Straight from Google’s pitch:

“Google Book Search helps you sell more books by helping our global search audience find them. But you'll also gain a new revenue stream-’contextual ads on content pages… And when people click on these ads, Google pays you.”

“Online reports let you manage your account information, see click rates on ‘Buy this book’ links, track your earnings from contextual ads, and review other stats related to the Google Book Search program.”

I see Google scanning your book or uploading your PDF, making the content searchable on the web, linking to other sellers (author getting top billing in the seller column if selling on their own site), and sharing a cut of generated ad revenue (provided any is generated).

If I’m missing the “purchase ebooks directly from Google” angle, could someone please point me in that direction to clarify?

And here is what I don’t get about the Amazon Kindle. This is the second time I’ve heard that amazon sets the price of $9.99 for Kindle books. But smaller pubs and self publishers who choose to publish on the Kindle are allowed to set their own price. So why do the larger publishers get a crappier deal? Why can’t they just set their own price like I can? That’s just bizarre to me.

ETA: and reading the comments I can see the library concept is an idea others had too immediately upon reading this. Google is insane. WTF?

And Mike, most of us who advocate self publishing as an option don’t think publishers are “mean and nasty” they just have different goals from some of us. It doesn’t make them evil. It really doesn’t have to be us vs. them.

With all the issues surrounding DRM and format I would really like to see the digital book format evolve into something more like a personal gaming device – with cartridges – for those of us who aren’t too keen on using a wireless connection (if I can find a stable one) and trusting a big company not to screw up our digital bookshelf.

On the other hand does this mean that authors will be able to publish their books without publishers? Will publishers be cut out altogether?

I’ve heard a lot of talk lately about technology making it possible for authors to “break free” from the nasty publishers and offer their products directly to the readers, presumably for a tiny fraction of the current cost. Most of these comments come from file-sharing supporters who rationalize copyright infringement by casting the publisher as a bad guy abusing the poor artist. Seen in that light, destroying the business model (and the livlihood) of the publisher is an altruistic act . . . but I digress.

Sure, with current technology, an author can publish a digital edition of their work with ease. The publisher is slow, finicky and takes a big bite out of the eventual profits. Besides, writing is just connection between author and reader, so who needs a stupid publisher?

As someone who depends on writing for a living, let me be be the first to say, “Never underestimate the publisher’s contribution.” The publisher really provides two services: First, they read through LOTS of manuscripts to pick the few that have potential. This is a thankless and time-consuming task. There are a lot of bad manuscripts out there, and the publisher does a lot of filtering for the reader. Second, there’s a world of difference between a first draft and a finished novel. The publisher hires several tiers of editors to take the best manuscripts they can find and make them better, often MUCH better, before publication.

Historically, they’ve also supplied (the less charitable would say controlled) the distribution system. With ebooks and the internet that function is admittedly becoming less important than it once was. However, I just cringe when I hear people clamoring for the demise of publishers. Trust me, they do far more than just sit around writing rejection notices and counting piles of money.

I think that is where we are going. People can publish their blogs and first chapters, what is the next step? Kind of like E-Bay for books….

Newspapers operate on a similar kind of idea–pay a nominal fee, get the news delivered, and very few people keep the paper beyond any length of time. Yes, it’s archived, but not by the general reader or user. So the real question becomes, how many people and under what circumstances would readers consider books disposable information. The answer isn’t going to be one-size, or the same for everybody, but it may surprise you. How many Harlequin series find their way to UBS’s before they’re even officially released, and how many readers now “read, then release” the bulk of the books they purchase?

I’m starting to advocate for a tiered system – make ebooks accessible by selling them cheap for “disposable” files, then offer the purchaser an inexpensive “upgrade” option for a keep-able file.

Google’s setup sounds like a library. Would people be willing to spend 9.99 at the library each time they checked out a book? OTOH, if we could buy a reasonably priced subscription to Google, that would be a different matter. Meanwhile, I won’t buy an ebook I can’t strip the DRM from.