PDA

View Full Version : iWeb 2 To Gain 'Live' Functionality


MacRumors
Aug 2, 2006, 11:59 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

ThinkSecret posts that the next version of iWeb (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0608iweb2.html) will feature a host of new functionality to make the pages it creates more dynamic. Described features include Smart Photo Album publishing and a webcam module to allow users to publish images from their iSight to the web.

Additional features described include an advanced feature to be able to cut and paste HTML code (for embedding content from YouTube and other such services), and the possibility of implementing a flexible theming system, where users would be able to share and distribute their own themes, or purchase themes not freely available on demand.

The information on the next version of iWeb comes as Apple appears to be plagued by persistent issues with its .Mac system. According to News.com, many users were affected by a 4-day outage of their .Mac service (http://news.com.com/Users+mock+Apple+slogan+during+.Mac+outage/2100-1041_3-6100426.html). Among users complaints were the tardiness of a response from Apple. According to Apple's .Mac status website, the service has had 13 outages of varying degrees over the past 30 days.

spicyapple
Aug 2, 2006, 12:02 PM
I wouldn't mind if Apple produced Content Management Systems similar to Drupal, Joomla, PHP-Nuke and Wordpress. That would be Apple's killer web app. This seems a step in the right direction. :)

shawnce
Aug 2, 2006, 12:02 PM
Weird... I haven't had any issues.

longofest
Aug 2, 2006, 12:03 PM
Weird... I haven't had any issues.

I've had a ton of issues, but not recently. Earlier this year though, my email CONSTANTLY went down. It was really, really frustrating.

hyperpasta
Aug 2, 2006, 12:04 PM
HALLELUJAH!

Woo! Saving themes!

Shasta
Aug 2, 2006, 12:07 PM
I know Apple has a huge love affair with .Mac, it is their service after all so why shouldn't they? But I would be impressed and pleased if they allowed me to use .Mac features without .Mac. If I could install a .Mac server app on my server to sync stuff that would be amazing.

the iWeb update is great. I'm glad they are opening it up. I've used it a few times but I always found it easier to just code my own pages to get around some of the induced limitations from iWeb. I also wish they would incorporate a built-in FTP so I could use it on my own web page and not just .Mac.

Never the less these steps forward are good.

Shasta

danielwsmithee
Aug 2, 2006, 12:10 PM
These features would be sweet. I just wish they would drop .mac altogether and make all the features compatible with any webhost ftp server. .Mac is really lame for the price, and the service sucks compared to what you can get from a third party webhosting company.

shelterpaw
Aug 2, 2006, 12:10 PM
I know Apple has a huge love affair with .Mac, it is their service after all so why shouldn't they? But I would be impressed and pleased if they allowed me to use .Mac features without .Mac. If I could install a .Mac server app on my server to sync stuff that would be amazing.

the iWeb update is great. I'm glad they are opening it up. I've used it a few times but I always found it easier to just code my own pages to get around some of the induced limitations from iWeb. I also wish they would incorporate a built-in FTP so I could use it on my own web page and not just .Mac.

Never the less these steps forward are good.

Shasta
I couldn't agree with you more. It would be great if the .Mac could plug into Apache and run on linux. Then I'd have my cake and be eating it too..

dizastor
Aug 2, 2006, 12:12 PM
Anyone remember when Apple bought that giant datacenter a few months back? I personally think the .mac hiccups might be due to a transition in where the .mac boxes are located.

I assume that they will serve up iTMS and .mac both from the same location.

Of course, I'm probably way off base.

danielwsmithee
Aug 2, 2006, 12:13 PM
Anyone remember when Apple bought that giant datacenter a few months back? I personally think the .mac hiccups might be due to a transition in where the .mac boxes are located.If that were the case it would have been good of them to offer a little bit of notice to their users.

aricher
Aug 2, 2006, 12:13 PM
I haven't (knowingly) had any .mac outage problems lately. iWeb has worked great for my humble webpage (link in signature) and I can't wait to see what they come up with next. The .mac hosting does load my sight a bit slowly but most people looking at it have broadband these days. I honestly don't have the time to get deep into learning the Macromedia (now Adobe) suite right now so iWeb will have to do for awhile.

