Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Rumor: .Mac relaunch to coincide with iPhone 2.0?

tuaw.com — According to our anonymous tipster, .Mac will undergo a complete revamp that will coincide with the iPhone 2.0 launch (which everyone expect to occur at WWDC 08).

Bury

Eric1285 7 days ago, made popular 6 days ago

866 diggs
digg it

Scott31182, on 05/09/2008, -7/+20cant wait for iphone 2.0
- KaiUno, on 05/09/2008, -10/+4Why? Are you holding your breath?
  - Mossa, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2I think he was using a pejorative imperative or should I say u pejorative imperative in which case he's uslo missing u "!"
    - ligyron, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Ah
- willynilly, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1Yeah, maybe we'll be able to do crazy stuff like delete multiple E-mail messages.
KentuckyDawg, on 05/09/2008, -3/+21I hope they also make .mac price "included" with the purchase of an iPhone
- ryanmm, on 05/09/2008, -2/+11wont ever happen
- tracydanger, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5How strange that it won't ever happen since Steve Jobs said on stage (when introducing .Mac) that it will always be free. Maybe in June, if they re-vamp it, he could appologize for not keeping that promise & tell everyone it's free agian.
  - meatmcguffin, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx3GkhvMY-k
    
    I laughed at the 20 megs of storage part
  - johnpaul191, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3iTools was free when it was announced, and in the same speech mentioned something about getting a mac.com email address and you could keep it forever. they never said the email address would be free forever. that's just how everyone reported it, they were probably too giddy with their liveblogging to pay better attention. Apple/SJ never said .Mac they would be free. The shift of the name from iTools to .Mac was when it became a pay service.
    go back and watch the full presentation and you can see how Apple presented it. Of course Apple knew somewhere that they may have to end the free service. it's unfortunate, but what made iTools cool and easy to use was also what made it so people were using it to store warez etc. The cross platform usability meant that it could be used by anyone, so it was not just Mac customers taking advantage of the service.
    Trash talk Apple customers all you want but the fact is that there is evidence that they are more honest than their MS using counterparts. Before iTMS was cross platform, the small minority of computer users with Macs were buying significantly more digital music than every other digital music store combined. that's just a flat out fact. spin that how you want, but the sales numbers were the proof.
    - HonoredMule, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Well here's my spin: you are suggesting that there is a strong correlation between consumer honesty and consumer's preference for Mac hardware. I think that's utterly preposterous. The disparity is far more easily explained by noting that iTunes' success had nothing to do with Apple hardware or Mac OS, but that it was doing a good job of opening a new market where competition lacked either the drive or the influence (iPods, corporate clout) to do the same. Digital sales on the Mac were much higher because you had to be on a Mac to be targeted as a consumer or even have an accessible portal to the market at all. You might as well be suggesting that there's a correlation between honesty and drinking Coke instead of Pepsi.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure it will become part of the iPhone package -- like visual voicemail. There is enough added benefit to having a reference platform and a new user that will subsidize any lost revenue from the normal fee.
  
  I really hope Jobs open-sources the .mac platform for iPhone. What he will lose in copy-cats, he will gain in making the iPhone the NEW PLATFORM. Kind of how iTunes actually makes money from the iPod -- and not so much from selling music.
  
  Looking at rumored new chips for full-speed dual channel video and the tri-fecta of components for making the next iPhone the most powerful hand-held gaming platform. Well -- I don't think it is hyperbole to say that this is just like the launch of the personal computer, and that Apple will be the next "Microsoft" of the new platform. In two years, they will be talking about "Apple's Monopoly on mobile communication/entertainment devices."
  
  Steve Jobs is looking to make this device -- and the lack-luster but soon to be powerful AppleTV, THE place where you put your media, waste your time, and do your business.
  
