PDA

View Full Version : .Mac Upgrades Bandwidth limit to 1TB


MacBytes
Dec 31, 2005, 02:27 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Apple Services
Link: .Mac Upgrades Bandwidth limit to 1TB (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051231152726)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

alywa
Dec 31, 2005, 03:13 PM
Doesn't this strike anyone else as a big deal? If the ITMS - .mac connections were true for downloadable movies, this is clearly a sign of a big announcement at MWSF.

grapes911
Dec 31, 2005, 03:17 PM
Doesn't this strike anyone else as a big deal?
No. It's still too expensive of a service.

edesignuk
Dec 31, 2005, 03:22 PM
Amazing bandwidth allowance...shame the "hosting" is complete crap :rolleyes: (no php, no mysql, no nothing).

amacgenius
Dec 31, 2005, 03:56 PM
Wow 1TB of bandwidth, maybe MR should host the forums on a .Mac account :p.

edesignuk
Dec 31, 2005, 04:02 PM
Wow 1TB of bandwidth, maybe MR should host the forums on a .Mac account :p.(no php, no mysql, no nothing).I know you're joking anyway, but this is exactly what makes it useless despite the large bandwidth allowance. You couldn't host a forum even if you wanted to.

aswitcher
Dec 31, 2005, 04:08 PM
Doesn't this strike anyone else as a big deal? If the ITMS - .mac connections were true for downloadable movies, this is clearly a sign of a big announcement at MWSF.


I agree.

I also think using it to Podcast is a likely new option from Apple this year (2006 downunder now ;) )

iMeowbot
Dec 31, 2005, 04:39 PM
Yay, I hope this applies to iDisk too, wasn't looking forward to having a dedicated WebDAV swerver.

Stella
Dec 31, 2005, 05:14 PM
My hope is that Apple will introduce php support.

1TB is a good amount - a lot of comparable web hostings don't have this amount - but they also offer a lot more services too than .Mac.

.Mac is OK for basic services but lacking for anything more.

sjk
Dec 31, 2005, 06:47 PM
My hope is that Apple will introduce php support.I seriously doubt they will. Like you said:.Mac is OK for basic services but lacking for anything more.... and it'll probably remain basic and Apple/Mac-centric. .Mac caters most to unsophisticated users (e.g. those who don't even know what PHP is) and others already know to look elsewhere if they need other services.

mkrishnan
Dec 31, 2005, 07:07 PM
I seriously doubt they will. Like you said:... and it'll probably remain basic and Apple/Mac-centric. .Mac caters most to unsophisticated users (e.g. those who don't even know what PHP is) and others already know to look elsewhere if they need other services.

I'd be more interested to see if they can offer enhanced services along the lines of popular web usage stuff...keep making it easier to place and share pictures and videos, blogs, maybe social bookmarking, and so on. Perhaps even buy services from someone that would easily allow people to set up .mac stores or buy / sell / things via eBay integration or somesuch. I dunno what exactly, but something that lets more people use the web more effectively who do not otherwise know how to do so.

aspro
Dec 31, 2005, 07:11 PM
Well this certainly is a big jump from the amount of bandwidth I used to have, very welcome even though I will never use it all. :)

sjk
Dec 31, 2005, 08:51 PM
I'd be more interested to see if they can offer enhanced services along the lines of popular web usage stuff... I dunno what exactly, but something that lets more people use the web more effectively who do not otherwise know how to do so.Certain web services are still too "technically" challenging for some people who might otherwise use (and pay for) them with increased usability and less complexity. That appears to be Apple's primary target with .Mac services and its customers.

There's no shortage of opinions (often negative) about .Mac but does anyone with those opinions really know how Apple feels about it and whether or not it's a "success" service? Certainly there's plenty of room for improvement regardless of the answer, but I don't have any personal expectations of it ever satisfying my particular web service requirements although it may eventually become worthwhile (and I hope it does) for my wife.

skoker
Dec 31, 2005, 09:11 PM
I know you're joking anyway, but this is exactly what makes it useless despite the large bandwidth allowance. You couldn't host a forum even if you wanted to.


:rolleyes: Thanks for restating what we already knew :D

I wish they had PHP, I'd switch in a flash.

asif786
Jan 1, 2006, 08:13 AM
I think the most obvious thing here is podcasting. I'm guessing that Apple will introduce a podcasting app (i.e. Garageband + some) and it'll be tied in with dotMac..perfect for newbie podcasters..

akb
Jan 1, 2006, 09:21 AM
What was the bandwidth previously?

dubbz
Jan 1, 2006, 09:37 AM
I wish they had PHP, I'd switch in a flash.

Maybe they could introduce power.mac, with PHP, mySQL, more diskspace, and other options for power users.

kev0476
Jan 1, 2006, 09:58 AM
You think it is for the rumored front row 2 with online storage instead of on the hard drive?

grapes911
Jan 1, 2006, 11:14 AM
Maybe they could introduce power.mac, with PHP, mySQL, more diskspace, and other options for power users.
What would that cost? $200 a year? :rolleyes:

backspinner
Jan 1, 2006, 01:06 PM
What would that cost? $200 a year? :rolleyes:
I think it's a bad idea. To use all these sophisticated functions one has to program and be technical. There are tons of companies providing this for cheaper, for example my dutch provider http://www.dommelhosting.nl has 500MB storage with webdav for 63 euro without VAT but including a domain name. Apple would have to compete on support and the like, which would be costly. The only plus of .Mac are the easy tools for noobs and the high bandwith limit.

jburrw
Jan 1, 2006, 01:13 PM
At the time this news first hit the web, I was able to log into my .mac account and confirm that the bandwidth increase was true. However, when I now look at my .mac account settings, it doesn't list the bandwidth at all. It currently only lists my storage totals. Weird. Seems they might rather not have people know about it just yet.

mad jew
Jan 1, 2006, 06:01 PM
What was the bandwidth previously?


I think it was 3GB.

I just invested in a .Mac account merely to see what the fuss was all about and to keep my Macs synced. It's been useful enough so far... :)

sjk
Jan 1, 2006, 09:04 PM
The only plus of .Mac are the easy tools for noobs and the high bandwith limit.And iSync, although MySync (http://www.mildmanneredindustries.com/mysync/index.html) brings hope of eliminating that .Mac dependency (with Sync Services on 10.4).

I agree with your other comments (snipped from this reply).