- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,719
- Reaction score
- 325
Or possibly a dire omen presaging the fragmentation of the book market. Either, really.
Read this article. Thoughts?
You say that like it isn't fragmented already.
In relation to self-e-publishers, at first, I thought it meant that I can't have a version on B&N and Amazon both. But I don't think it means that. I think it means if I had a book published by Amazon itself through its new publishing branch, I can't also self-e-publish it on B&N. Or at least, that's what I think it means. It's wording is not distinct. But anyway, I didn't think Amazon allowed anyone but itself to publish its own works in its own publishing arm (which is distinct from its distributor platflorm).
Or am I reading this all wrong? Because if I am, that means its not just self-e-publishers affected, but that anyone who distributes through Amazon cannot distribute through B&N too. Which means even the Big NY houses would have to choose.
Hmmm. Would love to hear more thoughts on this.
Jodi
Handbags.
ETA: Or possibly a dire omen presaging the fragmentation of the book market. Either, really.
I'm on B&N's side.
Eh, there's a huge Amazon-shaped crack in it, but most trade-published books still end up in all the stores (pretty much) simultaneously. Although for how much longer, I don't know.
Yeah, but the fact that the stores are incompatible with each other is bad enough. Maybe if there's more fragmentation, they'll realize we need a solution that is not "Amazon takes over the world."
Yeah, but the fact that the stores are incompatible with each other is bad enough. Maybe if there's more fragmentation, they'll realize we need a solution that is not "Amazon takes over the world."
I hope so. The incompatibility is a thorny problem. Neither publishers nor consumers want it, but it's central to the business models of the stores.
Wonder how that affects eBooks published simultaneously through Smashwords and Amazon? Interesting to see how this plays out.
The format incompatibility is surely the stores' faults, but as I understand it, it's the (big) publishers that insist on DRM.
I'm a little new ...
Can you publish a real book and then e-publish it yourself anywhere with violating a contract?
And now... we all sit back and anticipate Konrath weighing in mightily on the matter (on his blog, of course -- not here )
Whatever Konrath says, it'll be the Amazon party line.
Funny how he doesn't regard Amazon as a "bad" publisher when he's busy ranting about how 'orrible all commercial publishers are, eh?
The gist of it is, it’s the best of both worlds, legacy and indie. The advance and marketing muscle you (might) get in a legacy contract; the kind of digital royalties, creative control, and time-to-market you get with indie.
And what could lure me back is precisely what I've never been able to get from any legacy publisher--not the two who have published me; none that I've negotiated with, either. Specifically:
1) A much more equitable digital royalty split.
2) Full creative control (packaging, pricing, timing).
3) Immediate digital release, followed by paper release when the paper is ready (no more slaving the digital release to the paper release).
Whatever Konrath says, it'll be the Amazon party line.
Read this article. Thoughts?