AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iCloud › Apple extends MobileMe subscribers' free 20GB of iCloud storage until September
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple extends MobileMe subscribers' free 20GB of iCloud storage until September - Page 2

post #41 of 114
5/6/12 at 6:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That may be true for lots of people but I'm not sure it's the majority. I have many thousands of files in my iDisk folder. Finding the file I want out of thousands of files would be a nightmare - plus naming could get to be a problem. For someone with limited needs, iCloud's approach is probably fine. It's probably OK for what is largely a media centric device like an iPad (although even there, I prefer using something like LogMeIn which gives me access to my hierarchical files. But as a Finder replacement? I just don't see it.
Size. I needed more than the 2 GB that I got for Dropbox.

You can make folders inside each app's area (from inside the file open dialog), there's just no longer any concept of a grand filesystem where you view all your files, from all your apps, at once.

Reply
Reply
post #42 of 114
5/6/12 at 6:50am

Man, I, too, hope they don't kill off MobileMe Gallery. It's the best way I know of to share photos with others. Please keep the Gallery functionality, Apple!

• Computer: MacBook CE unibody 2,4GHz
• iDevices: iPod nano 4G 8GB, iPhone 3GS 16GB
• Headphones: ATH-A900Ti, ATH-AD900, SE530 & SE210
• Search before you post!

Reply

• Computer: MacBook CE unibody 2,4GHz
• iDevices: iPod nano 4G 8GB, iPhone 3GS 16GB
• Headphones: ATH-A900Ti, ATH-AD900, SE530 & SE210
• Search before you post!

Reply
post #43 of 114
5/6/12 at 7:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

You can make folders inside each app's area (from inside the file open dialog), there's just no longer any concept of a grand filesystem where you view all your files, from all your apps, at once.

I really wish that people wouldn't confuse "I don't need xxxx" with "no one needs xxxx".

That may work for you, but it doesn't work for everyone. For example, when I work on a presentation or report or project, I may have 50 files that use 5 different applications. When I'm working on that project, it is convenient to have all of those files together. Your way would involve constantly having to migrate through folders in each different app to find the information I need. And then, when I need to share the files with a project team, I have to locate and email files from 5 different apps separately rather than simply emailing one folder and saying 'here are the project files'.

Your method is clumsy and slow if your needs are anything above the very basic level.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 114
5/6/12 at 7:38am

I use my iDisk a few times a week for sharing files between my work and home computers.  Now I'll have to rely on a flash drive.  What a step backwards.

 

Photo Gallery is elegant and un-matched in it's ability to share pictures.  I've used it numerous times as a group repository for photos.  I'd start a gallery then share the link so others at the event could upload their pics and we all could choose from the entire groups photos all in one place.  Excellent!  But not part of iCloud.

 

The Journal feature of iPhoto for iOS is pretty spiffy, but not as full featured as Mobile Me Galleries.  No group sharing, no password protection, etc.

 

Another big feature of Mobile Me being dropped is the iWeb website hosting.  I'm now having to pay $95 a year just to host my site.

 

iCloud is fine and all, but mostly I think it's a big step down from how I've been using Mobile Me and .Mac for years.  Hopefully my multiple feedback emails to Apple will add to the voices not happy with the features we will loose with iCloud.  I'd much rather pay $100 a year to keep Mobile Me than use the free iCloud.

Reply
Reply
post #45 of 114
5/6/12 at 7:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yensid98 View Post

I use my iDisk a few times a week for sharing files between my work and home computers.  Now I'll have to rely on a flash drive.  What a step backwards.

So despite all the talk of better, modern options being discussed you've decided that you'll inconvenience yourself by using a "backwards" option?
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/6/12 at 7:51am

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #46 of 114
5/6/12 at 7:47am

Apple should have bought Dropbox and included in iCloud, no matter the price they were asking.  It was probably / very likely much less than the $1B Facebook paid for Instagram.

 

I feel this decision indicates (unfortunately) that Steve (RIP) was not really in touch with the way world was moving (technology-wise).  I think a younger Apple CEO would have done it.

 

It was chump change for Apple but I think Steve couldn't believe a service like Dropbox (or Instagram) could be worth $1B.  Please note: Either could I but then I'm not running Facebook.

 

I know there were other reasons why Facebook paid that amount (eyeballs and getting into mobile) but I'm just commenting on the general nature of the deals, vis-à-vis Apple and Facebook.

