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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's .Mac Service to be Renamed, Revamped?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I want to be able to deploy Web 2.0 apps on this new iTools site with free .mac email for life.
Stupid names are in vogue
Google- didn't exactly light my fire the first time I heard of it.
Yahoo- sounds childish and like the drink yoohoo or whatever they call it
iPod- No one liked the name when Apple announced it. Now no one cares
Logic Studio- Huh...what's Logic have to do with a Digital Audio Workstation
Names really don't matter. Once a product obtains critical mass it really doesn't matter what the product is called.
Google- didn't exactly light my fire the first time I heard of it.
Yahoo- sounds childish and like the drink yoohoo or whatever they call it
iPod- No one liked the name when Apple announced it. Now no one cares
Logic Studio- Huh...what's Logic have to do with a Digital Audio Workstation
Names really don't matter. Once a product obtains critical mass it really doesn't matter what the product is called.
A very good point indeed, but I would still argue that this is not (quite) the same thing.
The "Wii" name was chosen for many reasons, but one of the main ones was it's very "weirdness." It was more of a purposely silly name than an inadvertent one. I don't think Apple was being "silly" when they registered that name. I think that someone actually thought it was good.
The Wii is also a "silly" game. The whole thing with playing it is about flapping your arms and looking silly and having fun. A funny product name goes quite well with such a device. It appeals to the target demoraphic the same way a black box with flashy lights and a hard-assed name like "X-Box" appeals to 20 something gamers.
I'm still going with the "Advertising executive who is hopelessly stuck in the 1990's and possibly used to work at Microsoft thought this up" theory.
.
Just curious, but just what is that amount and who gets to decide. See, I'm thinking about starting a business and I need to make growth projections and stuff to succeed. Now, if there's a plan or even the possibility that the govt is going to be limiting my profits, growth or success, I need to know exactly where the line is drawn so I can plan for that of even just chuck my whole business plan in the first place.
The amount that is FAIR to the buyer and seller is whatever the FREE market determines. It's an amazingly simple beautiful system that works. Start messing with it and it crumbles. Trying to litigate morals like what is "fair" is ludicrous.
And profits would be a ridiculous measure anyway. If a company is smarter, better run, and leaner, their profit margins could be huge while their competitor charging the same price for the same product could lose money. (see xbox vs. playstation, zune vs. ipod, etc) So then I guess some government panel should decide on the price then, right? There's a good road to go down...
And on greed... Why do you think you have a cool iPod in your hand. Because of a company's greed. Because of a company of stockholders unified desire for success, which, in a company is determined by profits and wealth. That greed created your iPhone, your OSX, and your MacBook, etc. Greed isn't such a dirty word.
Simply having .mac doesn't get you your own domain name. As such, if you want to have your own domain, you're not going to be able to avoid the Domain registration cost.
First, the rates have come way down since then. There's services now where you can get 1,500GB (and 15TB/month bandwidth) for <$8/month. Add the two together and you're at roughly $105/year.
...and this is ignoring the fact that most ISPs provide at least 10MB for free; that's enough to then let you hotlink into free Picasso, Flikr, or whatever free photo webpages, if your objective is merely to save money.
-hh
I recently subscribed to .Mac. I realized that by picking up .Mac cheaper at Amazon, it was not that much more expensive than what I paid for my current webhost, and the benefits of it's integration to Mac's is compelling.
iDisk is a great feature, as better sync comes online and other features I think people may start to dismiss it as too expensive for what it is.
iDisk is a great feature, as better sync comes online and other features I think people may start to dismiss it as too expensive for what it is.
I'm over people speaking badly about dotMac...
Here's the thing: sure you could get all of the services that are offered by dotMac from other places, but it would never work anywhere near as cohesively and seamlessly as it does with dotMac. The point of dotMac is that it's built into the iApps and the OS. I'm so SICK of people talking so much junk about dotMac. Okay we get it: you're a computer geek or wise, web-saavy consumer who can find ways to weave together all of the services yourself with third-party stuff, probably even for free. GOOD FOR YOU! Not everyone else wants to do that. And that is who dotMac was made for.
Listen: It's $8.33 a month! That's $2.08 per week, 27 cents per day! Having an @mac.com email address is worth that alone! Plus you get to sync all your Macs PIM info VERY easily, make some pretty cool websites without having to know HTML and post them using your own domain names.
Seriously, lay off dotMac. If you don't think it's for you, cool, state that. But attacking it and saying that it's worthless to a large community of people whose computing lives have been made easier because of it is just flippin' wrong.
And another thing!...
Just kidding. I'm off my soapbox. For now...
Here's the thing: sure you could get all of the services that are offered by dotMac from other places, but it would never work anywhere near as cohesively and seamlessly as it does with dotMac. The point of dotMac is that it's built into the iApps and the OS. I'm so SICK of people talking so much junk about dotMac. Okay we get it: you're a computer geek or wise, web-saavy consumer who can find ways to weave together all of the services yourself with third-party stuff, probably even for free. GOOD FOR YOU! Not everyone else wants to do that. And that is who dotMac was made for.