  It all depends on if the Phone Companies jump on board for a reasonable "unlimited access" plan -- probably with WiMax and not normal cell technology doing the heavy lifting in cities. Then you wouldn't need your home connection or your work connection.
  - HonoredMule, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1"In two years, they will be talking about "Apple's Monopoly on mobile communication/entertainment devices."
    
    Microsoft gained their position in a complete absence of competition. There's no chance of that happening again, at least not in this particular situation. Many other companies already have a strong presence in the mobile market (RIM, Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, Microsoft) and many more have a strong interest in it (Google, Palm, etc.). Everyone knows what is at stake, and Apple's entry to the market is far from unopposed, nor is the iPhone that big a hitter in the grand scheme of things. For every iPhone fan anticipating Apple's next generation of innovation, there's a few people who would rather have the next generation of Blackberry, or an Android-based phone, or a more advanced Chocolate, or who wonder why gaming/applications on a phone is supposed to be so great when the nGage failed miserably, or who hold that anything superseding the phone's function as "a phone" makes it a really lousy phone.
    
    To pull a Microsoft, you have to conquer a "surprise" market. Otherwise, you'll never reach a point far enough ahead where you can adequately hinder competition and maintain your position.
GCarden, on 05/09/2008, -3/+13Normally I don't go along with the Apple rumors, but just today I got a poll via email from Apple asking me, among other things, how much I'd pay for each individual feature of .Mac.
- osage, on 05/09/2008, -0/+8how did u reply? And a link to that poll would be great!
  - ryanmm, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2I also would like to see that...
- drlha, on 05/09/2008, -1/+11I hope your reply was "$0" because I can get all these features for free from Google/Yahoo etc.
  - luchid, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Exactly. Apple should ask google for help on that.
  - PabloMac, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Not quite all those features.
  - johnpaul191, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3With Google you are subsidized by ads. Apple has kept away from that. Some people hate ads enough that they will pay $100/year or whatever it is. The google stuff is also sketchy with Macs/Safari. Obviously not an issue for everyone, but .Mac just works.
    - drlha, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4What google stuff is sketchy with Macs/Safari exactly? It all works perfectly on my Mac.
- mike17032, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Yep, same here.
- willynilly, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2.Mac is already used as an excuse not to fix several glaring functional omissions from Apple software; for example, the inability to export E-mail filters in order to use them on multiple machines. Let's not encourage further use of this fee-based service as a crutch.
mechcon, on 05/09/2008, -9/+5Finally, .Mac more value for money :D Not that it isn't bad value already..
- saggygrandma, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4yeah im a subscriber and its has been wearing thin lately, especially with gmail etc getting imap support.
  Looking forward to some improvements.
- TheWorm, on 05/09/2008, -3/+8It's a bad value.
insomniacal, on 05/09/2008, -2/+6Here's hoping for .Mac at reduced cost -- or even free? I'm a Mac fan but use Google's online tools simply because they're free. Apple can increase .Mac value for money through incrementally new features -- or they can slash the cost in half, thereby doubling value for money. Honestly, I'd take the latter.
- alecks, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Google's free because of add revenue. I don't really see apple putting adds on .mac to make it free for you.
  - insomniacal, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Hey, I said I'd accept half price.
    