 

Cheers,

Ashley.

Reply
Reply
post #47 of 114
5/6/12 at 7:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrhatken View Post

Apple should have bought Dropbox and included in iCloud, no matter the price they were asking.  It was probably / very likely much less than the $1B Facebook paid for Instagram.

The word is Apple tried but Dropbox didn't want to sell. Instead they decided to get funded from a venture capitalist. You can say that Apple didn't offer enough money and that everything is for sale, but that's not necessarily true and there is a limit to Dropbox's value.

FB paying $1B for Instagram certainly proves nothing about Apple or Dropbox. I'd say it shows that Zuckerburg was foolish to pay that much for Instagram.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #48 of 114
5/6/12 at 7:56am

I think its clear that folks holding out to the bitter end (like me) are gaining some benefits from doing so.

 

First, I'm getting a free copy of Snow Leopard for my old Mini.  Nice.

Second, I think I just got some extra storage.

Third, I dunno if this was in before but I got the option to keep my old .mac address for non-Lion machines.

 

Hopefully by the time June 30 rolls around there will be a new iPhoto for the mac with journal that has password protection and sharing.  Maybe even, hope beyond hope, an iWeb replacement with HTML5 support even though I haven't used iWeb in a couple years.

 

If not, I still got a free copy of SL.

Reply
Reply
post #49 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The word is Apple tried but Dropbox didn't want to sell. Instead they decided to get funded from a venture capitalist. You can say that Apple didn't offer enough money and that everything is for sale, but that's not necessarily true and there is a limit to Dropbox's value.
FB paying $1B for Instagram certainly proves nothing about Apple or Dropbox. I'd say it shows that Zuckerburg was foolish to pay that much for Instagram.

 

I heard that too but everyone has a price ;-)  

 

My suggestion / hypothesis was that Apple forgot to try $1B because it was Steve (or me or you) making the deal not Mark.

 

Dropbox would have rounded off iCloud - the very fact that they tried to buy it indicates that, I believe.  They were just the wrong generation buying.

 

I think the #1 hardware / software product company struggles to see cloud services for anything more than the halo effect.

 

The future is the cloud and commodity products - Samsung make very nice phones too, Apple's services win for now.

 

Siri is one silver lining though - I think the future includes Siri and Apple is going there first.

 

Cheers,

Ashley.

Reply
Reply
post #50 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrhatken View Post

I heard that too but everyone has a price ;-)  

My suggestion / hypothesis was that Apple forgot to try $1B because it was Steve (or me or you) making the deal not Mark.

Dropbox would have rounded off iCloud - the very fact that they tried to buy it indicates that, I believe.  They were just the wrong generation buying.

I think the #1 hardware / software product company struggles to see cloud services for anything more than the halo effect.

The future is the cloud and commodity products - Samsung make very nice phones too, Apple's services win for now.

Siri is one silver lining though - I think the future includes Siri and Apple is going there first.

Cheers,
Ashley.

I mostly agree. Dropbox would have rounded off iCloud nicely. The one feature I'm really going to miss is file storage (beyond the simple storage available in iCloud). It's important enough that I am going to spend money to use a third party service.

The only minor disagreement is that if Dropbox didn't want to sell, I wouldn't have simply kept increasing the bid. Search for 'free online file storage' and you'll find that there are dozens of companies doing this already. If Dropbox didn't want to sell, someone else would. Or, even better, create it yourself. It's not that complicated - especially when Apple already had the capability with iDisk. For a tiny fraction of what it would have cost to buy Dropbox, they could have simply moved iDisk into iCloud. Even if they had to spend a significant amount of money updating it and fixing bugs/performance issues, it would have been far less expensive than paying $1 B for Dropbox.

I'm still hoping that Apple will change their mind and add iDisk back before killing it off.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrhatken View Post

I heard that too but everyone has a price ;-)  

My suggestion / hypothesis was that Apple forgot to try $1B because it was Steve (or me or you) making the deal not Mark.

Dropbox would have rounded off iCloud - the very fact that they tried to buy it indicates that, I believe.  They were just the wrong generation buying.

I think the #1 hardware / software product company struggles to see cloud services for anything more than the halo effect.

The future is the cloud and commodity products - Samsung make very nice phones too, Apple's services win for now.

Siri is one silver lining though - I think the future includes Siri and Apple is going there first.

