5 ms·

Well, and discoverability/signalling. The more books that are available, the harder it is to choose a book to read. And right now, the major imprints are a sign

by cwyers 12y ago

Well, and discoverability/signalling. The more books that are available, the harder it is to choose a book to read. And right now, the major imprints are a signal of quality -- such-and-such publisher decided this book was good enough to spend money on. Not to say that can't be addressed in this new world, but it's unclear how it's going to be addressed and what the tradeoffs are. Also, by democratizing books, you may end up drastically altering the compensation structure. Right now, you have a relative small number of people like Stross who are able to make their living writing novels, and a larger number of people who don't ever "make it." A more open book-publishing market may mean fewer Strosses can make a living as an author, and more and more people who are novelists do it in addition to their primary job, rather than as their primary job. So yeah, there's a very real chance that this new world of publishing does "destroy" something. And something else will get built. And there'll be tradeoffs, and some people will win, and others will lose. Right now it's really hard to say whether or not society as a whole will be better off. The thing about Stross's argument is that historically, there's very little precedent for being able to stave off social changes instigated by technological disruption. So even if he's "right," I don't know what's to be done about it in the long run.

WalterBright 12y ago
> Not to say that can't be addressed in this new world Before I buy a book, I read the online reviews of it, and check the reputation of the author. I don't look at who published it. I find these to be a good predictor of whether the book is good for me or not.
- cwyers 12y ago
  Well, sure, but you're picking largely from a pool that these publishing imprints has created. There are going to be many more books to choose from (well, there already are, but as long as the publishing industry limps along we don't notice it as much as we will once it's done being "distrupted" by Amazon et al). We have a precedent for what happens when a glut of content without much intermediation gets dumped into a marketplace -- the video game crash of 1983. This is not to say that will or is likely to happen here. But it illustrates what CAN happen to the marketplace. And I don't think reading reviews in their current state is going to scale as the number of books grows.
  - WalterBright 12y ago
    It scales already - it's crowdsourced. I don't agree at all the doom and gloom about the book industry. I suspect we're actually entering a golden age of publishing. Before Amazon, I was stuck with pretty much whatever the local bookstore happened to stock, or whatever randomly appeared in a used bookstore. There were no rankings, no reviews to read. I'd read a book even if it was crummy, because there wasn't much else. Now I can check Amazon, Goodreads, examine lists by my favorite authors, look for titles in sub-genres like post-apocalyptic fiction, look at curated lists by people I trust, etc. I'm not stuck with reading bad books anymore. Getting an out-of-print book is no longer any problem. The barriers for any person wanting to publish their own book have pretty much all gone away. Sure, that implies mountains of dreck will be published, just like there are millions of crappy web sites. But the good ones still float to the top.
    - kasey_junk 12y ago
      "The barriers for any person wanting to publish their own book have pretty much all gone away. Sure, that implies mountains of dreck will be published, just like there are millions of crappy web sites. But the good ones still float to the top." This implies that all books require the same amount of capital to produce. This is clearly not true. Post apocalyptic, vampires from space novelette written in spare time is now easier to publish, but long-research, expensive production value works need to be funded some how. If they aren't subsidized by the publishers, who will they be subsidized by?
      - WalterBright 12y ago
        > If they aren't subsidized by the publishers, who will they be subsidized by? The same plethora of ways complex software gets developed.
        kasey_junk 12y ago
        I would argue that most complex software is subsidized the same way books are. That is, the occasional block buster subsidizes the rest.
ivan_ah 12y ago
> Well, and discoverability/signalling. The more books that are available, the harder it is to choose a book to read. That's a problem, yes. I'm not sure how this will work out for novels, but for non-fiction I think this will be solved by authors going after very specific niches---the long tail. This is unchartered publishing territory because previously publishers would never take on a niche subject because it wouldn't make economic sales to pass it through their pipeline. > fewer Strosses can make a living as an author Your point about the dilution of attention and book revenue is valid, but let me partially offset it / counter it with an argument on margins. By self-publishing, authors retain 60% of the list price (say $15) as compared to 5-10% of profits (=3-5% of list price) regular publishers offer. It wouldn't be too wrong to say authors make as little as $3 per copy sold, so if you do the math, it's actually good for everyone: Superstar author, monthly: Previously: 10000*3 = $30k royalties In new world: 3333*15 = $50k royalties (assume 2/3 readership loss) Less known author, over the same period of time: Previously: 0 In new world: 300*15 = $4500 which is a make-me-wanna-write salary It's not zero sum if there are gains to be had from efficiency.
- edavison1 12y ago
  "I think this will be solved by authors going after very specific niches---the long tail... This is unchartered [sic] publishing territory because previously publishers would never take on a niche subject because it wouldn't make economic sales to pass it through their pipeline." Publishers have been doing this for a very long time. A lot of sales to publishers are built on the idea of having a built-in niche--even if it's not a smash hit, 'people who like x won't be able to pass this up because it's all about x.' Might sound crazy to the HN crowd, but this is still how the industry functions--baseball books might be a good example, though I'm not sure it's niche enough for you, they represent almost a guaranteed amount of copies sold to certain (acquiring) editors.

