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

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

wow, if they made it free for iPhone users I would use my $99 to by a ton of doves and have them released as I run out of my house and jump into the air with my fist up high playing eye of the tiger in the background.



Yeah, that's what I would do :)
 
I used to have a .MAC account

I used to have a .MAC account and just kept it for the one year that i paid for.
I have to admit i did like having a .MAC address and that was about where it ended. I felt that I had very little use for what it had to offer at such a high price and it was a luxury i could well afford to live without. Especially now that Googlemail is offering a really good email service with quite a good service for free. Maybe the new service will be part of the new i-phone package,who knows?
 
While I always liked the name .Mac is plays havoc on trying to web searches. The dot gets ignored. Also, in the Mac itself the dot prefix indicates an invisible file.

Changing the name opens up the possibility of marketing the service to iPhone users that don't have Macs at home.

BTW: How does a PC owner sync their contacts now?
 
Yep. Except it wouldn't be a profit in the same sense. Actually if you really wanted to make an analogy, the profit would be the money you placed in your savings or retirement acct at the end of the year after your expenses. Food, shelter, transportation, etc. And let's remember that corporations don't ever, ever, ever pay a penny in taxes. Raise the taxes on companies and you simply raise the price of the product. Period. Lower taxes and you'll lower the price of a product. (If one company doesn't lower their prices, then their competition will - the market will always decide on the actual fair price of the product)

I could've gone on all day but what's the point. I was young and supposedly idealistic in my day too. But the problem is seeing things superficially. It's a sort of class envy: "These corporations are making big profits and I'm not rich! I couldn't be doing anything wrong. They must be greedy (read evil) and therefore me, in my poor state, must not be greedy and therefore good and saintly. Lets persecute evil! " People should spend their time trying to be a success or enjoying the success they're comfortable with. It doesn't take much to get by in America. But people tend to live beyond their means. Cell phones, cable tv, expensive cars (leased no doubt), etc. If you can afford that stuff then great. But don't complain you can't afford food or gas while playing playstation on the internet while watching cable tv.

To get back to idealism, I'm not so young and idealistic anymore. I basically found that I wasn't idealistic, I was mostly wrong or ignorant. I thoght that people or companies "should" do this or should want to do that and if they didn't they were just evil or greedy and should be punished with punitive damages or laws that don't allow this that or the other or force them to do this that or the other. After all, I was right and they're wrong. The only one that wins in that scenario is the politicians that feed off our envy. Vote for me and I'll MAKE so and so do this or that. Vote for me and I'll give you this or that. To do all those things the govt needs to rob from someone else to give to someone. (Ambulance chasing attorneys are a perfect analogy and somehow we all agree on their character!) The govt creates no product. Makes no profits. The money comes from the people. As long as they have the power to take from one and give to the other, then they'll use and extend that power to get elected. But what works better, punitive measures or positive reinforcement and reward? A dog may not dig a hole for fear of getting smacked, but he'll jump through hoops for a treat or praise. Companies need incentives. People need incentives. Limiting success or profits is nothing more than punishing success and removing incentive. We should be free to do what we want when and how we want to do it, AS LONG AS it doesn't infringe on another person's right to do so as well. That's it. There's not much grey area there and probably 90% of our laws follow that guideline. Aside from a few cultural oddities that's basically what the constitution says. Let's treat our rules, regulations and tax system the same way and our economy will be the envy of every country out there. And that's GOOD!


I love capitalism too!
 
I am glad I don't need to renew until June 20. I get to see what is going to happen while not wasting (potentially) any money.
 
I am glad I don't need to renew until June 20. I get to see what is going to happen while not wasting (potentially) any money.

Agreed. I got the email a few days ago that I am up for payment in the next 30 days. I will barely get in for the conference

I am going to keep my email address at @mac.com if possible

I have TOO MUCH invested in the email address at the moment to change it
 
.Mac storage space increased?

I've just registered for a free trial with .Mac (I wanted to get an email address registered before the flood gates opened) and I've got 100GB of disk space. The site says I should only get 10GB.

Is this a sign of things to come?

EDIT: Sorry, got over-excited and misread it, I only get 100MB. Ignore all that.
 
The capitalistic system brings good and bad (iPod and Zune, for example)... But, things like "high profits:ROI" are an incentive that a corporation provides its investors (shareholders). Without, return, growth, etc. there would be no investors, No Apple, no Apple resellers, fewer jobs, no corporate and individual income taxes for the government (and supposedly the benefit of the people). In our system (the most successful the world has known), companies are in business to make a profit-- without that there is no company. Profitability is a measure-- in general, better companies are more profitable.
?