Kelmon
Aug 2, 2006, 12:18 PM
This my one gripe with .mac at the moment. For about the last 2.5 years the service has done what I've needed it to and has been fine, although I mostly used it for email. Recently, however, I've been getting quite a lot of spam coming in so I'm much in favour of Apple implementing some server-side spam filtering to get rid of the junk that is coming into my Inbox and which Mail.app is failing to catch.

With respect to iWeb, I'd really like to see the Themes developed in such a way that people can easily design their own and share them.

ShavenYak
Aug 2, 2006, 12:38 PM
I wouldn't mind if Apple produced Content Management Systems similar to Drupal, Joomla, PHP-Nuke and Wordpress. That would be Apple's killer web app. This seems a step in the right direction. :)

Yes, that would be cool, and it seems like they could do it. I'm sure the backend of .mac is 95% open-source stuff already. If they'd just give us a CMS that would run on a basic LAMP setup and tie the iLife apps into that as an alternative to .mac it would rock. Especially if we could use our own server to sync bookmarks, address book, ical, etc.

andiwm2003
Aug 2, 2006, 01:05 PM
i voted yes, i'm happy because overall it's very convenient and well integrated. i just wish it was much faster. especially since iWeb really took off and many people now have website who never dreamed of having a website before. iWeb has the potential to become something really big.

CrazyWingman
Aug 2, 2006, 01:09 PM
I have only two problems with .Mac, but they're both huge.

1. It's ****** slow. It takes way too long to sync and check mail.

2. Web-based capabilities are way too limited. Despite what Apple wants, I'm not always at my Mac.* Therefore, I'd like to be able to do simple things like view my address book and calendar from the .Mac web page. It might even be nice to be able to add new contacts and events there.

My subscription is up in October. If it's the same then as it is now, I'll be going elsewhere (I voted "no" in the poll).

* I have seen that there are some third-party apps that allow .Mac sync in Linux (what I'm usually running when not at my Mac). Anyone have any experience with them?

m-dogg
Aug 2, 2006, 01:10 PM
I voted I was unhappy. My two biggest complaints? Not enough storage (we should get more than what free services offer) and a painfully slow iDisk (not even worth using).

I keep it mainly for the easy web pages, syncing between my iMac & PB, and an email address that I like.

Some_Big_Spoon
Aug 2, 2006, 01:15 PM
I absolutely love iWeb. I use it all the time, but obviously, there's issues with it, and the inflexible nature of it (as well as the way it constructs pages, image sizes, etc.) is a drawback.

Honestly though, I don't think I've ever been looking so forward to a 2.0 release. If Apple can work on some of the really outstanding complaints with it, iWeb could be an incredibly powerful and useful tool.

January is so far away.

p0intblank
Aug 2, 2006, 01:25 PM
iWeb 2 sounds like it could be really sweet! Finally we'll be able to actually cut and paste HTML ourselves... if this article is accurate, that is.

As for .Mac, I really hope Apple decreases its price. $99/year is too much in my opinion. I'd be willing to pay maybe $39 a year. .Mac has a lot to offer and I really wish I could make use of it, but I don't feel like paying its current price.

Mac Fly (film)
Aug 2, 2006, 01:31 PM
$49 ....$99 is toooooo much!

aricher
Aug 2, 2006, 01:37 PM
$49 ....$99 is toooooo much!

WHAT???? WE COULDN'T HEAR YOU!!! Was that font size some of the new iWeb cut 'n paste HTML?

zelet
Aug 2, 2006, 01:43 PM
The title sums up how I feel about it.

For what it costs you can get so much more elsewhere. What I want are:
1. IMAP that supports the Idle command for true push tech on smart phones
2. Speed. iDisk, webmail, and everything is so freaking slow
3. Cost. For what you pay you aren't getting much. They haven't dramatically improved service for years. Google and others are offering over 2GB of space for free. One would think Apple could compete with a free site.
4. Let me get to my stuff! I should have a web interface for addressbook, mail, and everything else. With the Web 2.0 tech out there - Apple should be able to do that easily for $100 a year.

