In reply to Ed Rybicki.

Thanks for the comment and good to meet you in Cape Town.

The issue with APCs is that the money has to come from somewhere. In some ways I'd argue that your actually better placed to pay APCs in SA given you (or at least the institution) gets a cash bonus for each paper. I understand that this really goes back into research in most cases (or worse, administration) but the fact of having that kind of budget line, independent of the funding that supported the work reported in the paper is something even those of us in the privileged north only dream of. All too often the grant has run out and there is no obvious source of the money.
That said I remain a proponent of APCs as a model precisely because they make the cost of the publication process concrete and help to introduce a functioning market. But I agree that the question of how to equitably divide those costs up particularly with developing world researchers in a way that isn't just the current somewhat patronising "oh we'll waive the fees" but is sensible given the realities on the ground. I don't have an answer to that but I very much feel that we need one badly.
And finally of course, one quick plug. Don't forget that the PLoS policy on APC waivers is no questions asked. If you ask for a waiver you'll get one. This clearly doesn't scale and it will eventually get broken by free-loaders. That's why we need a proper solution. But in the meantime if it makes PLoS the destination for developing world authors I can't see that as a bad thing.
Cheers

Camer0n