    Still, why not free? Apple's making so much money off music and iPods -- imagine how many more Mac switchers they'd get if those people knew there was a free cloud service bundled in.
  - barnett25, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I agree. I could see them pushing that as a feature for their computers.
mvanhorn, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6I pray they give me some value for .mac... I refuse to give up that email address, but they are certainly making a good case right now for me to phase it out..
- tracydanger, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3Its hard to see .mac as anything other than Apple screwing people. The only people I know with a .Mac account keep it because they don't wanna lose their email address. It seems like people got screwed since, when it was first introduced, people were told (by Steve) that it would always be free - go watch it on youtube. I use free google stuff too (just the other day I figured out how to sync iCal with google calendar - back & forth - for free)- and other free online services (e.g. adrive.com - 50 free gigs online storage). Maybe I'm too cheap or maybe I'm too smart, but I don't see any value in .Mac that couldn't easily be free (since all that stuff is free through other avenues). I'm one Apple use that would be fine with adds the way google does it if it meant a free .Mac.
  - tracydanger, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9Sorry for the typos. I ran out of 'edit' time, but mean to say: I'm one Apple user that would be fine with ads the way google does it if it meant a free .Mac.
  - luchid, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3No, you're not being cheap. .Mac isn't really of much value. It was back when other webmail providers were offering a few measly megs of storage and had horrible interfaces, but now that Google is offering everything but the kitchen sink for free then Apple should adapt and maybe partner with them to revamp it and make it free. After all, they're making money hand over fist.
  - PabloMac, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4.Mac is a lot more than an email address and calendar syncing tool. It would be great if it were free, but for those of us who use more than one or two of its features, and especially us who make money with it, $99 works just fine.
- justinviger, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2That's why I keep .mac.
- julzmon, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah I love how all my computers are in sync. Otherwise I just keep .Mac for the email address. They really need to re-haul the whole thing.
LOLIGATOR, on 05/09/2008, -2/+10is there any benefit to having a .mac account? seems pretty worthless as of right now which is disappointing but then again like i really need another monthly bill.
- Lyph5, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4It's not monthly. It's once a year. $49 for the first year, $99 every year after that. Included are some pretty cool features, such as being able to make a web gallery through iPhoto with the click of a button.
  - Me1000, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1actually I can do that with facebook too...
- scooterbaga, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2FYI- You can get .mac from amazon and pay like $70 every year.
- akatsuki, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3I would skip it for now. Unless you are syncing files between different macs (and there are cheaper solutions for that, if not quite as seemless). It is slow, expensive, and really not worth it in any way.
  
  Photos- use Flickr.
  Blogging- choose a bunch
  Online storage- other services will give you more for less money.
  E-mail- gmail is still better.
- mike17032, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4Well like everything from Apple, it works seemlessly with OS X and it just plain works.
  
  There are free solutions for all of the stuff out there, but none of them work so flawless and easy.
- deadbaby, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2I have it for iDisk which is a standard WebDAV server. It's 10GB of online disk space I can sue from OSX, Windows, Linux or via the web interface. I barely use any of the other features of .MAC.
- Virgule, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1I bought .mac and used it for a full year. Kind of neat to have. iDisk and the iPhoto's galleries are my favorites. then there is the sync system which I found work alright.. They also give away many Garage Band sound packs for free :)))
  Overall, there is a ton of alternative for each and every one of .mac's functions but none of them offer them all in the same place and none are as neatly integrated with OS X..
- vault, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2It is pointless...I love my mac but dot mac is the stupidest ***** ever. $100/yr for an @mac.com email address and some storage.
OdepiTy, on 05/09/2008, -2/+14I loooooooove the syncing between computers with .mac - that's the feature I use most.
- willynilly, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2And that's exactly the feature that ought to be built into Apple software and NOT dependent on a fee-based service.
  - Me1000, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3except when you have a couple Macs on different networks. (as in like different buildings)
    Setting up a sync between those machine would be difficult for the average consumer without something like .Mac in between
mal1964, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Happy Hour!
macmangb, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1Yes yes yes!
nmyra, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2This is awesome! I can't wait for the 2nd generation iPhone!
mal1964, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1The front page of digg right now, has a retro look(stories) I like that!
vic42482, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1Hope they fix their editing software
http://thermalreaction.blogspot.com/2008/05/mac-ed ...
- Anevilweasel, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2That was just stupid...and boring. Let us not even go to inaccurate...
ibeetle, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7.mac is O.K. While it is true that every feature of the service can be found elsewhere on the net for low or no cost one is paying for the connivence of everything in one place, and (somewhat) seamless integration with iLife.
It is all part of that total widget ***** that Steve loves to talk about.
As far as the cost. There are discounts. I have been .mac subscribers from day one and have only payed full renewal price twice.
barddzen, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2The biggest reason I use Google's GMail is that it allows me to use my own MX records for my multiple domains pointing to Google vs just redirecting, same goes for DNS of web sites vs cloaking. If .Mac had similar I would rather use it because of the OS and iLife integration.
- mike17032, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Can you explain that a bit more please? I own a few domains and a Google (and .mac) mail accounts, what advantage does this give you and how do you make use of it?
  - rebotfc, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Check out google hosted
    
