We’ve become accustoms to hearing about how dissatisfied with their publisher some authors are. The rhetoric mainly originates with self publishing enthusiasts who seem determined to remain dissatisfied till they can force everyone else to agree with them. However, rather obviously given the numbers of books published every year, not all writers agree, and here’s an example. Dana Schwartz is pretty happy. She tells expectant authors about what they’re in for, starting from the writing of the book and up to signing copies for excited buyers. Her piece at The Observer is entitled “15 Things You Probably Didn’t Know About Publishing a Book”. The Passive Voice sends the link to Ms Schwartz’s 2017 piece.
We’ve all read pieces in almost exactly the same form as hers where the author bitches about publishers, their lack of sympathy, their inefficiency, their rapaciousness, their lethargy, their incompetence. I hope her YA book And We’re Off sells well: we need to keep her onside! As she’s now got three more books from different publishers out I suspect there’s no need to worry.
The relationship between publisher and author is always at risk of deterioration — after all no publisher can force the public to buy a book, and the author will tend to regard any such shortfalls as failures of the publisher not of themselves — after all their book was self-evidently perfect. The more experienced author will recognize the collaborative nature of the author/publisher relationship, and give credit where credit may be due. Deserving of mention in this regard is Professor G. L. S. Shackle, an economist, who’d take the time after each of his books came out to come down from Liverpool to Cambridge and personally thank every employee who had worked on his latest book.
Making Book 
Discussions of traditional versus self publishing all should, though often do not, center around what sort of book is under discussion. The closer the author is to writing pure commercial genre fiction, and the more the author has the aptitude and time for marketing, the more sense it makes to go it alone. The further away from pure commercial genre fiction you are, the more sense it makes to go through a traditional publisher. In particular, if the word “literary” ever creeps into your mind, even in a Regency vampire spy thriller, then a traditional publisher probably is the way to go.
In my case, I write borderline-academic nonfiction. I’m not making any serious money either way. For me the difference is whether my work part of the conversation, or slides quietly beneath the waves without anyone ever noticing.
Meant to add: the linked post is by a YA author. I would have guessed that YA fell on the self-publishing side, but I am given to understand that this is not the case. I don’t know why. Unless and until this changes, YA seems to be one of those categories where you are better off traditional.
I’m not sure I’d see the decision indie/traditional as being as rational as you suggest. I suspect it is mainly a matter of personality — you have to want to get involved in the business side of things to be a successful self publisher. Some people are incapable of this, others thrive on it — see the comment from Harald Johnson, someone perfectly suited to the world of indie publishing.
Naturally, I avoid all this Sturm und Drang by being my own publisher. No one to blame but myself. And that makes me happy.
Happy man. I guess I’d be in the same camp if writing books was my bag — but I think I’d find it hard to resist the temptation to become a publisher of books written by others too.