You really must be new here

BRAVO! Julius Caesar wouldn't put it another way.

Rather sadly, I think you're right. Apple is in on this with guns blazing, and they want to reap the network effects to the max; more users, more apps, rinse repeat. After a threshold, it might become all qwerty: perhaps substandard (one day), but pretty much a system in equilibrium, with market forces unable to enter significantly. Motorola--and google by the way--are really losing the timing with this bending over for the telcos. Sad state of affairs; I was ready and willing to get one.

then again maybe not. http://www.google.com.br/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=blog+sold+to

isn't that what they used to say about AT&T, IBM or MS, back in the day?

if/when the paywall goes up, google the url (assuming you heard about the story or were redirected there by someone), and it will most likely let you in. You really gotta hand it to those guys, they want the google traffic, while blocking those that went to their sites in the first place.

Ok mods will burn me for this... but I think that their move to charge 30% off of the dying news industry might seriously backfire. Consider this:

i) the media industry has friends in high places;
ii) given enough time, they will become desperate and have nothing to lose;

To bet against Steve has been a surefire loss for a long time. But I would never fight against those with friends in high places, desperate, with nothing to lose.

I think it's only a matter of time between the news cycle starts turning all "Apple the subject of antitrust laws?" or the classic "Should Apple be broken up?". Neither AT&T nor IBM nor MS had a good run with the state dept. Perhaps Apple is overstreching a bit too far here; I for one think the backlash isn't worth that 30% cut.

+1 internets coming up here

I for one find it awesome that many people are trying Science, Nature, or PNAS, then, if rejected, go for PLoS ONE. Here's a case of an, IMO, awesome paper that was originally submitted to PNAS (may have to google the url to get through) but ended up in PLoS ONE. This is the sort of paper that shows the power of computer science applied to social science.

Well, have you heard of the PRISM fiasco? Nature PG is a saint compared to those guys. You can get some starting pointers here: http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2007/08/calling-for-boycott-of-of-aap.html

Just make sure that it's not from the UC system.

Another problem that lots of people have brought up is the CC non commercial license that Nature is using. This could hamper the Open Access movement (and an author's ultimate impact). Some people go as far as to claim that non-commercial licenses aren't Open Access at all and can indeed hinder progress down the line. At any rate, ONE has at least three years until Nature gets its report card (=impact factor). PLoS ONE is already the largest journal in the world (by volume), and if it can maintain quality, the Public Lib of Science should be safely sustainable in the long run. But make no mistake, Nature is coming here with guns blazing.

I think you're right on the mark. This paper, ""Positive" Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences", seems to show that people in, say, Physics or Chemistry have been publishing negative results, while Social Scientists haven't. Truly the time to open up those closet drawers.