The original source of this appears to be a subscription only story on the FT.
The article also appears to be pure speculation. It states that Universal Music and Sony BMG do NOT want to raise prices.
Another anonymous "top label" says that it does not want to raise prices and EMI and Warner refused to comment.
I guess the implication is that it is EMI and Warner that are behind the proposed rise but I would expect a bit more evidence from a paper of the quality of the FT.
A quick snap-shot of the opinions flooding in on this suggests that the labels would have to be mad to do this....but I guess they've proven that already!
PLOS did indeed poach well respected editors to launch - one from Cell and several from Nature. These editors are very expensive, so is the glossy (and completely unnecessary print edition) and all the secondary material that they produce (reviews, News and Views style articles etc.)
Even with an 'authors pays' model these guys must be burning cash at quite a rate. As far as I can see a bunch of academics are running the show, and while they have talented editors there seems to be no professional publishing input. The source of their capital is a charitable grant of several million. All is rosy in their garden while they have this money, but when it runs out they could be in big trouble.
I'm all for new ventures but when they are set up with such a dumb business model they deserve to fail.
BioMedCentral on the other hand is genuinely innovative (take a look at the Faculty of 1000), and while it lacks the big name editors and glossy feel of PLOS could possibly emerge as a very interesting alternative.
Every day punters are likely to want a piece of Google in a big way. The global reach of the brand and the sentimentality with which the everday web user regards it mean that folks are likely to think that it is worth investing in. But this is where where the auction model completely falls down.
The article states that the price could get pushed up as high as $100 billion in an auction - for a company that makes $150 million a year??! This is complete.con madness.
Google directors get to save a small percentage of the billions they are going to make by skipping on underwriting charges, but the potential for the price being pushed to an artificial high in a auction before a catastrophic crash are large.
Finally, Science and Nature are rapidly becoming obsolete...and they've had so many problems with meddlesome editors
At least three of the PLoS editors have worked for Nature in the past. The main editor, Vivian Siegel worked for Cell - owned by Elsevier
But then I should imagine that when they worked for Nature they were meddlesome and published "sexed up" rubbish....now they work for a free access journal they will seen as brave, visionary and skilled.
or could it just be that they will work for whoever pays their wages??
Agree with all you say, except the cheaply implemented bit!
I can't source the article but read in MediaWeek or New Media Age, or one of those.... that News International have spent 5 million UKP on this product.
It will be fucked within 6 months, and given that the Times etc. have been usually quite savvy about new meedja development it's a surprising amoung of cash.
Sci Am have found some good web sites, but it's pretty hard to argue that they are the 50 best, especially when having cool graphics and Rich Media seems to have been pretty high on the list of criteria.
You still can't beat some of the old work horses such as the National Library of Medicine's MedLine/PUBMED service (http://www.bmn.com/general/991)
A fantastic resource used almost daily by working scientists, and fairly accessible to Joe Public.
Too right, go for it. It's scientifically proven that you'll score more with the opposite sex if you don't wear glasses.
see: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 92857
Nature have made access to the original research paper
behind this story free. There's also a nice collection of older stuff about
hominid evolution...goes back to 1925 and the discovery of the first "ape-man"
of Africa.
Slashdot Mirror
New Scientist article is here: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg187250 95.600
The original source of this appears to be a subscription only story on the FT.
The article also appears to be pure speculation. It states that Universal Music and Sony BMG do NOT want to raise prices.
Another anonymous "top label" says that it does not want to raise prices and EMI and Warner refused to comment.
I guess the implication is that it is EMI and Warner that are behind the proposed rise but I would expect a bit more evidence from a paper of the quality of the FT.
A quick snap-shot of the opinions flooding in on this suggests that the labels would have to be mad to do this....but I guess they've proven that already!
Even with an 'authors pays' model these guys must be burning cash at quite a rate. As far as I can see a bunch of academics are running the show, and while they have talented editors there seems to be no professional publishing input. The source of their capital is a charitable grant of several million. All is rosy in their garden while they have this money, but when it runs out they could be in big trouble.
I'm all for new ventures but when they are set up with such a dumb business model they deserve to fail.
BioMedCentral on the other hand is genuinely innovative (take a look at the Faculty of 1000), and while it lacks the big name editors and glossy feel of PLOS could possibly emerge as a very interesting alternative.
Can you be a "traditionalist" and a Republican at the same time?
Every day punters are likely to want a piece of Google in a big way. The global reach of the brand and the sentimentality with which the everday web user regards it mean that folks are likely to think that it is worth investing in. But this is where where the auction model completely falls down.
The article states that the price could get pushed up as high as $100 billion in an auction - for a company that makes $150 million a year??! This is complete
Google directors get to save a small percentage of the billions they are going to make by skipping on underwriting charges, but the potential for the price being pushed to an artificial high in a auction before a catastrophic crash are large.
At least three of the PLoS editors have worked for Nature in the past. The main editor, Vivian Siegel worked for Cell - owned by Elsevier
But then I should imagine that when they worked for Nature they were meddlesome and published "sexed up" rubbish....now they work for a free access journal they will seen as brave, visionary and skilled.
or could it just be that they will work for whoever pays their wages??
Agree with all you say, except the cheaply implemented bit!
I can't source the article but read in MediaWeek or New Media Age, or one of those.... that News International have spent 5 million UKP on this product.
It will be fucked within 6 months, and given that the Times etc. have been usually quite savvy about new meedja development it's a surprising amoung of cash.
You still can't beat some of the old work horses such as the National Library of Medicine's MedLine/PUBMED service (http://www.bmn.com/general/991) A fantastic resource used almost daily by working scientists, and fairly accessible to Joe Public.
No EVAs on this trip for Columbia. In fact No EVA suits on board, so they couldn't have gone out for a look-see even if they had wanted to.
Too right, go for it. It's scientifically proven that you'll score more with the opposite sex if you don't wear glasses. see: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 92857
Nature have made access to the original research paper behind this story free. There's also a nice collection of older stuff about hominid evolution...goes back to 1925 and the discovery of the first "ape-man" of Africa.