Well said!
Yes, there is, likely, some greed in the capitalistic system-- but it appears to me that the employers are not the big culprits. Rather, it is the politicians who subsidize this or that activity to further their own interests (power). And, it is we, the individual citizens who are to blame-- we let them do it to us.

I love capitalism too!

I could've gone on all day but what's the point. I was young and supposedly idealistic in my day too. But the problem is seeing things superficially. It's a sort of class envy: "These corporations are making big profits and I'm not rich! I couldn't be doing anything wrong. They must be greedy (read evil) and therefore me, in my poor state, must not be greedy and therefore good and saintly. Lets persecute evil! " People should spend their time trying to be a success or enjoying the success they're comfortable with. It doesn't take much to get by in America. But people tend to live beyond their means. Cell phones, cable tv, expensive cars (leased no doubt), etc. If you can afford that stuff then great. But don't complain you can't afford food or gas while playing playstation on the internet while watching cable tv.

To get back to idealism, I'm not so young and idealistic anymore. I basically found that I wasn't idealistic, I was mostly wrong or ignorant. I thoght that people or companies "should" do this or should want to do that and if they didn't they were just evil or greedy and should be punished with punitive damages or laws that don't allow this that or the other or force them to do this that or the other. After all, I was right and they're wrong. The only one that wins in that scenario is the politicians that feed off our envy. Vote for me and I'll MAKE so and so do this or that. Vote for me and I'll give you this or that. To do all those things the govt needs to rob from someone else to give to someone. (Ambulance chasing attorneys are a perfect analogy and somehow we all agree on their character!) The govt creates no product. Makes no profits. The money comes from the people. As long as they have the power to take from one and give to the other, then they'll use and extend that power to get elected. But what works better, punitive measures or positive reinforcement and reward? A dog may not dig a hole for fear of getting smacked, but he'll jump through hoops for a treat or praise. Companies need incentives. People need incentives. Limiting success or profits is nothing more than punishing success and removing incentive. We should be free to do what we want when and how we want to do it, AS LONG AS it doesn't infringe on another person's right to do so as well. That's it. There's not much grey area there and probably 90% of our laws follow that guideline. Aside from a few cultural oddities that's basically what the constitution says. Let's treat our rules, regulations and tax system the same way and our economy will be the envy of every country out there. And that's GOOD!

I want to keep this short and not devolve this thread into a huge economic debate. But, let's get some things straight here. I don't think ANYONE is arguing against the merits and mechanisms of capitalism and wanting for the state to own the means of production. So starting from that perspective, I also believe that the private sector is much more efficient than the state at managing resources, implementing ideas, etc. And I surely don't pretend to be an expert in economics with a poorly remembered undergrad course in macro-econ, nor do I advocate any specific economic or tax platform or policies. The global market and financial "system" is probably much too complicated for any one mortal to understand completely.

With the fear of sounding too abstract and idealistic, all I really know is that the widening gap between rich and poor in this country is too large, with the middle class getting screwed and many basic needs (read: healthcare) of all the citizens not being properly met. Meanwhile tens and even hundreds of billions of dollars are being squandered on illegitimate war, an enormous global military complex, vast corporate subsidies and corporate welfare, and an unimaginable volume of non-merit based and incredibly wasteful pork barrel spending projects. That said, I am not advocating total socialism and I recognize that there are many systemic problems with the current system of social welfare, from medicare/medicaid inefficiency and waste to the rampant abuse of the welfare and unemployment systems.

I am not going to pretend to have all the answers to these major problems, but everyone needs to recognize that the primary cause of all of this is the sheer laziness and apathy of American citizens that precludes them from getting involved in political affairs or even being responsible citizens by being knowledgeable about important issues and doing proper research on who is the best candidate for the job. Much too often, people are driven by single ideological issues or political party affiliation. This creates a hostile environment where even the worst of characters can repeatedly get re-elected, all the while continuing to vote against the interests of all Americans and maintaining this environment of waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers money, where only the politicians and their special interest corporate cronies win, and every American loses.

The Gini Index is a complex statistical measure of a society's equality of wealth distribution. Basically, it reveals how the middle class compares to the poorest and richest in the country, and the level of income disparity between the citizens. It is not a simple equation, and there are many elements involved in determining the final number, which is a number between 1 and 100. (For a quick overview of how it works, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index )
Now, remember that this index is a relative measure of income distribution, so a country with a higher average standard of living can have a higher Gini number than a poorer country. In essence, this means that the relative gap between the richest and poorest in that country is a larger or "the rich are richer and the poor are poorer".

