"Isn't that exactly what the publishing companies want? Ebooks are a threat to the publishers' bottom lines. They're easy to share, they don't get old or fall apart, and authors can self-publish for basically nothing. Anything they can do that make ebooks unpopular keeps them relevant a little longer."

You know, I really am sick and tired of this drivel. Seriously, THIS gets modded up? I challenge you to prove just ONE of your claims. Go on - take a look at market figures and prove just one of them.

Not only do I run a small publishing company, but I was also there in the first big e-book experiment. In fact, I wrote one of the key attempts to make e-books work. It was called Diablo: Demonsbane, and it was an extremely successful e-book. Pocket Books marketed the hell out of it - they WANTED it to work. In fact, from 2000 to 2002 there was a concerted effort to make the format successful. It failed - the market just wasn't there yet. A bestselling e-book meant selling over a hundred copies, if you were lucky.

Here's the reality about e-books: they are a niche market, and they're being treated as one for a reason. If they did have a widespread adaptation, publishers would be thrilled. Do you know why? Because there is no print cost, and you can even cut the wholesalers out of the picture, so there are more profits.

Do you honestly think that self-publication is anything new? Print on Demand technology made it possible for authors to get a business license and self-publish inexpensively years ago - and those books tend to have a bigger market share than e-books do. Those e-books, by the way, haven't broken a 10% market share yet, and on a busy month, their market share is less than 5%.

Publishers don't give heavy support to e-books because in most sectors of the publishing market (there are exceptions, such as the technology reference market, which as far as I know is now mainly electronic), they are, and remain, a niche market. 90% of the publishing industry remains printed books, not because of some publisher conspiracy to keep the e-book down, but because the majority of demand is for printed books.

So kindly stop mischaracterizing the entire publishing industry as some reactionary dinosaur in an conspiracy to keep new technological development from the public. It simply isn't true, and it's reaching the point of slander.

The problem isn't criticism - criticism tends to make you better, actually. The problem is abuse. I posted this on the blog for the article, and I think it bears repeating here:

Coming at this from the perspective of an author, you get some similar issues with fans. Before I go any further, I have to say that 97% of the fans I've met are friendly, lovely people who I wouldn't mind having a drink at a pub with - they're kind and appreciative of all the work you've done, and they just enjoy your work for what it is. Then there's the other 3%, who are downright scary - and VERY vocal.

Back about ten years ago, I was writing one of the first online computer games issues columns out there. It had a readership of about 20,000, which while not huge, was respectable. And, I had this one fan who emailed me abuse.

Now, the job of an issues columnist isn't to be right - it's to raise a certain question in an intelligent way. My favorite feedback was always the people who disagreed with me, as that meant that I had been successful in starting a discussion. This fellow, however, didn't just disagree with me. He sent in actual abuse, accused me of propaganda, and when I added him to my killfile, he created a new one and sent me more abuse starting with "you can't hide." As far as he was concerned, he had the right under free speech to hound me.

As best I can figure, when it comes to that 3%, what's going on in their heads is that they think that because they have consumed your stuff, they therefore have rights over you. And, about all you can do is add them to your killfile, or boot them off your forum, when you detect them. You can't make them mend their ways, but at least you can get them out of your hair.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. I'm coming at this from the perspective of a writer rather than a programmer (my last programming experience was in high school over fifteen years ago), but typing is an important skill here.

Now, will being a typist make you a better programmer? Absolutely. But not when it comes to thinking the code out. The place where typing is important is after the code has been thought out - the implementation. A programmer who does not know how to type will think the code out, and then have to find each key in order to input it into the program - it adds an extra step, and it takes longer. A programmer who is also a typist doesn't need to find the keys. The code flows smoothly from his head into the program via his fingers.

When it comes down to it, a good programmer must be skilled at both planning and implementation. Both are required. If you ignore the skill at implementation (aka not learning to type), you handicap yourself. The programmer who can both plan and implement clean and efficient code with speed will ALWAYS be of greater value than the programmer who can plan the code, but is slow to key it in.

You're not the only one - I started computer gaming back around 1990, and today when I have spare time, the only games I play on a regular basis are Legend of the Red Dragon (a BBS door game now online) and Urban Dead (a simple browser zombie MMO) - and that's how I start my day. With five minutes playing those games. Otherwise, my time and money go towards books and movies. I stopped being an avid PC gamer about seven years ago. For me it was a couple of things:

1. PC games went through a period of wild creativity from 1991-2002 - I call it the "golden age." Once that ended, though, games were big business with budgets approaching motion pictures, and they had become very conservative and more dedicated to formula. I'd already stormed the beaches of Normandy with Medal of Honor: Allied Assault...I didn't really feel like repeating the exercise with prettier graphics and better sound.