If it doesn't improve dramatically, I'm dropping them come January when my contract is up.

Project
Aug 2, 2006, 01:44 PM
Really though, the very best thing Apple could do right now is make .Mac free. Or at least bundle it with iLife. It makes complete sense. Get something of a real community using iWeb and .Mac functionality instead of the very small % of people who currently pay every year for the priviledge. Google offers free bookmark syncing, 2.5Gb+ of free email storage, soon to be a GDrive, free online page creation tools etc etc. I see no reason for what is a yearly tax to gain full functionality out of the iLife suite. .Mac cant contribute more than $70m a year to the balance sheet. I would sacrifice that for greater usage of what is a nicely integrated experience for EVERY Mac user. Then we would evangelise how great this service is to others who may be more compelled to switch.

spicyapple
Aug 2, 2006, 01:47 PM
I'm going to have to do a plug for Siteground (http://www.siteground.com) web hosting, simply because for $118 for two years, you get 24 GB of webspace, 800 GB of bandwidth, a domain name and Fantastico support for any number of free and open source CMS and web publishing tools that makes .Mac look like a rip-off that it is. :eek:

I have 3 domains hosted with them, and run a few community discussion boards and photo galleries.

Some_Big_Spoon
Aug 2, 2006, 01:53 PM
If you look at .mac as being part of iWeb, and vice versa (I use iWeb with .mac, and with non-.mac), then yes, it's not worth it.

.Mac is amateur hour in my opinion. It's unreliable and unbearably slow. It feels like a holdover from the late 90's. Certainly not on par, or even cloose, to the cutting edge perception of Apple.

I wonder if the even care, or if they make a tidy little profit from .Mac and that's all they want.

michaelrjohnson
Aug 2, 2006, 01:56 PM
For Apple to charge that much for the service, and have that poor of a service record, it's apalling.

I guess I just don't see the value. I registered for my "@mac.com" email address when iTools was released in January of 2000 (I registered on the show floor!), but dropped it once they gave me the option to keep it, only if I wanted to pay for iTools. Right. :rolleyes:

the_ki
Aug 2, 2006, 02:01 PM
.mac should be free. Completely and totally free.

With a combination of Flickr, Blogger, YouTube, Box.net, Gmail, and Google Browser Sync, I can do just about everything .mac does for free. With the advent of MySpace, everyone has a free place to share all their images, videos, and thoughts.

By sticking to this ridiculous .mac subscription thing, Apple is getting so totally screwed. I doubt that .mac is really not giving anyone a reason to switch. But if it was free, like all the other free services, you totally need to buy a Mac to do all this awesome stuff.

If I have to pay $79 a year to keep iLife updated, the stuff I get to do with iLife should be included in the price. And if Apple can do all that Web 2.0 stuff better and more integrated than everyone else, then every update of iLife will fly off the shelves.

Fine -- charge a subscription for extra storage and extra features. Flickr Pro gets you UNLIMITED storage for $25/year. Beat that, Apple.

While I like the idea of a .mac Server so one can roll their own -- a preferences pane that sets up imap, webdav, the synchronizing features, and the remote access features -- the sort of person who would want that probably knows how to read even the nerdiest of posts at MacOSXHints and could roll their own.

Sorry to be so cynical -- I love my Mac so much I could have sex with it -- but the whole .mac model just pisses me off.

michaelrjohnson
Aug 2, 2006, 02:08 PM
I'm trying to figure out how to respond to this post... :D
.mac should be free. Completely and totally free.

With a combination of Flickr, Blogger, YouTube, Box.net, Gmail, and Google Browser Sync, I can do just about everything .mac does for free. With the advent of MySpace, everyone has a free place to share all their images, videos, and thoughts.

By sticking to this ridiculous .mac subscription thing, Apple is getting so totally screwed. I doubt that .mac is really not giving anyone a reason to switch. But if it was free, like all the other free services, you totally need to buy a Mac to do all this awesome stuff.