The United States Gini Index and thus the inequality and concentration of wealth has been increasing since the figure was measured starting in the 1960s. For the most recent reporting year (2007), the United States CIA-reported estimated Gini index is 45. To see how this compares to other countries, I have pasted in a list. This list is sorted by the CIA's reported Gini Index from low (good) to high (bad).

Here's a portion of the list surrounding many western countries:

  • Sweden 23
  • Denmark 24
  • Slovenia 24
  • Iceland 25
  • Luxembourg 26
  • Czech Republic 26
  • Finland 26
  • Slovakia 26
  • Austria 26
  • Albania 26.7
  • Norway 28
  • Hungary 28
  • Germany 28
  • France 28
  • Belgium 28
  • Cyprus 29
  • Croatia 29
  • Belarus 29
  • Serbia 30
  • Kyrgyzstan 30.3
  • Pakistan 30.6
  • European Union 30.7
  • Netherlands 30.9
  • Ukraine 31
  • Romania 31
  • Bulgaria 31.6
  • Ireland 32
  • Spain 32
  • Canada 32.1
  • UK 34
.....

And here is the portion surrounding the United States of America:
  • Burundi 42.4
  • Singapore 42.5
  • Iran 43
  • Nicaragua 43.1
  • Guyana 43.2
  • Turkey 43.6
  • Nigeria 43.7
  • Kenya 44.5
  • Philippines 44.5
  • Cameroon 44.6
  • Côte d'Ivoire 44.6
  • United States 45
  • Uruguay 45.2
  • Jamaica 45.5
  • Uganda 45.7
  • Ecuador 46
  • Mexico 46.1
  • Malaysia 46.1
  • Rwanda 46.8

I don't pretend to have all the answers, I am just trying to raise awareness. For more information, see:

UN institute of development economics research:
http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/Database/en_GB/wiid/
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm
http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=445
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
 
I want to keep this short and not devolve this thread into a huge economic debate. But, let's get some things straight here. I don't think ANYONE is arguing against the merits and mechanisms of capitalism and wanting for the state to own the means of production. So starting from that perspective, I also believe that the private sector is much more efficient than the state at managing resources, implementing ideas, etc. And I surely don't pretend to be an expert in economics with a poorly remembered undergrad course in macro-econ, nor do I advocate any specific economic or tax platform or policies. The global market and financial "system" is probably much too complicated for any one mortal to understand completely.

With the fear of sounding too abstract and idealistic, all I really know is that the widening gap between rich and poor in this country is too large, with the middle class getting screwed and many basic needs (read: healthcare) of all the citizens not being properly met. Meanwhile tens and even hundreds of billions of dollars are being squandered on illegitimate war, an enormous global military complex, vast corporate subsidies and corporate welfare, and an unimaginable volume of non-merit based and incredibly wasteful pork barrel spending projects. That said, I am not advocating total socialism and I recognize that there are many systemic problems with the current system of social welfare, from medicare/medicaid inefficiency and waste to the rampant abuse of the welfare and unemployment systems.

I am not going to pretend to have all the answers to these major problems, but everyone needs to recognize that the primary cause of all of this is the sheer laziness and apathy of American citizens that precludes them from getting involved in political affairs or even being responsible citizens by being knowledgeable about important issues and doing proper research on who is the best candidate for the job. Much too often, people are driven by single ideological issues or political party affiliation. This creates a hostile environment where even the worst of characters can repeatedly get re-elected, all the while continuing to vote against the interests of all Americans and maintaining this environment of waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers money, where only the politicians and their special interest corporate cronies win, and every American loses.

The Gini Index is a complex statistical measure of a society's equality of wealth distribution. Basically, it reveals how the middle class compares to the poorest and richest in the country, and the level of income disparity between the citizens. It is not a simple equation, and there are many elements involved in determining the final number, which is a number between 1 and 100. (For a quick overview of how it works, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index )
Now, remember that this index is a relative measure of income distribution, so a country with a higher average standard of living can have a higher Gini number than a poorer country. In essence, this means that the relative gap between the richest and poorest in that country is a larger or "the rich are richer and the poor are poorer".

The United States Gini Index and thus the inequality and concentration of wealth has been increasing since the figure was measured starting in the 1960s. For the most recent reporting year (2007), the United States CIA-reported estimated Gini index is 45. To see how this compares to other countries, I have pasted in a list. This list is sorted by the CIA's reported Gini Index from low (good) to high (bad).

