I agree with about 90% of what you say here, with two notable exceptions. First, I don’t think attracting entities with a profit motive is bad. The problem hasn’t been with the profit motive; it’s been with the incentive structure. The combination of a thinly capitalized market and the reliance on physically printed tome that put the means of production and distribution into the hands of a few corporate entities has encouraged the formation of unhealthy monopolistic relationships. The textbook industry is by no means unique in higher ed in this regard. If people and companies can make a profit once by producing content that can be re-used many times, where’s the harm in that? I agree that there is a major issue of whether the content is quality, but that issue is present whether the entity producing the content is for-profit or not-for-profit. Again, it goes to incentive structures. If grants are awarded based on good criteria, you’ll get good results. If not, then not. It’s not who’s applying; it’s what’s required of them.

Second, while I agree there is going to be a major shake-up in the textbook industry, just like there are going to be major shake-ups in the LMS industry and in the college and university “industry”, that doesn’t necessarily mean the end of any of these types of entities. It does almost certainly means a thinning of the ranks in each category. It means that all of us that endeavor to serve education in a variety of ways are going to have to earn our keep and justify the money that we get. There will be less and less money to just make education happen; you’re going to need to prove that you’re doing your part to make education better.

Personally, I think it’s a thrilling and terrifying time to be working in any of these niches.