If I have to pay $79 a year to keep iLife updated, the stuff I get to do with iLife should be included in the price. And if Apple can do all that Web 2.0 stuff better and more integrated than everyone else, then every update of iLife will fly off the shelves.
I agree. The italic portion is especially true.
Fine -- charge a subscription for extra storage and extra features. Flickr Pro gets you UNLIMITED storage for $25/year. Beat that, Apple.

Good point.
...I love my Mac so much I could have sex with it...
Ahem. Whatever floats your boat. ;):D

MacBoobsPro
Aug 2, 2006, 02:12 PM
For Apple to charge that much for the service, and have that poor of a service record, it's apalling.

I guess I just don't see the value. I registered for my "@mac.com" email address when iTools was released in January of 2000 (I registered on the show floor!), but dropped it once they gave me the option to keep it, only if I wanted to pay for iTools. Right. :rolleyes:

Same here. Except I wasnt as priveleged as yourself and didnt sign up on the show floor you posh git! :p

I trialed .mac about 3 months ago and after 1 day of 'playing' I never used it again. Def not worth paying for!

slackersonly
Aug 2, 2006, 02:17 PM
my biggest complaints:

1. storage space of 1GB is waaaaay too small. i have to constantly remove content which is very annoying. I would say 3-5GB would be enough.

2. better iPhoto slideshow integration.

3. better iCal integration.

michaelrjohnson
Aug 2, 2006, 02:17 PM
Same here. Except I wasnt as priveleged as yourself and didnt sign up on the show floor you posh git! :p

It was the only Expo that I've been to... but it was really fun. It was huge that year. I'd go again, but only if I could attend the keynote.

SeaFox
Aug 2, 2006, 03:04 PM
I have only two problems with .Mac, but they're both huge.

1. It's ****** slow. It takes way too long to sync and check mail.

I liked that little issue with the servers a month or so ago where I had to check my email twice becuase the first time it always timed out. Looking over the .Mac message boards, Apple was trying to blame the mail clients for the issue. I had to completely remove the account from my Thunderbird and reenter it to fix the problem eventually, but it didn't start until Apple started having their issues. I think the .Mac server issue corrupted some datebase Thunderbird uses.

2. Web-based capabilities are way too limited. Despite what Apple wants, I'm not always at my Mac.* Therefore, I'd like to be able to do simple things like view my address book and calendar from the .Mac web page. It might even be nice to be able to add new contacts and events there.

That's one of my biggest gripes, too. You should know if you sync your address book with .Mac you can view your address book from webmail. But I want to be able to create/edit calendars from the .Mac website., do simple PHP in my webpages, ect.

I'd also like the URL's to be a little simpler. Even if they wont do full domain hosting, I'd like subdomains at least (username.mac.com for homepage instead of homepage.mac.com/username). If the blog sites can give users subdomains on free accounts, why can't Apple do it for paying users?

My subscription is up in October. If it's the same then as it is now, I'll be going elsewhere (I voted "no" in the poll).

I voted "no" too. I've already paid for renewal for this october (entered a discounted .Mac box code from Amazon soon after my last renewal).

I'm really finding my MyYahoo services to be closer to what I need. Especially the Calendar.

gauchogolfer
Aug 2, 2006, 04:11 PM
I enjoy my .mac service for the syncing and the @mac.com address, as well as the easy iWeb and photocasting functionality. Although, I always buy my renewals on ebay for around $40-45 rather than $99, so that makes things easier. I'd like to see more functionality in iCal, personally, such that people can subscribe to my calendar and update/make changes if I give them authorization. It would make sharing a calendar between my wife and I easier than starting an entire group on .mac just for the two of us.

TheAnswer
Aug 2, 2006, 05:09 PM
I think instead of changing the price, .Mac users should get a coupon for $50 off of iLife or iWork each year. And they should sell a iLife/.Mac bundle in the stores for $125.

That would encourage users of both .Mac and iLife to renew/upgrade every year.

yankeefan24
Aug 2, 2006, 05:23 PM
This my one gripe with .mac at the moment. For about the last 2.5 years the service has done what I've needed it to and has been fine, although I mostly used it for email. Recently, however, I've been getting quite a lot of spam coming in so I'm much in favour of Apple implementing some server-side spam filtering to get rid of the junk that is coming into my Inbox and which Mail.app is failing to catch.


