Apple's .Mac Service to be Renamed, Revamped?

[MacRumors]

Apple's .Mac ("dotmac") service is a $99/year set of online tools that provides customers with email (@mac), web hosting, iDisk, backup and sync services. .Mac services are tightly integrated with Apple's existing iLife suite, allowing you to publish content easily from iPhoto, iWeb and iMovie. Apple appears to be poised to rename and revamp this 6 year old service.

Codingrobots reveals that all references to Apple's .Mac service in Mac OS X 10.5.3 have been replaced with a variable... essentially a blank space that can be easily replaced in the future by a software update. The reason for this appears to be that Apple will be rebranding their .Mac service. This renaming plan is actually spelled out in iCal's localizable.strings file:

%@ is the new name of Apple’s online service (was .Mac)

This finding may validate recent whispers that Apple is planning a dramatic .Mac update alongside the iPhone 2.0 release.

In early May, TUAW claimed that .Mac would undergo a complete revamp near WWDC, and include the over-the-air syncing like Exchange and .Mac syncing with Windows. There has already been evidence that .Mac will be begin offering "push" functionality for Mail, Contacts and Calendar items in the iPhone 2.0 firmware, so a WWDC revamp certainly seems possible. Other whispers have suggested that Apple will start offering a discounted .Mac (

Article Link

[Fotek2001]

John Gruber speculates this may be called Mobile Me:

http://www.daringfireball.net

[calle73]

I've been calling my MacBook for Mobile Me for a couple of years now.
Maybe I should have copyrighted it?

Originally Posted by Fotek2001

John Gruber speculates this may be called Mobile Me:

http://www.daringfireball.net

[aLoC]

I think some of the iDisk performance problems are really Finder's fault. I find it works much better when using Terminal.

Finder is probably built on some abstraction where you can drop in different underlying filesystem modules without Finder caring. But this is a bad idea in some ways because it needs to know so it can behave differently for remote filesystems. e.g. merge requests in to one, cancel some more frivolous requests such as live previews.

[bigwig]

Originally Posted by aLoC

I think some of the iDisk performance problems are really Finder's fault. I find it works much better when using Terminal.

Finder's implementation of DAV is a serious bandwidth hog. Dozens of redundant requests. I noticed when I used Finder that I hit daily or monthly bandwidth limits at lightning speed. If you push a megabyte of data to a DAV disk, Finder's overhead easily quintuples it.

[Bonte]

Finally, i hope europeans get a 'snappier' service, i want to use .Mac but its unworkable for me at the moment.

[arkitect]

Originally Posted by Bonte

Finally, i hope europeans get a 'snappier' service, i want to use .Mac but its unworkable for me at the moment.

Hear! Hear!

After so many years of patiently suffering it'd be wonderful to have a decent - read useable - service…

[BTW]

Originally Posted by Bonte

Finally, i hope europeans get a 'snappier' service, i want to use .Mac but its unworkable for me at the moment.

Yeah, it would be nice if service were the same anywhere in the world we go. I look forward to what .Mac will morph into. I wasn't impressed enough in the trail period to extend the subscription. There just wasn't enough value presented.

[atari1356]

I only hope that they don't start requiring .Mac (or whatever it will be called) for some of these iPhone syncing features.

... and I'm still waiting for the ability to sync and edit Notes on the computer, along with a proper "to-do" app. I'm sure there will be 3rd party apps to solve those issues though.

[amac4me]

Bring on the revamp. As a .mac user since 2004, I'm eagerly looking for new features to the service.

[OllyW]

Originally Posted by atari1356

I only hope that they don't start requiring .Mac (or whatever it will be called) for some of these iPhone syncing features.

I only hope that they don't start requiring iPhones for some of these .Mac (or whatever it will be called) features.

[atari1356]

Originally Posted by OllyW

I only hope that they don't start requiring iPhones for some of these .Mac (or whatever it will be called) features.

Touché

[crazedbytheheat]

Originally Posted by atari1356

I only hope that they don't start requiring .Mac (or whatever it will be called) for some of these iPhone syncing features.

... and I'm still waiting for the ability to sync and edit Notes on the computer, along with a proper "to-do" app. I'm sure there will be 3rd party apps to solve those issues though.

