Forbes has a brief piece on Google Books, in which it makes a few fairly silly claims about why Google Books is beneficial to publishers. The main thrust of it seems to be that Google Books is a good thing because, ever since “the company began working closely with publishers in 2009,” Google publicizes books by linking to publishers’ web sites so people can buy direct from them and give them more money, rather than buying from some third party like Amazon (though Google Books links to them too) so they get less money.
Writer Ellen Duffer seems unaware that Google had always planned to link to places on-line where the books could be bought, like Amazon, in order to scoop the affiliate referral bonuses such sites offer for buy-it-here links. Google Books makes it easier for people to find books they need, no matter where they end up buying them.
To suggest that selling more books is useful to publishers only when the person buys the book directly from the publisher seems like the height of inanity. (Not to mention, the publisher is probably going to sell the book for full retail price, so what consumer in his right mind would buy from them when Amazon will sell it much cheaper?)
The article also gets a few other things wrong, claiming that Google made a “quick decision” to limit availability to snippets when the Authors Guild filed suit in 2005. (Never mind that even in 2004, Google was only talking about making books “searchable”—not available in full.) But I suppose that’s to be expected given that the Forbes piece prominently linked to that New Yorker article that wondered “what ever happened to Google Books”.
Forbes should get their basic facts straight. Google Books has been around (and has been “working closely with publishers”) since at least 2005, not 2009 as stated.