[ChrisLomont]

Content is easy to get for publishers, and they have to often invest significant time and money to get the book to market. They often take a risk on printing X copies, and they don't sell, the publisher eats the cost. You can say to just print on demand, but that is costlier per book. They often have to provide editors to clean up the book, do marketing through their channels, and promote the book.

Most authors don't do all this guy did. Most simply write the text and leave it there. Publishers do everything else this guy did to move the book.

(I've written parts of several books, and have received small royalty checks for well over a decade)

[samastur]

We both seem to have direct experience of working with a publisher, but I think you are overstating the effort of most publishers these days. Too many books, even from reputable publishers, are of fairly low quality, which as a reader bothers me even more than stuff like this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markos/49564386913/in/datepost...

Also, I don't see why them taking on a risk of printing upfront should be offloaded on the author through smaller fee.

[ChrisLomont]

When either party takes on more risk in a deal they want compensation. This is perfectly understandable.

If an author wants access to the distribution network of a certain publisher, they must pay.

Ever wonder why the biggest authors don’t simply run their own publishing houses? They understand the value provided. And they rarely if ever reach 50% in royalties (I’ve never heard it, in many decades of following professional writing).

What I do find is authors generally have no idea of the value provided. In which case they’re welcome to self publish. But self-publishing rarely results in great sales either.

Both avenues have pros and cons. That said, I’d likely still choose a publisher, since my time is also important, and I’d prefer not having to be average in a dozen skills when I can invest effort at being much better at a few.