OmniGroup is supposedly working on a version of OmniFocus for the iPhone. http://blog.omnigroup.com/2008/03/06...or-the-iphone/

NOTE: I haven't read the whole thread yet, so maybe this is a dup?

[Quillz]

I don't mind the name ".Mac," and it's certainly better than "Mobile Me."

[EagerDragon]

This makes a lot of sense if one of its features is to allow push mail to iPhones.

Given than the vast majority of iPhone owners are Windows users, offering .Mac services to Windows users would be needed.

The current name ".Mac" is not conductive to the windows market.

[JonHimself]

Finally bought .mac yesterday... hopefully any upgrades will be offered to me for free, preferably, but I'd accept a discount to upgrade.
Of course if no option is offered and I have to pay full price, I can assure you I will not bitch about apple being unfair like many others would.

[Reason077]

It's about time. I'd certainly love an easy way to sync my contacts, calendars and to-do's over-the-air. Even if it would just sync wirelessly through my LAN would be a big improvement over having to use the cable.

I think $99 is too much to pay for this service, however. I'm not likely to make much use of .mac's other services. Maybe at a price point closer to $39/yr I'd bite, to save the hassle of manual sync'ing.

[MacFanBoyMike]

Originally Posted by Reason077

It's about time. I'd certainly love an easy way to sync my contacts, calendars and to-do's over-the-air. Even if it would just sync wirelessly through my LAN would be a big improvement over having to use the cable.

I think $99 is too much to pay for this service, however. I'm not likely to make much use of .mac's other services. Maybe at a price point closer to $39/yr I'd bite, to save the hassle of manual sync'ing.

I agree completely, I would have paid $39/yr. But whenever I thought about that nearly $100, I always thought about other things I could really spend the money on!

[deputy_doofy]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I'd pay $49 or $59 for a yearly subscription without the iPhone, but no more than $9.99 or $14.99 with an iPhone subscription.

[samh004]

Originally Posted by hiimamac

$99.00 for life would be more accurate....or maybe free with purchase, 9.99 a year......this would get more .mac users in a flash.

.mac is pretty cool. I have my own website, so know what .mac is missing but for web gallery and insta-website, its pretty cool.

iweb needs more control, flash, (integrated) and ability to make your own templates like dreamweaver, iweb needs to be deeper but still easy to use.
Something tells me, .mac and iphone along with revamped iweb is in store.

iWeb definitely needs to be updated, but that's more so a part of iLife than .Mac.

I can't see $9.99 a year as being a price point they'd go for, however something in between that and what it is now could be possible.

Don't forget they have over 1,000,000 members (announced at one of the keynotes, forget which).

Originally Posted by pimentoLoaf

Syncing with Windows has my vote.

That would be useful, but I hardly see why the name has to change from "mac" just for windows users.

[aLoC]

If Joe is sitting at a Mac, then joe@mac describes that situation. For a Windows user it does not.

[Darkroom]

.mac eats...

why anyone would buy that over a communal ftp server that costs the same but offers a million times more space and bandwidth as well as your own site address (www.mysite.ca, etc.) is beyond me...

now if apple decided that the new .mac was like a communal server that offers a million times more space and badwidth as well as your own site address, on top of integration with iApps, that would be impressive...

[geerlingguy]

Originally Posted by Darkroom

.mac eats...

why anyone would buy that over a communal ftp server that costs the same but offers a million times more space and bandwidth as well as your own site address (www.mysite.ca, etc.) is beyond me...

now if apple decided that the new .mac was like a communal server that offers a million times more space and badwidth as well as your own site address, on top of integration with iApps, that would be impressive...

I, for one, would. The main reason I have it is the simplicity in uploading pictures and sharing them with my family, friends and clients. It's quite simple to set passwords and such, and the layouts are very easy on the eye. Since I use Aperture for my photo organization (and used to use iPhoto), there's no easier way to put my pictures online. The email service is also quite nice, too, as I've not had troubles since the early 2000's, back when Apple made the transition from iTools to .Mac (and those were some troubled times for the service!).

Back then, we argued over whether Apple could keep a $99/year service alive, when there were plenty of free alternatives available. So far they have.