I agree 100%. Mail.app has caught about 33% of the junk coming into my inbox since July 7. Since July 7, 19 of the 35 junk messages I have on 3 accounts, have been from .Mac.

killr_b
Aug 2, 2006, 07:56 PM
I have only two problems with .Mac, but they're both huge.

1. It's ****** slow. It takes way too long to sync and check mail.

2. Web-based capabilities are way too limited. Despite what Apple wants, I'm not always at my Mac.* Therefore, I'd like to be able to do simple things like view my address book and calendar from the .Mac web page. It might even be nice to be able to add new contacts and events there.

My subscription is up in October. If it's the same then as it is now, I'll be going elsewhere (I voted "no" in the poll).


In the sub-title bar for .Mac there is an address book link. You can view it from any computer.

Where the dates are on the left is the link to iCal online. You can sync your calendars across multiple computers (macs) and your .Mac. The link is the little claculator looking think top right above the dates.

The syncing may be slow do to your service speed. I have 5mb/ sec cable- runs at like, 3mb, and I sync calendars, addresses and bookmarks in litterally seconds. Other stuff can take longer because upload is a small fraction of the speed you get downloading.

SavMan
Aug 2, 2006, 08:12 PM
zelet, CrazyWingman, et al:

:confused: I see a lot of people have never actually logged into the .Mac home page. Your email, iDisk, Address Book, iCals, and Safari bookmarks are all accessible from any computer (Mac, PC, or otherwise) in the world with a current web browser. Just turn syncing on on your home computer(s), and then most of your stuff will always be available from any public terminal or friend's computer. With my four Macs, the syncing abilities have been worth $99 alone.

killr_b
Aug 2, 2006, 08:19 PM
Sorry for the double post.

I have been a .Mac member since March. I got it for the iWeb and .Mac publishing. I got iLife 06 at the same time. I have since upgraded my .Mac to the $199 package for the 250GB transfer limit.

I'm a video guy and learning sound was enough when I started my own thing. But the fact is you have to have a website nowadays, and I really didn't want to learn all that. Even if it is easy.

I made my website with iWeb and have since changed it completely. Now I am really happy with it. Although it is still under construction the most important section for my income :D is working. The ballroom dancesport section. Check it out here... www.fireworksdigital.com (http://www.fireworksdigital.com).

I got my domain name from Go Daddy and had my forwarding set and my site online in about an hour. To me that is an incredible user experience. Unparalled in the M$ or freeware world.

iWeb is rediculously simple. I think if they added features it's because they realize people are more savvy than they though upon it's release. They didn't want to scare anyone, and I think it worked damn good.

If I could take credit cards online with it that would be the bling on top.
I have a merchant account and the customer service will help me make it work and be secure, but .Mac won't do it they said. I know nothing of the internet so, whatever.

In conclusion, iWeb + .Mac makes my life way cooler and easier.
No Myspace. (has myspace page, but NOT for professional business)
Maybe an iWeb Pro. That would be the shizz

zim
Aug 2, 2006, 09:08 PM
zelet, CrazyWingman, et al:

:confused: I see a lot of people have never actually logged into the .Mac home page. Your email, iDisk, Address Book, iCals, and Safari bookmarks are all accessible from any computer (Mac, PC, or otherwise) in the world with a current web browser. Just turn syncing on on your home computer(s), and then most of your stuff will always be available from any public terminal or friend's computer. With my four Macs, the syncing abilities have been worth $99 alone.

Thank you! You saved me from having to type the same. I love my .mac account. My wife and I share an account, no issues, just some recent spam but the same has been happening to my school account too. Having to not have to think about syncing my two computers or worry about ftp etc, just to place some photos for family and friends on line is great but the syncing options are what I love and will willingly keep paying for.

ipedro
Aug 2, 2006, 10:34 PM
Live updating: That's what iWeb should have done from the 1.0 . When Steve demonstrated iWeb last MacWorld, the people in the room, including myself assumed that when he added a Photocast from iPhoto into iWeb, that it would automatically be updated as you changed the photos in that particular iPhoto set.