Here's a portion of the list surrounding many western countries:

  • Sweden 23
  • Denmark 24
  • Slovenia 24
  • Iceland 25
  • Luxembourg 26
  • Czech Republic 26
  • Finland 26
  • Slovakia 26
  • Austria 26
  • Albania 26.7
  • Norway 28
  • Hungary 28
  • Germany 28
  • France 28
  • Belgium 28
  • Cyprus 29
  • Croatia 29
  • Belarus 29
  • Serbia 30
  • Kyrgyzstan 30.3
  • Pakistan 30.6
  • European Union 30.7
  • Netherlands 30.9
  • Ukraine 31
  • Romania 31
  • Bulgaria 31.6
  • Ireland 32
  • Spain 32
  • Canada 32.1
  • UK 34
.....

And here is the portion surrounding the United States of America:
  • Burundi 42.4
  • Singapore 42.5
  • Iran 43
  • Nicaragua 43.1
  • Guyana 43.2
  • Turkey 43.6
  • Nigeria 43.7
  • Kenya 44.5
  • Philippines 44.5
  • Cameroon 44.6
  • Côte d'Ivoire 44.6
  • United States 45
  • Uruguay 45.2
  • Jamaica 45.5
  • Uganda 45.7
  • Ecuador 46
  • Mexico 46.1
  • Malaysia 46.1
  • Rwanda 46.8

I don't pretend to have all the answers, I am just trying to raise awareness. For more information, see:

UN institute of development economics research:
http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/Database/en_GB/wiid/
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm
http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=445
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

You do realize this is a Mac forum, right?
 
I still think they should go back to calling it iTools and charging the original amount for it they did before, aka $0. :D

Like that'll ever happen, but didn't they used to say you were buying the right to use iTools when you purchased a copy of the OS... was it OS 9 at that point?
 
It's kind of spooky to call your place on the net your "me," as if it is identical to you *shiver*.

"iHome" would be very Apple-ish and also consistent with Unix terminology.
 
It's kind of spooky to call your place on the net your "me," as if it is identical to you *shiver*.

"iHome" would be very Apple-ish and also consistent with Unix terminology.

iHome , iTools ...whatever ..ANYTHING is better than 'mobile me' -I mean , come on !!!
 
iHome" would be very Apple-ish and also consistent with Unix terminology.

I hadn't thought of that, makes a lot of sense! Even if OS X uses a non-standard "/Users/" folder instead of "/home/". :rolleyes:

I really think "me" is a bad idea for branding. And no, that wasn't a sentence with poor grammar implying I myself am bad, though I guess that's also up for debate.

name@me just looks cheesy.
 
mobile me
comeon, lt reminds me the windows me....which was one of the most horrible nightmares in my computer life.

terrible.

Anyway.
Dot mac is too slow here. uploading photos through iWeb would take around 3-4 hours even if I have got 200 photo sth. before any upgrades on its function, I wish to have a speed bump.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

wow, if they made it free for iPhone users I would use my $99 to by a ton of doves and have them released as I run out of my house and jump into the air with my fist up high playing eye of the tiger in the background.



Yeah, that's what I would do :)

Remind me not to be in your neighborhood. ;)
 
Dot mac is too slow here. uploading photos through iWeb would take around 3-4 hours even if I have got 200 photo sth. before any upgrades on its function, I wish to have a speed bump.


Are good transfer speeds only available in U.S.A. ? & what is considered a good transfer speed for this type of service ?
 
Related event??

From Apple

".Mac Mail on the web is temporarily unavailable. Please try again soon.
.Mac customer support can be found at http://www.apple.com/support/dotmac"

And...


"100% of members might experience slower than normal response when using IMAP mail. Mail can be sent and received using .Mac webmail. Normal service will be restored ASAP."


oh yes, just noticed that ... they are testing some good stuff.

This is news, by the way, forget about the 3G iPhone !!!
 
Related event??

From Apple

".Mac Mail on the web is temporarily unavailable. Please try again soon.
.Mac customer support can be found at http://www.apple.com/support/dotmac"

And...


"100% of members might experience slower than normal response when using IMAP mail. Mail can be sent and received using .Mac webmail. Normal service will be restored ASAP."


This has Page 2 potential imo .

Judging by the message from Apple, it looks like a prepared message for a pre planned outage specifically targeting mail and probably in preparation needed for upcoming changes to the service this following monday/tuesday.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top