    http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/var_1c.html
    
    You can set it up for your domain so your domain's email is handled by gmail. This means you get all the advanced features of gmail email such as IMAP and the large inbox sizes of several gigabytes.
    
    You can also add calender chat and docs support.
Cyraq, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3As a .mac user I sure hope Apple adds new features soon.
Myztry, on 05/09/2008, -8/+43G capable. Woohoo. Welcome to the 21st century... Though 3G is about 6 years old in Australia... (Cue. The Apple Logo with the chunk missing...)
- mikephimikephi, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2shutup
- jo21, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2i don't know what they are digging you down, its sad but true... 3g is old... we are already moving to 4g
  - Me1000, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2and I dont even have 3G within 2 hours of me!
theycallmeguy, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2As a owner of a MAC and Window's machine. I have really been hoping for ".Mac syncing on Windows" I wouldn't mind the $99 a year price tag if there was over the air syncing with my iPhone and a Windows outlook plugging to sync my contacts. I have been looking to dump the increasingly bloated Plaxo for a long time.
- willynilly, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3OK. "Mac" is short for Macintosh; it's not an acronym. So WTF is a "MAC"?
- willynilly, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3What does "MAC" stand for? And who is Window and how can you own his machine?
LargeTrout, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4The problem with .Mac just now, for most users, is that it's so expensive and so little value for money. Online storage is cheap these days. Unless Apple vastly reduce the price of .Mac then there's no good reason to use the service. You can get better, faster service far far cheaper elsewhere.
ucg1, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Wow.. dotMac might actually be worth something, but still not worth what you pay for. I hope you get this feature for free (at least as an subscriber to an official provider), but I don't expect that to happen. If they don't offer it for free, maybe the notMac project might make it possible in the future:

http://www.notmacchallenge.com/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/notmac/
Altotus, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Macs are fine and all, but .Mac has always been deficient: It's expensive -- for the space you get and the limitations placed on it, it's just pricey. They make it trivial to store content, present content, but they give you bupkis in storage, so forget about that video blog you've been working on. Apple's the only .Mac service provider -- it should be that they license the .Mac services to ISPs so you can use whoever you want and they get license income. You don't get much storage -- For 3/4 the price I get more than 100x the storage from my hosting provider. Also, hosting providers give you databases, scripting, shopping carts, etc. that Apple is not likely to want to bother with but their users would like. You can't register your own domain name for use with .Mac -- not a biggie for the target audience, but the Mac user base is increasingly composed of savvy computer types for whom it would be a big plus. Finally, .Mac references in the Apple environment can't be switched off -- that's annoying -- if you don't have a subscription, you shouldn't see references to it even if marketing tells you its a good idea.

I like the idea of .Mac. It's one of those things that's skirting the edge of greatness. But it's just not a really good product (the way it is now) for the type of people that actually want to do stuff on the web.
- JackHarkness, on 05/09/2008, -0/+11)mac doesnt yet have a big enough market share for economies of scale to make licencing through ISP's economical.
  2)you can regester your own domain name for .mac
  3). mac refrences everywhere? the iDisk in the finder side panel can be removed and a .mac in the system prefrences(which you might be able to remove if you dont use it) isn't exactly in your face.
- antijava, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Wow, your provider gives you a terabyte of storage for $75/year? Who are they? I might want to consider using them for online backups.
canyonblue, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1.mac as it isn't worth the money although i admit i still have it for $69 from amazon, mainly for the sync features between 2 computers. forget all that though for iphone, i am just exciting because my wife and i will be buying our first iphones when gen 2 comes out this summer and the idea of syncing our contacts and more importantly CALENDER are amazing. i travel a lot and the idea of push calendering from home is amazing... my wife can change our kids doctor appointment and just like that it appears my iphone on the opposite side of country!
- willynilly, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Yes, but there are glaring omissions from both the Mac's software suite and the iPhone. Notably the failure to deliver the functionality we enjoyed on 8 MB Palm devices in the '90s:
  
