Sentences with phrase «because publishers»

Secondly, they'll push users towards apps because publishers can control the advertising in apps, not the browser.

We saw that these practices seem unusual because they are inconsistent with industry trends, and because these publishers already use digital publishing processes, have access to free or low - cost ejournal platform and ecommerce software, often have access within their own corporate families to expertise in implementing such software and services, and, given the size of the global market and the interdisciplinary appeal of much of these publishers» periodical content, seem to be foregoing substantial marketing opportunities and revenue streams.

We saw that these practices seem unusual because they are inconsistent with industry trends, and because these publishers already use digital publishing processes, have access to free or low - cost ejournal platform and ecommerce software, often have access within their own corporate families to expertise in implementing such software and services, and, given the size of the global market and the... [more]

People who crave attention (Hanson, Thompson, Trenberth, Serreze et al) present «sexy» and unique findings because publishers and journos are seeking «sexy» and unique findings also.

I'm convinced there is something we can invent using our content and digital properties beyond ebooks, but I reached the conclusion that we don't really have the skills and talents in our companies, because publishers and editors are accustomed to picking a manuscript and creating a design on a flat page.

Adelman: I think it would definitely be easier to get third party support if only because publishers wouldn't need to set up a separate team specifically for the Wii U or 3DS version.

I think it would definitely be easier to get third party support if only because publishers wouldn't need to set up a separate team specifically for the Wii U or 3DS version.

Andrew Passafiume: Downloadable games will eventually become the dominant future for gaming simply because publishers want to cut costs and developers want to be able to try new options.

That's like saying video games are bad because publishers push pre-orders.

Konami probably thought they'd squared it all away when they announced a price cut for Ground Zeroes, slashing it from $ 40 to $ 30 (which will inevitably equate to # 30, because publishers think we don't know how exchange rates work).

Everyone says they can't wait for next gen because publishers will finally invest in new IP.

But is that because the publishers don't have anything else to show?

Steve explained that having an innovative product can sometimes make the pitch process even more difficult because publishers like to be able to predict how many units they will move prior to backing a title.

It's also leading to bigger games shipping with required downloads, because the publishers don't want to pony up for the higher - capacity carts.

Most PEGI listings are deliberate, because publishers have to submit each version of their project separately, so a misfiling seems rather unlikely.

Every time I hear someone mention that the PS Vita has no games it annoys me, because Publishers like NIS...

Though the reason people have been using KS is because publishers have, for lack of a better term, become highly incompetent.

«This generation it seems like there are about a third of the number of triple - A titles in development across the industry as there was last time around — his generation it seems like there are about a third of the number of triple - A titles in development across the industry as there was last time around» Its because publishers had little faith in next gen consoles before they were announced and hit the shelves.

The only reason this is coming out now is because publishers are given another avenue they think will be successful.

In paidContent's early years, ebooks were written off as a failure in part because publishers couldn't figure out what to do with DRM.

Prices on ebooks are way up because publishers got greedy and still wanted to use the same business model as for print, which with a lower overhead brings much larger profits.

Amazon doesn't force you to use DRM, they offer it because the publishers demand it, but publishers that do not (Baen, Tor) sell their books without DRM through amazon

«Libraries say they're being cut out of the market because publishers are afraid they can lose money selling e-books to libraries,» says Lynn Neary in a new report on NPR on Monday.

The case was also unusual because publishers were in favour of the MFN contracts even though it meant a drop in eBook revenues.

I suspect this is because these publishers are trying to maintain their old rights model, with sales and revenues managed on a per country basis.

That's not because publishers don't want to publish it.

Indie authors trying to speak on tradpub authors behalf essentially becomes an echo chamber, because publishers don't care what we think: we're not part of their stable.

The Kindle's text - to - speech function has raised controversy because some publishers want to keep their rights to sell audio books in addition to text books.

Because the publishers are guarded with their numbers, it's unclear how much of that growth is due to the fact that consumers are buying more e-books in general, and how much is due to this increased control over pricing.

Because publishers need to be innovative — they can't afford to get left in the dust... again.

This doesn't work for all ebooks because publishers determine if the feature is available or not.

route because the publishers will offer marketing, but the lion's share of marketing still falls in the author's lap.

«An Entire Chain Of Questions That You Have To Ask» We have a very difficult debate about subscription models or flat rate models because some publishers are afraid that they rather ruin their traditional way of making money.

I also think that it is interesting to note that little sharing is done on e-readers — only 25 % — mostly because publishers don't allow us to do it!

Not just because publishers have had years to watch other media industries face the digital transition, but also because book publishing is a single - revenue business.

However, like DDA, EBA is showing to be unsustainable for frontlist because publishers are starting to embargo new titles.

It isn't really «vanity» publishing because the publishers don't accept just any book, they contribute to the shared equity, and they expect the «partnered» books to sell alongside their own, because they are actually in the book publishing business.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: I think it's very likely that if $ 9.99 becomes the upper bound for pricing on eBooks, then you are going to find $ 9.99 becomes the standard price for eBooks, period, because publishers who lose money up at the top of the pricing scale will need to recoup that money somewhere else, and the bottom of the pricing scale is a fine place to do it.

This may be a stretch because publishers hate change, but I think that if they're going to remain relevant, they'll need to start looking at their value - add which is their backlist, their relationships with bookstores, bloggers, and other ties that help to increase their value to the author.

I've always assumed that cheap ebooks are priced that way because publishers and authors figure that's how they'll make most money.

Authors are in the state they are in because the publishers got too comfortable relying on Amazon to fill in for the collapsed wholesale market of the 1990's, because the large North American market was dominated by booksellers who were mismanaged in the oughts, and because self - published authors used Amazon because it was easy rather than trying to branch out their business.

I say there's more than that because the publishers are still making all that money in ebooks, but this is what they're saying.

More importantly from a writer's point of view, how many mid-list writers, those who have pretty much guaranteed sales of a certain figure book after book, have been dropped because publishers feel they can't afford to keep them and how often has this happened AFTER a book has bombed by someone like Cuomo?

Also because publishers, and not just the house that brought out Twilight, were busy putting out pale imitations of Twilight and, at least in my opinion, saturating the market with sparkly vampires.

The works of J.D. Salinger, To Kill a Mockingbird, and One Hundred Years of Solitude are notably absent, possibly because publishers may be reluctant to lose the reliable sales of these required reading titles.

And because the publishers traditionally didn't offer much in the way of book distribution or book marketing or publicity support, naive or uninformed authors who had expectations of sales beyond a small circle of friends and family were sometimes faced with a basement or garage full of leftover vanity press books.

«Ebooks should be more expensive than they are, more than print books — a lot more,» said Luby, adding that ebooks are relatively cheap because publishers and retailers don't properly explain their benefits, namely, convenience.

Back when self - publishing was an evil term and the only real option a writer had if they wanted to consider themselves a «professional» writer was to submit to an agent and / or a traditional publisher, you knew exactly what to do because the publishers told you.

Because publishers churn out dozens of new titles each season, they have to make the best use of their limited publicity resources.

But another reason is because some publishers (and even some authors) feel that any type of secondhand market is, in some way, unethical because it fails to compensate creators every time a secondary sale takes place.