.Mac Upgrades Bandwidth limit to 1TB

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Dec 31, 2005.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1
  2. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    #2
    1 TB of Bandwidth?

    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.
     
  3. Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #3
    No. It's still too expensive of a service.
     
  4. Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #4
    Amazing bandwidth allowance...shame the "hosting" is complete crap :rolleyes: (no php, no mysql, no nothing).
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    amacgenius

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    #5
    Wow 1TB of bandwidth, maybe MR should host the forums on a .Mac account :p.
     
  6. Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors 603

    aswitcher

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra OZ
    #7

    I agree.

    I also think using it to Podcast is a likely new option from Apple this year (2006 downunder now ;) )
     
  8. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #8
    Yay, I hope this applies to iDisk too, wasn't looking forward to having a dedicated WebDAV swerver.
     
  9. macrumors 603

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #9
    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.
     
  10. sjk
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Location:
    Eugene
    #10
    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.
     
  11. Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Location:
    Hobart, Australia
    #12
    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. :)
     
  13. sjk
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Location:
    Eugene
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    skoker

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2005
    #14

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

    I wish they had PHP, I'd switch in a flash.
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    asif786

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK.
    #15
    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..
     
  16. akb
    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    What was the bandwidth previously?
     
  17. macrumors 68020

    dubbz

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    Alta, Norway
    #17
    Maybe they could introduce power.mac, with PHP, mySQL, more diskspace, and other options for power users.
     
  18. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Ut
    #18
    You think it is for the rumored front row 2 with online storage instead of on the hard drive?
     
  19. Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #19
    What would that cost? $200 a year? :rolleyes:
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Location:
    Eindhoven
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    #21
    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.
     
  22. Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #22

    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... :)
     
  23. sjk
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Location:
    Eugene
    #23
    And iSync, although MySync brings hope of eliminating that .Mac dependency (with Sync Services on 10.4).

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

Share This Page