Photocasting without Live updating on your site is plain useless and so the money I spent for iWeb and .Mac went to waste.

glassbathroom
Aug 3, 2006, 03:41 AM
I am sure that iWeb will be updated and that it will be cool. However there is no way that they are going to talk about this in the WWDC Keynote. They will leave iLife 07 until January.

gauchogolfer
Aug 3, 2006, 03:51 AM
Live updating: That's what iWeb should have done from the 1.0 . When Steve demonstrated iWeb last MacWorld, the people in the room, including myself assumed that when he added a Photocast from iPhoto into iWeb, that it would automatically be updated as you changed the photos in that particular iPhoto set.

Photocasting without Live updating on your site is plain useless and so the money I spent for iWeb and .Mac went to waste.

I didn't assume that, actually. When photocasting was demonstrated, he clearly said that it is an iPhoto->iPhoto interaction, and in fact has nothing at all to do with iWeb. The whole point of photocasting is that you subscribe to an album on someone else's iphoto library, which is continuously updated. It works for me like a charm.

netdog
Aug 3, 2006, 03:57 AM
zelet, CrazyWingman, et al:

:confused: I see a lot of people have never actually logged into the .Mac home page. Your email, iDisk, Address Book, iCals, and Safari bookmarks are all accessible from any computer (Mac, PC, or otherwise) in the world with a current web browser. Just turn syncing on on your home computer(s), and then most of your stuff will always be available from any public terminal or friend's computer. With my four Macs, the syncing abilities have been worth $99 alone.

I totally agree. Sure, there are cheaper providers for IMAP mail like Fastmail, but .Mac offers great Mac integration across multiple machines with Web-accessible copies as well, all in one easy package, and for what is a very cheap tab per month.

I want this for free. I want that for free. Apple has never been the cheapest for anything. You want it for free? Go get it elsewhere.

the_ki
Aug 4, 2006, 07:27 AM
I totally agree. Sure, there are cheaper providers for IMAP mail like Fastmail, but .Mac offers great Mac integration across multiple machines with Web-accessible copies as well, all in one easy package, and for what is a very cheap tab per month.

I want this for free. I want that for free. Apple has never been the cheapest for anything. You want it for free? Go get it elsewhere.

Fine, I will (http://www.mildmanneredindustries.com/mysync/index.html).

All I'm trying to say is that with so many amazing and free online services that do just about everything that .mac does now, and with the premium we already pay to have sweet-ass computers with the best operating system and yearly updates to the software that enables .mac, I simply can't understand why those services, the sorts of things nearly everyone wants to do with their computers, aren't included.

I'm not being completely selfish here. MySpace gets thousands of new sign-ups every day. Why wouldn't Apple want a piece of that?

But I'm willing to compromise. What if one year of .mac came with a new computer, not 60 days. Dell can't top that, can they? And then Apple should raise the price of iLife to $109 and include a year of .mac with it. Apple should quit saying that they are two different things -- .mac IS your iLife, right? Apple would not only sell more copies of iLife and have more people using .mac, they'd have more people using the LATEST FEATURES of .mac, and that's good marketing for Apple.

Free (or at least much cheaper) .mac doesn't just make sense for me and the other people advocating it on this thread. It makes sense for Apple.

SeaFox
Aug 4, 2006, 12:45 PM
I'm not being completely selfish here. MySpace gets thousands of new sign-ups every day. Why wouldn't Apple want a piece of that?


What an Apples to Oranges comparison that is!

MySpace:


Doesn't provide Internet Email (you can leave comments and send messages to other MySpace users, but that's it).

Is filled with advertising.

Has no capability to sychronize bookmarks or address books (although you can import Hotmail address books for the purpose of locating your contacts MySpace accounts).

Has no file storage.

Has no privacy (practically everything you do is on a publically accessable page) because their business model depends on it.


In short, MySpace does few if any of the things .Mac does. They're pretty much two completely different products.