2. Piracy played a big role in thinning out the "herd" of PC games. I know there are people who want to deny this and claim that it's just unsuccessful companies not being willing to change their business model, but piracy became a lot easier once high speed internet and larger hard drive space made it possible to download entire CD games. And the game companies did adapt as the piracy rates skyrocketed - most moved their efforts to the console, and those who didn't started a DRM arms race. So, console games today are wide and varied, and there is quite a lot to be excited about...and I just don't have the time and money for them, or the interest in going through the learning curve (I prefer a mouse and keyboard). The PC game is very thinned out, with very little to be excited about (unless you're a fan of MMOs) and has a nice big arms race with pirates that just doesn't sit well.

So, I certainly think the biggest problem is that the PC game is not what it used to be. Partly it's a victim of its own success, and partly it's a victim of the pirates. PC gaming isn't dead - there are sections of it, such as the MMO, that are alive and well and growing, but the wild creativity that made it so exciting ten years ago is gone, and unlikely to return. Whether we want to admit it or not, the PC game is now the niche of video gaming, rather than the mainstay.

No moral dilemma at all.

There is a big difference between fantasy and reality. Playing the game is fantasy. The reality is that tens of millions died in the war the Nazis started, under that symbol.

Taking on their identity in an online game isn't fantasy, it's a very real slap in the face to everybody who fought, suffered, and died under them.

Ah, okay. Up here (Canada), Space and Comedy Network don't insert ads at all, as far as I know, and I think the same goes with Global and CTV.

I find tech commentators very funny at times. There are quite a few who are writing good, incisive stories, but at the same time there are a large number who have either disconnected from reality, or just aren't giving credit where it is due. I think it's because some people get a sense of superiority by declaring that "X is a dinosaur business model, and I'm smart enough to see it!" The writer of the original article falls under one of the latter categories.

Here's the thing - most of the suggestions he made were implemented in some at least a year ago. From the article:

"All of NBC Universal's properties should immediately begin offering full episodes in high definition on the web. These episodes should be available online at the same time they air on cable TV. Delaying the posting of these episodes to the website will only drive people to piracy."

This one has been happened for at least two years, by my count. It may not be high-definition, but most shows ARE put on the web the day after they air. Geographical boundaries are enforced, but that probably has more to do with broadcast rights than business models (if you've given your broadcast rights in Britain to the BBC, for example, you're not going to undercut them online).

"Episodes offered via this medium should display no interstitial advertising. Ads should only appear just prior to and just after an episode plays. Interstitial advertising will only drive people to piracy, which shows no interstitial ads."

Already the way it's done.

"No DRM should be used to protect against consumer copying or saving of the episodes from the website to their computers. This will only drive people to piracy."

Can't speak to the DRM side (I've never tried to copy a show, I've only just watched it). But I know that the BBC allows downloads of shows, and it wouldn't surprise me if other stations did too.

"The online episodes should be the same high quality aired on cable TV. Reduced quality will only drive people to piracy. Bandwidth costs can be reduced by leveraging bit torrent."

As far as I know most are offered in at least standard definition. I know that the BBC, for example, also offers downloads in HD, and it wouldn't surprise me if others do too.

"A subscription service should be offered which completely eliminates all advertising for the subscriber and offers other benefits, such as discounted merchandise and other additional services above and beyond the basic TV content without ads."

Well, this might help, and to be fair, as far as I know the television stations don't offer this. And, it's not a bad idea. So, point to the author on this one. But, at the same time, it should be pointed out that what the consumer is interested in is the show, and they're already getting that for free - so there wouldn't be much incentive to use this service in the first place.

"Nothing behind the subscription paywall should be something that can be pirated. Services and physical merchandise cannot be pirated."

Okay - this one needs a reality check. It's a television network - what services precisely is it going to offer? Anything audio-visual in nature can be pirated. And, as far as physical merchandise goes, there is an entire market out there of cheap knock-offs - which is a form of piracy.

"But it's not just NBC Universal. It seems like every major TV company is playing with fire by ignoring the internet."

Um...right. Which is why most networks have websites on which you can watch their programming, as well as launching on-demand services.

So, to sum up - the author of this article is ignoring what television networks are actually doing so that he can prop up a straw man and declare them to be following a dinosaur business model. If he was writing back in 2006, he might have had a point. Unfortunately, he's writing in 2010, and the person who is behind the times in this case is him.

