lot of interest on Amazon as well. Not seeing a lot of downsides here, except to traditional publishing models, and frankly good riddance to them.
- mratzloff 13y ago
  Yes, more people are publishing, but the glut means nobody can make any money. Prices have crashed; apps hover around $0.99, and $2.99 is now considered a tough sell. It's had a negative overall impact to the industry, both creators and publishers. Anyway, I've said my piece. Long threads tend not to be terribly interesting to anyone except the participants. ;-)