Listen: It's $8.33 a month! That's $2.08 per week, 27 cents per day! Having an @mac.com email address is worth that alone! Plus you get to sync all your Macs PIM info VERY easily, make some pretty cool websites without having to know HTML and post them using your own domain names.
Seriously, lay off dotMac. If you don't think it's for you, cool, state that. But attacking it and saying that it's worthless to a large community of people whose computing lives have been made easier because of it is just flippin' wrong.
And another thing!...
Just kidding. I'm off my soapbox. For now...
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.
Including the fact that one has to pay for an ISP to be able to connect, and they always include at least one.
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
Here's the thing: sure you could get all of the services that are offered by dotMac from other places, but it would never work anywhere near as cohesively and seamlessly as it does with dotMac. The point of dotMac is that it's built into the iApps and the OS. I'm so SICK of people talking so much junk about dotMac. Okay we get it: you're a computer geek or wise, web-saavy consumer who can find ways to weave together all of the services yourself with third-party stuff, probably even for free. GOOD FOR YOU! Not everyone else wants to do that. And that is who dotMac was made for.
Listen: It's $8.33 a month! That's $2.08 per week, 27 cents per day! Having an @mac.com email address is worth that alone! Plus you get to sync all your Macs PIM info VERY easily, make some pretty cool websites without having to know HTML and post them using your own domain names.
Seriously, lay off dotMac. If you don't think it's for you, cool, state that. But attacking it and saying that it's worthless to a large community of people whose computing lives have been made easier because of it is just flippin' wrong.
And another thing!...
Just kidding. I'm off my soapbox. For now...
I agree, see my post on page 8, I wrote more and said less. thnx
I've been hanging on to .Mac since 2005 and have been using it in very limited cases. I've definitely been using the web gallery feature since that was announced. But I am really looking forward to the new upgrades they have in store, this is long overdue.
I suspect that the reason Linux is a "hodgepodge of stuff" is because there's so many versions of it, and there's so many versions of it because of its open source and open development heritage. There's no one person who says "this is the way we're going to do it," so people go off in their own direction making what they like for their tastes.
That differs from Apple's implementation of unix in that Apple has one ultimate voice in the end, Steve Jobs, who says yay or nay to every aspect of the user interface. There's nothing like that in Linux world.
There's nothing wrong with either model. You pick the OS that fits your style and price and live it.
- bad product names since 2008
I'm intrigued. Because I'm getting the new iPhone but I'm going to have to really see whats up with this new .Mac. I don't use the current .mac but we'll see if Apple can convince me to give them more of my money. The name really doesn't matter. I wonder if it's going to have a wicked cool logo.
I voted negative just for the hell of it.
I believe Yahoo's original name was worse.
iPod makes sense if one looks up the meaning of the word pod.
Logic is an audio sequencer isn't it? Sequence, logic, makes sense.
I voted negative just for the hell of it.
Isn't Google a math inside joke for a project created by two computer science nerds?
I believe Yahoo's original name was worse.
iPod makes sense if one looks up the meaning of the word pod.
Logic is an audio sequencer isn't it? Sequence, logic, makes sense.
As one of the 'naysayers', my basic point is that having embraced iPhoto and iMovie that in just 3 years, I've outgrown what I would want to use .mac for.
It doesn't help that I'm utterly pissed off that Apple has purposefully crippled iWeb by not having its website synchronization feature not work for any domain except for .mac
And its not about money for me: it is about value. I'm currently spending roughly $300/year to run my domains on services-other-than-.mac Why? because they average out to having 40x more storage at 25% lower price per domain than what Apple offers.
Thus, it is plain as day to me that Apple can do much better, so why should I accept this product in its current form?
I've been an Apple customer for 20+ years beause of their products which leads to being a better value. Its not because I'm some Windows-esque lemming. When an Apple product isn't up to snuff, as a consumer, I reject it by voting with my wallet. Maybe .mac makes the grade for you, but for my consumer expectations, and what I'm spending my money currently on, .mac simply isn't a good enough value for my needs. I hope that it will become a better value next week, but time will tell. In the meantime, I expect that the next time that Apple gets my money is right after the next Mac Pro update.
-hh
Just nitpicking but...
Everything should not be free but everything *could* be free!
Okay, maybe not everything...
But with a tad of geekness (or a good slice of it), one can easily set a similar service on his/her own mac... So, that is as free as it can be. But seeing how most of the .Mac users love the "ease of use" of the service, I guess setting up your own server kind of defeat the purpose for them... Hence, the .Mac alternative.
Plus, as mentioned above, you can easily get plenty of Web storage for cheap these days (exculding the domain name/registration). Use rsync or a Automator plugin and your (almost) golden!
And by the way, you are right about the fact that companies must make profits these days but they still do not have to automaticly pass the bill to the end-user. Gmail, Flickr, Box.net, X-Cal comes in mind. They never had a penny from me even if I'm using them quite a lot since... forever!
Cheers