It isn't - it really isn't.

The problem is that most of the vanity press industry is very much a scam. They tell writers that they will be professionally edited and published, for a nice low fee of $5000, or something like that. Then, if they even do an editing pass, it's a very limited and cursory one. They're already thousands of dollars in the black for the book, so there isn't any real need to make it more successful.

So, the author - who even though s/he was told there would be a professional editor involved, probably didn't have any real editing help at all - gets his/her book, and it appears on Amazon, where it usually sells less than ten copies. The authors who manage to sell more than that are the ones who have busted their hindquarters marketing and moving the book. But, when people generally talk about "self published" authors, vanity press authors are what the term has referred to for years.

There is a very large difference between that and an author who has learned the business and decided to go it alone. Those people get business licenses, found their own publishing house, get the help of a good editor, and deal with the printer directly. But, they are in the smallest minority compared to the thousands of would-be writers who get sucked into vanity publishing.

Well, that really depends on the genre, and how good your book is.

For example, as far as I know, mysteries tend to move pretty quickly. Fantasy glutted itself after the Lord of the Rings movies to the point that response times went from months to years (and even in science fiction there were apparently cases of established authors from the "golden age" deciding not to submit new books because it was taking so long that they didn't know if they'd live long enough to see them in print), and it's only now just getting back to where it should be.

Really, though, the response time varies from publisher to publisher, and from genre to genre.

From what I've seen, Amazon is trying to create a monopoly, and they've ruffled quite a few feathers - and caused a couple of lawsuits - while they do it. One of the earlier things they did was try to move all the smaller publishers like myself onto their own print-on-demand service (a company called Booksurge known for very poor quality printing), threatening to remove the buy button for those who didn't. That started a lawsuit. There was a lawsuit over e-book prices, although as I recall that was because Amazon was trying to lock the major publishers into an agreement where they had to offer the lowest prices to Amazon and nobody else (and Amazon talked it up as publishers being greedy and just wanting to charge more in general).

Speaking as a publisher, though, the thing that keeps me from ever supporting the Kindle is the sheer level of secrecy involved. Amazon refuses to announce sales figures, and the one time they did talk about their e-book sales, they did it in such a way that the comparison was meaningless (comparing sales from one of the cheapest formats against the most expensive format tells you very little, and even there, considering the prices, to match up the actual money it would have to be around 3 e-books sold for every hardcover, not 1.6). In business, success means a lot, and if Amazon really was having the success they claim, there should have been a lot more openness on the numbers. The implication is that the Kindle and their e-books are not performing to expectations. When you're running a small publishing company, you have to choose your markets carefully, and when the answer to "How big is the Kindle market?" is "Millions, just trust us," it doesn't tend to look like a good way to move.

Well, that really depends on the skill of the people editing him, but it should take away from that problem, yes. The ideal editor is somebody who is very good at editing, and who did not have any connection with the creation of the book. But, ultimately, the results tell the tale, so to speak.

Promotion might be crowd-sourced, to a degree. One of the things I count on for my promotion when I launch a book is that people have this strange habit of downloading just about anything free, regardless of if they have any interest in it at all. So, I rely a lot on free samples on file-sharing sites, etc. But, the more directed the approach, very frequently, the better the results. No argument there.

Okay, I read at least part of his blog, but the impression I got was that he was comparing e-books currently in print to printed books currently out of print. Now, I could be wrong, and there is plenty of room for somebody with a pre-existing fan base to have a successful e-book career, or even for lightning in a bottle. One of the problems with taking the macrocosm and trying to draw conclusions about the microcosm from it is that the macrocosm is general trends, and there will be plenty of examples that are the exception to the rule.

As far as e-readers growing and printed books diminishing, I very much doubt that. And the reason I doubt that is that there is something REALLY odd going on with e-book sales figures. And I'm not talking about Amazon refusing to reveal Kindle sales numbers. I'm talking about what the publishers see and report about their sales.

The book market has very large peaks and valleys. The difference between the highest peak and the lowest valley, for example, can be over a billion dollars. The main peaks seem to be December and July/August, and the main valleys seem to be March and October. There is, of course, variation from year to year.

The e-book sales, however, do NOT have these peaks and valleys. If you were to plot them on a graph, you'd see the books appearing to be a sort of sin wave, and the e-book sales would be straight line with a very small upwards slant. Occasionally, there seems to be bump where the e-book gains some ground, but then it returns to the straight line - just a higher one. Now, if this was just two different formats in the same market, you would expect to see the peaks and valleys reflected to a smaller degree in the e-book sales (the exception being December, as e-books are quite difficult to give away as Christmas presents). But this just isn't present.