[Preclaro_tipo]

Originally Posted by Darkroom

.mac eats...

why anyone would buy that over a communal ftp server that costs the same but offers a million times more space and bandwidth as well as your own site address (www.mysite.ca, etc.) is beyond me...

now if apple decided that the new .mac was like a communal server that offers a million times more space and badwidth as well as your own site address, on top of integration with iApps, that would be impressive...

So, now I am going to try and justify why i have it. The usual caveats: YMMV, this isn't an complete analysis, I am not happy with .Mac, I am not unhappy enough to leave... but I think about it every year.

It is annoying when someone says $99 for {lists one function of .mac}. I'd pay $39, maybe, for that. etc. .mac, therefore is terrible.

Website hosting:
Godaddy is $4.05 per month for 10 GB storage and 300GB transfer 1yr =$48.60 Plus domain registration and renewal.
[.Mac Value to me equals say $55]
Email Address:
Too many free options
[.Mac Value to me equals say $0]
Backup Software
I really like the back up software, when I used it for work and it was a business deduction it was worth about $99 or more to me b/c equivalent back up programs would be near that price or more.
Now, I can back up without it, but is takes more time and without .Mac i'd probably buy a back up software program, some DVD's and i'd pay for updates every couple years. so ..
[Annual .Mac value to me for back up $20]
Product upload tied into iMovie and iPhoto
Without this tie-in I would just export the movies to QT format and upload to my website hosted at Godaddy. I'd probably buy an FTP client and update it ever couple years to the newest version
[Annual .Mac value to me for easy uploads tied to .Mac service, $10]
iCards
[Value to me $0]
Bookmarks
Value to me $0
iDisk
Value to me $0
Back to my Mac
Value to me $0
Groups
Value to me $0
So, I feel like I have been pretty conservative in my valuation and it is worth about $85 to me, and I pay $99 without discount. So, I am not happy with dot mac (esp. since i don't use it for my work anymore). But is it terrible, kinda, but it is 'nice' and it is convenient to use and not worry about building a webpage just to throw some pics up for grandma or friends. If you wanted to build a page as nice as .mac you would spend some money of the software or you would spent many of your hours building/coding by hand.

Not to be a prick but my wage is pretty good, so I can't justify spending any time building a website or working with a hosting company and Ftp'ing etc if you apply my hourly wage to the time I spend building a website (if not for .mac) the expense gets big, quick.

I feel better to have vented a little. I hope someday i can say .Mac is worth $160 and i pay $99!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-hh]

Originally Posted by Preclaro_tipo

It is annoying when someone says $99 for {lists one function of .mac}. I'd pay $39, maybe, for that. etc. .mac, therefore is terrible.

Website hosting:
Godaddy is $4.05 per month for 10 GB storage and 300GB transfer 1yr =$48.60 Plus domain registration and renewal.
[.Mac Value to me equals say $55]

I shopped around a bit more. Fatcow is $88/year for 1,500GB storage and 15TB/month transfer.

Now I know its unfair to linearize this based on storage capacity, particularly when one's not really able to use it, but for even the 50GB offered in a .mac family account, the value works out to ($88*10/1500) only $3/year.

But considering how many places offer a couple of GB storage for free (photos, etc), maybe a $3/year price really isn't all that far out of line afterall.

Email Address:
Too many free options
[.Mac Value to me equals say $0]

Including the fact that one has to pay for an ISP to be able to connect, and they always include at least one.

Backup Software
I really like the back up software, when I used it for work and it was a business deduction it was worth about $99 or more to me b/c equivalent back up programs would be near that price or more.
Now, I can back up without it, but is takes more time and without .Mac i'd probably buy a back up software program, some DVD's and i'd pay for updates every couple years. so ..
[Annual .Mac value to me for back up $20]

The fallacy here is that if you're into Photography, your iPhoto library is quite likely already larger than the 10GB of storage that .mac offers. Mine's at 60GB and counting. Similarly, it takes a huge honking amount of time to move GB's worth of data through your typical consumer DSL account, so the remote backup service isn't particularly useful...yet. Nor is there really anything that Apple can probably do about it, to push the Verizons and Comcasts ISPs into providing a lot more bandwidth for the buck.


-hh