[icelancer]

>When you publish through a publishing house, they assume the financial risk.

Of what? The cost of the books? Because advances have gone basically to zero. I was offered none.

As far as your other questions: Books won't sell unless you curate an audience prior to writing it. And if you do that, the need for a publisher disappears quickly.

[Shamanmuni]

From what you say I assume that you think a publishing house's only job is to take your manuscript to the printer. Well, no, there's much work involved in the editing and design process prior to that. There's people working on the logistics and marketing of books. There're legal, financial, technical and administrative issues (as in any business). And paying all those, plus the books, costs money.

I don't know with which publishing houses you've been in contact with, and I think most of what you say comes from a bad experience with dubious publishers. But, in a serious one you work with an editor, whose job is to read your manuscript and tell you what's good and what can be improved, and how it can be improved. A good editor with some knowledge of the field your book is about is an enormous help.

[icelancer]

That's the rub, isn't it? A "serious" publishing house is only attainable if you are already going to sell thousands of books, and if you are, then their services are not usually worth the cut of royalties that it costs, plus the multi-book deal you generally have to sign. It's far cheaper to contract out editing/marketing/etc to new places.

James Altucher has written about this extensively, and his stuff is very widely read (certainly far more than I).

Most of the publishers I've spoken with are well-regarded non-fiction houses who have done medium and big time projects. Their cut of royalties were usurious, to say the least. When I compared what I got with what I would be paying them, it was insane. That's where my perspective comes from.