In reply to Mr. Gunn.

I'll wait for the longer comment but you've kind of illustrated my point.

No-one's arguing that Mendeley hasn't changed. Indeed anything like Mendeley (or Elsevier) needs to change over time. People can hold different, legitimate positions on whether that change is overall good or bad (or which specific changes are good or bad) based on what they think is important. I have what I think are legitimate concerns about the business strategy of Elsevier to gain as much control as possible over data, data standards and user-flow in the whole scholarly comms system, and the effect that will have over the whole ecosystem if successful. I also know that Elsevier's investment has been crucial in turning Mendeley into a more focussed and useful service for a growing user base. That focus has involved a shift away from some of the things I hoped Mendeley would achieve, that's all, and our assessment of whether on balance that's good or bad will naturally differ.