by cwyers 12y ago

WalterBright 12y ago

> Not to say that can't be addressed in this new world Before I buy a book, I read the online reviews of it, and check the reputation of the author. I don't look at who published it. I find these to be a good predictor of whether the book is good for me or not.

cwyers 12y ago
Well, sure, but you're picking largely from a pool that these publishing imprints has created. There are going to be many more books to choose from (well, there already are, but as long as the publishing industry limps along we don't notice it as much as we will once it's done being "distrupted" by Amazon et al). We have a precedent for what happens when a glut of content without much intermediation gets dumped into a marketplace -- the video game crash of 1983. This is not to say that will or is likely to happen here. But it illustrates what CAN happen to the marketplace. And I don't think reading reviews in their current state is going to scale as the number of books grows.
- WalterBright 12y ago
  It scales already - it's crowdsourced. I don't agree at all the doom and gloom about the book industry. I suspect we're actually entering a golden age of publishing. Before Amazon, I was stuck with pretty much whatever the local bookstore happened to stock, or whatever randomly appeared in a used bookstore. There were no rankings, no reviews to read. I'd read a book even if it was crummy, because there wasn't much else. Now I can check Amazon, Goodreads, examine lists by my favorite authors, look for titles in sub-genres like post-apocalyptic fiction, look at curated lists by people I trust, etc. I'm not stuck with reading bad books anymore. Getting an out-of-print book is no longer any problem. The barriers for any person wanting to publish their own book have pretty much all gone away. Sure, that implies mountains of dreck will be published, just like there are millions of crappy web sites. But the good ones still float to the top.
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    "The barriers for any person wanting to publish their own book have pretty much all gone away. Sure, that implies mountains of dreck will be published, just like there are millions of crappy web sites. But the good ones still float to the top." This implies that all books require the same amount of capital to produce. This is clearly not true. Post apocalyptic, vampires from space novelette written in spare time is now easier to publish, but long-research, expensive production value works need to be funded some how. If they aren't subsidized by the publishers, who will they be subsidized by?
    - WalterBright 12y ago
      > If they aren't subsidized by the publishers, who will they be subsidized by? The same plethora of ways complex software gets developed.
      - kasey_junk 12y ago
        I would argue that most complex software is subsidized the same way books are. That is, the occasional block buster subsidizes the rest.

ivan_ah 12y ago

> Well, and discoverability/signalling. The more books that are available, the harder it is to choose a book to read. That's a problem, yes. I'm not sure how this will work out for novels, but for non-fiction I think this will be solved by authors going after very specific niches---the long tail. This is unchartered publishing territory because previously publishers would never take on a niche subject because it wouldn't make economic sales to pass it through their pipeline. > fewer Strosses can make a living as an author Your point about the dilution of attention and book revenue is valid, but let me partially offset it / counter it with an argument on margins. By self-publishing, authors retain 60% of the list price (say $15) as compared to 5-10% of profits (=3-5% of list price) regular publishers offer. It wouldn't be too wrong to say authors make as little as $3 per copy sold, so if you do the math, it's actually good for everyone: Superstar author, monthly: Previously: 10000*3 = $30k royalties In new world: 3333*15 = $50k royalties (assume 2/3 readership loss) Less known author, over the same period of time: Previously: 0 In new world: 300*15 = $4500 which is a make-me-wanna-write salary It's not zero sum if there are gains to be had from efficiency.

edavison1 12y ago
"I think this will be solved by authors going after very specific niches---the long tail... This is unchartered [sic] publishing territory because previously publishers would never take on a niche subject because it wouldn't make economic sales to pass it through their pipeline." Publishers have been doing this for a very long time. A lot of sales to publishers are built on the idea of having a built-in niche--even if it's not a smash hit, 'people who like x won't be able to pass this up because it's all about x.' Might sound crazy to the HN crowd, but this is still how the industry functions--baseball books might be a good example, though I'm not sure it's niche enough for you, they represent almost a guaranteed amount of copies sold to certain (acquiring) editors.