The implication is that e-books are actually a related, but a separate enough market that the market forces impacting the printed book do not impact the e-book. The more I look at it, the more I'm convinced that these just aren't part of the same market to begin with, as strange as that sounds.

Um, no - ONLINE sales are a large part of the future. But even your claim of bookstores closing every day doesn't take a couple of things into account:

1. The North American economy has not yet recovered from the recession, so sales are down across the board. Five years from now, it will be a different story (I hope).

2. In over a decade, the e-book has barely managed to carve out 5% of the total book market, and it only manages that on months where book sales are low.

E-books will have a place in the future of the book, but they are not going to replace the printed book. Now, you can legitimately ask me why I say this, and I do, in fact, have an answer.

Way back when, the VHS won the format war with BETA, and dominated the home video market. A new, better optical format that had superior video and sound, and even special features, was developed. And for 15 years, the laserdisk struggled to make some impact on the home video market, and failed. Around ten years ago, a new, better optical format that, like the laserdisk, had superior video and sound, and even special features, was developed. And within 5 years of the DVD hitting the market, the VHS became an endangered species.

So, why was this? Why did the DVD succeed, while the laserdisk failed? Both were better technology than VHS.

But, there was a difference between the laserdisk and the DVD. The laserdisk was about 30 cm in diameter, and could only hold around 45 minutes of video per side. So, it was better on a technology level, but when it came to convenience, a VHS was smaller, and you didn't have to interrupt the movie you were watching to flip it over. The DVD was both better AND more convenient - it was smaller than a VHS, and it could hold the entire movie on a single side.

Now, apply the lesson to the printed book and the e-book: the e-book is more technologically advanced than a printed book - no disputing that. But, it's not more convenient. With an e-book, you will always need a reader, and to deal with file formats, and a shorter shelf life. A printed book is about as simple an object as you can get - unlike the e-book, the printed book has NO technological requirements for the consumer. So, if market domination is based on creating a product with more convenience to the consumer, the e-book just does not have what it takes to supplant the printed book.

Now, if something did come along that was more convenient than the printed book, you'd see the DVD vs. VHS situation repeat itself, and the printed book would become an endangered species within five years. But, in the comparison, the e-book is the laserdisk, not the DVD.

No, I'm sorry, I'm afraid you're the one making the assumption. You're assuming that it's an either/or when it comes to e-book and print book editions, rather than an "and." The figures I'm working from are for the entire market, and in a lot of places and genres, there are concurrent print and e-book editions (in fact, these days that's in many cases the rule rather than the exception).

So, if a thousand people want the book as an e-book and not a printed book, then they buy the e-book instead of the printed book, and it gets reflected by the figures. So, sorry, but what you mention is already built into the statistics.

That is a part of it, and large publishers can do much more on that than smaller publishers. However, there is advertising out there. Every time my publishing company publishes a book, I pay for an advertisement that goes out to tens of thousands of bookstores and libraries (I also do a decent amount of advertising with free online samples, book reviews, etc.).

But, actually, that's not the big problem with self-publishing a book.

Self-publishing tends to have a stigma against it, but that stigma is there for good reason - and that reason is that 95% of self published books are utter crap that didn't get past the gatekeepers in the major publishers due to basic quality control. There is, unfortunately, an entire industry based on publishing writers who have more money than brains or talent - these are called vanity presses. Most of these books are terrible, and the publisher in question makes thousands of dollars on the fees they charge to the writer before so much as a single copy is printed.

(Just as a rule, the money flows to the author, not the other way around.)

Another problem with self publishing is that most authors are not the best editors of their own work. In fact, very few writers can both write and edit - they're different enough skillsets that there is that little overlap. But even when a writer can, they tend to be workmanlike at best. This is because if a writer writes paragraph X, that is supposed to say Y, that writer will always know that Y is the message. Unfortunately, paragraph X might not have actually said Y, and because the writer automatically reads Y into the paragraph, s/he doesn't catch the error. In short, the author is just too close to their own work to be the best editor of that work.

Those are actually the biggest problems with self-publishing, and why most self-published books fail. If you look at the self-published market, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the majority of the people who managed to make both self-publishing and e-book publishing successful are the ones who started in traditional publishing, built a readership there, learned the business as they did it, and then transitioned.