Maybe the reason Apple wants no part of the MySpace thing is MySpace has no steady revenue! They are a dot-com in the classic sense: give something away for free, pay humongous bandwidth fees, and hope for traffic volume to increase enough that advertising offers come along to support the mess.

I didn't get a .Mac account to see advertising when I'm reading my email, if I did I would just use my Yahoo address for everything. I wanted an IMAP account for its benefits, too.

Zazaban
Aug 5, 2006, 02:31 PM
Well, i've created a webpage on iWeb, but i'm yet to upload it. I'm waiting untill I get .mac. :cool:

.mac should be free. Completely and totally free.

With a combination of Flickr, Blogger, YouTube, Box.net, Gmail, and Google Browser Sync, I can do just about everything .mac does for free. With the advent of MySpace, everyone has a free place to share all their images, videos, and thoughts.

By sticking to this ridiculous .mac subscription thing, Apple is getting so totally screwed. I doubt that .mac is really not giving anyone a reason to switch. But if it was free, like all the other free services, you totally need to buy a Mac to do all this awesome stuff.

If I have to pay $79 a year to keep iLife updated, the stuff I get to do with iLife should be included in the price. And if Apple can do all that Web 2.0 stuff better and more integrated than everyone else, then every update of iLife will fly off the shelves.

Fine -- charge a subscription for extra storage and extra features. Flickr Pro gets you UNLIMITED storage for $25/year. Beat that, Apple.

While I like the idea of a .mac Server so one can roll their own -- a preferences pane that sets up imap, webdav, the synchronizing features, and the remote access features -- the sort of person who would want that probably knows how to read even the nerdiest of posts at MacOSXHints and could roll their own.

Sorry to be so cynical -- I love my Mac so much I could have sex with it -- but the whole .mac model just pisses me off.

I agree. One of the reasons I don't have .mac is the price.

thedbp
Aug 5, 2006, 08:19 PM
I know Apple has a huge love affair with .Mac, it is their service after all so why shouldn't they? But I would be impressed and pleased if they allowed me to use .Mac features without .Mac. If I could install a .Mac server app on my server to sync stuff that would be amazing.
All you need is a simple WebDAV server.
For Backup: http://www.drijf.net/dototto/
For iCal: http://www.gregwestin.com/webdav_for_ical.php
For a general .Mac WebDAV server: http://www.drijf.net/dototto/wwwmac.html

Google is your friend.

I also wish they would incorporate a built-in FTP so I could use it on my own web page and not just .Mac.
You can... Select Publish to Folder, then copy those files to your server. Easy as pie.

As always, its best to RTFM.

thedbp
Aug 5, 2006, 08:24 PM
I agree 100%. Mail.app has caught about 33% of the junk coming into my inbox since July 7. Since July 7, 19 of the 35 junk messages I have on 3 accounts, have been from .Mac.
So I'm not the only one who noticed this? I've been junk mail free for YEARS with .Mac, am VERY careful about where I use my actual address, but for some reason out of the blue, I started getting about 5-15 spams a week since early July. Veddy interestink...

thedbp
Aug 5, 2006, 08:30 PM
I think many people are forgetting the other things .Mac offers:

Tons of free GarageBand loops, samples, etc.

Free/Discounted software offers from 3rd parties

Multimedia training for the OS and a ton of built-in apps and iLife (GREAT for switchers!)

Easy to use web publishing that integrates with your content creation apps

Easy to use, automatic off-site backup

Computer to computer sync of information

Access to bookmarks, address book, mail, calendar any ANY internet-connected device

..... now, I know you could do many of these things using services from a ton of different providers, setting up your own servers, etc. etc. But most normal people don't have the time or inclination. Most people just want it to be easy and have it work. Besides, $99 a year ISN'T THAT MUCH. For someone with not a lot of time on their hands to learn 10 different services for 10 different things and copy/paste content manually between services is simply NOT AN OPTION.

It all comes down to ease of use. Same reason why the iPod reigns over players with more features/lower price. Weird that even Mac fans don't get that yet.

blakbyrd
Aug 5, 2006, 10:14 PM
Weird... I haven't had any issues.
Ditto.