  1. To-do lists, with categories.
  2. Memos, with categories
  3. Contacts, with categories
  
  The calendar is the one thing that actually syncs properly and gives you nearly full functionality. Except, of course, the continued baffling failure to have a default alarm for new appointments on the phone (a feature it took years to get in iCal, and it still doesn't let you pick WHICH alarm is the default). And the hard-coded alarm lead-times (want an alarm 45 minutes before the appointment? Forget it.).
  
  And using iTunes as the primary iPhone interface is simply stupid. Apple desperately needs to create something functionally equivalent to Outlook (minus E-mail). Really, how tough is it?
Zippo, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2I sure hope so. I purchased one year of .Mac this December, mostly for the web gallery... but was kind of disappointed with the overall value. Hopefully Apple will beef up .Mac and make it worth renewing.
wacomwacoff, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I love the seamless integration of my .mac mail on my desktop, webmail, and iPhone, and the online storage is excellent. It's all JUST BARELY worth the yearly fee.

It's very short on worthwhile features, however, and prone to some cataclysmic downtimes. It also has *****-poor support with no phone support at all. I'd love an upgrade, guys!
mfingers, on 05/09/2008, -3/+0I like rumors they make your day :)
Evilena, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2The real problem with .mac is that Apple refuses to develop other ways to sync calenders, bookmarks, and mailboxes between computers. My Macs shouldn't have to connect to an outside server to share XML files with other Macs on the network. My iPhone should be able to connect to my home network directly to share XML files. Its annoying to have to move the files myself, but not so much so that its worth paying for a service that does it for me. Apple should have a free GUI program that takes care of this. They don't because Apple wants to push .mac
- willynilly, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1NAILED IT.
PhillyMJS, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1While the .Mac feature list is admittedly a little lacking, IMHO just having my address book, calendars, bookmarks, and a ton of important notes (in Yojimbo, awesome app) automatically backed up offsite via .Mac syncing is worth a measly 8 bucks and change per month.
Chode2235, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I would love the web hosting services to be able to host forums etc, and be a real web hosting solution. Right now, most of .mac is to dumbed down to be terribly useful or worth the price.
tf23, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Once I realized you can get a .Mac membership cheaper then the normal price from Apple, I've always renewed. I think I easily get what I pay for from .Mac. The ~$60/yr works out to $5-$8/mo. That's easily worth my time in not having to mess with building a machine to serve and do it all or scewing with gallery etc. on a hosted setup. The .mac and App integration (Aperture,iPhoto,iWeb, etc) and the automated syncing of machines is definitely worth it to me. I'd rather spend that/month and then have the free time to code side jobs and make a helluva lot more $ then $5 or $10/mo.
BrendanSheehan, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5New .Mac = $29 please
batmanz, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3.mac is Apple's worst rip off. I cant believe anyone subscribes to it. You can get as good or better features for free.
- Me1000, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1seamless integration with your mac?
- BrendanSheehan, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1I don't know about getting as good or better features for free. .Mac is handy, but way overpriced.
Zippo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Here's hoping... I love some of the features of .Mac, but they're not quite worth the $99/year...
Please Apple, either make it cheaper and/or make it worth my money.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Rumor: .Mac relaunch to coincide with iPhone 2.0?

Login or register to add a comment