iWeb 2 To Gain 'Live' Functionality

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by MacRumors, Aug 2, 2006.


Are you happy with .Mac?

  1. Yes

    38 vote(s)
  2. No

    44 vote(s)
  3. Don't use .Mac

    64 vote(s)
  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    ThinkSecret posts that the next version of iWeb 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. 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.
  2. spicyapple macrumors 68000


    Jul 20, 2006
    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. :)
  3. shawnce macrumors 65816

    Jun 1, 2004
  4. longofest Editor emeritus


    Jul 10, 2003
    Falls Church, VA
    I've had a ton of issues, but not recently. Earlier this year though, my email CONSTANTLY went down. It was really, really frustrating.
  5. hyperpasta macrumors 6502a


    Aug 1, 2005
    New Jersey
  6. Shasta macrumors member

    Mar 20, 2005
    Upstate/Central NY
    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.

  7. danielwsmithee macrumors 6502a

    Mar 12, 2005
    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.
  8. shelterpaw macrumors regular

    Mar 7, 2006
    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..
  9. dizastor macrumors 6502a


    Dec 27, 2001
    Los Angeles
    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.
  10. danielwsmithee macrumors 6502a

    Mar 12, 2005
    If that were the case it would have been good of them to offer a little bit of notice to their users.
  11. aricher macrumors 68020


    Feb 20, 2004
    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.
  12. Kelmon macrumors 6502a


    Mar 28, 2005
    United Kingdom
    For All That Is Holy, Stop The Spam...

    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.
  13. ShavenYak macrumors member

    Jan 11, 2005
    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.
  14. andiwm2003 macrumors 601


    Mar 29, 2004
    Boston, MA
    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.
  15. CrazyWingman macrumors member

    Dec 14, 2005
    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?
  16. m-dogg macrumors 65816


    Mar 15, 2004
    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.
  17. Some_Big_Spoon macrumors 6502a


    Jun 17, 2003
    New York, NY
    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.
  18. p0intblank macrumors 68030

    Sep 20, 2005
    New Jersey
    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.
  19. Mac Fly (film) macrumors 65816

    Mac Fly (film)

    Feb 12, 2006
  20. aricher macrumors 68020


    Feb 20, 2004
    WHAT???? WE COULDN'T HEAR YOU!!! Was that font size some of the new iWeb cut 'n paste HTML?
  21. zelet macrumors regular

    Oct 29, 2003
    Unreliable, slow, and costs too much for what it is

    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.
  22. Project macrumors 68020

    Aug 6, 2005
    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.
  23. spicyapple macrumors 68000


    Jul 20, 2006
    I'm going to have to do a plug for Siteground 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.
  24. Some_Big_Spoon macrumors 6502a


    Jun 17, 2003
    New York, NY
    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.
  25. michaelrjohnson macrumors 68020

    Aug 9, 2000
    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:

Share This Page