I have no experience with self publishing, but as an author with No Starch Press (http://nostarch.com/masteryourmac), I can tell you that publishers probably put more work into the books than the authors themselves.
Publishers hire people to design the cover, copy edit the manuscript, provide a tech review, lay out the book, and market it. The amount of work that goes into a traditional book is astounding, so it doesn't surprise me that some people here are complaining about the quality of self-published books. In my opinion, the logistics are simply too much for one person to handle.
And let's be honest here. The real work of an author should be to write. Should they really have to worry about marketing, layout, and copy editing? I think not.
I'll go with a traditional publisher again. My book looks beautiful, reads well, and is on the shelf at the local Barnes and Noble. Sure, I don't get all of the revenue, but I do have a wider audience and steady passive income.
but as an author with No Starch Press (http://nostarch.com/masteryourmac), I can tell you that publishers probably put more work into the books than the authors themselves.
Believe me, this is because you're an author with perhaps the best tech publisher out there (Pragmatic Bookshelf being another, and then O'Reilly and Addison Wesley probably as the best 'big' ones).
Most tech publishers simply try as rapidly and cheaply as they can to get as many books out into the market as possible whether that means cutting corners, screwing over authors, or whatever.
No Starch (to whom I have no real connection other than being a fan of their books) was founded by someone with a desire to publish high quality geek-oriented books and who is still heavily involved in this process. This is also certainly true for the Prags, and slightly less so for O'Reilly (I don't think Tim is heavily involved in editorial now but he's still a huge and active figure), but don't believe the glut of tech publishers out there are like this! :-)
All that said, you are broadly right. It is better if a publisher can do what they do best and authors do what they do best, rather than authors try and do everything. It's like an entrepreneur doing their own legal and accounts. But on the flip side I'd say self publishing still beats going with a crappy publisher.
I get NEGATIVE royalty statements from Manning. My experience with OReilly had been much better, but I'll never publish through a traditional publisher again.
Publishers hire people to design the cover, copy edit the manuscript, provide a tech review, lay out the book, and market it. The amount of work that goes into a traditional book is astounding, so it doesn't surprise me that some people here are complaining about the quality of self-published books. In my opinion, the logistics are simply too much for one person to handle.
And let's be honest here. The real work of an author should be to write. Should they really have to worry about marketing, layout, and copy editing? I think not.
I'll go with a traditional publisher again. My book looks beautiful, reads well, and is on the shelf at the local Barnes and Noble. Sure, I don't get all of the revenue, but I do have a wider audience and steady passive income.