Cheers,
Ashley.

1) Sure, but sometimes the price isn't money and you have to take into consideration the cost to Dropbox's owners. It's possible that Dropbox didn't simply want to be folded into Apple and forgotten so they went with funding instead of buying stripped of their talent.

2) I say talent, not IP, because every part of Dropbox has been a part of Apple for a long time. Dropbox is much like Apple in their HW and OS combinations in that the sum of the parts pales in comparison to the part combination and configuration of the parts.

3) I think Tim Cook (and Steve Jobs) realize that iCloud is very important. I seem to recall at least Cook making that comment in the past. Note that Apple has one of the most successful and popular internet service with iTS so they aren't completely oblivious to it, they just need to understand how to make the experience as Apple-like as Dropbox.

4) iCloud is a major step in the right direction. Dropping iDisk is part of that, too. Regardless of whether you like or use iDisk on a daily basis it's archaic in every way and needs to die for Apple to be able to push forward. It's part of the problem!

5) While app-centric storage makes perfect sense I do hope that Apple sees that it's not the only solution (or devs realize they can use iCloud APIs to make their own hierarchal storage solution). There are also plenty of other features that should be built into iCloud, like versioning. Outside of saving versions, an option to use a general storage area, and sharing folders within that area with other iCloud members all other options are just gravy. Those three things already exist within Apple's knowledge base so it's possible they could be added this summer.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #52 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:28am

In case anyone missed links to the Forbes article on Dropbox and it's founders. Well worth a read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriabarret/2011/10/18/dropbox-the-inside-story-of-techs-hottest-startup/

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #53 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Or, even better, create it yourself. It's not that complicated - especially when Apple already had the capability with iDisk. For a tiny fraction of what it would have cost to buy Dropbox, they could have simply moved iDisk into iCloud.

Perhaps this is where the issue is with people wanting iDisk moved into iCloud. IT'S NOTHING LIKE DROPBOX. I already posted a laundry list of issues and differences between the two that should have opened your eyes to how iDisk is not like or in any way as capable as Dropbox.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #54 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) Sure, but sometimes the price isn't money and you have to take into consideration the cost to Dropbox's owners. It's possible that Dropbox didn't simply want to be folded into Apple and forgotten so they went with funding instead of buying stripped of their talent.
2) I say talent, not IP, because every part of Dropbox has been a part of Apple for a long time. Dropbox is much like Apple in their HW and OS combinations in that the sum of the parts pales in comparison to the part combination and configuration of the parts.
3) I think Tim Cook (and Steve Jobs) realize that iCloud is very important. I seem to recall at least Cook making that comment in the past. Note that Apple has one of the most successful and popular internet service with iTS so they aren't completely oblivious to it, they just need to understand how to make the experience as Apple-like as Dropbox.
4) iCloud is a major step in the right direction. Dropping iDisk is part of that, too. Regardless of whether you like or use iDisk on a daily basis it's archaic in every way and needs to die for Apple to be able to push forward. It's part of the problem!
5) While app-centric storage makes perfect sense I do hope that Apple sees that it's not the only solution (or devs realize they can use iCloud APIs to make their own hierarchal storage solution). There are also plenty of other features that should be built into iCloud, like versioning. Outside of saving versions, an option to use a general storage area, and sharing folders within that area with other iCloud members all other options are just gravy. Those three things already exist within Apple's knowledge base so it's possible they could be added this summer.

I disagree strongly with #4 and #5.

For a large group of users (i.e., those who only want to keep their files sync'd across multiple devices, iDisk worked just fine. I was perfectly happy with it (a little better performance would have been nice but it didn't stop me from using it). So dropping iDisk means that many people who were happy with the solution now have nothing. How is that a step in the right direction? Why not leave it in place so that some percentage of people (actually a fairly large percentage from my experience) are happy and then let the few who are unhappy seek third party solutions. Or gradually improve it so that it satisfies a larger number of people over time? Dropping something because a small number of people want it to be different doesn't make any sense.

For the reasons given above, I believe that the app-centric storage model doesn't make sense. If you never use more than one app for a project and if your needs are simple, it might make sense. But when you have thousands of files covering hundreds of different projects (actually, on my computer, it's more like tens of thousands of files covering thousands of different projects - and I'm not all that unusual), the app centric model breaks down. If I want to share a project with the work group, I have to simply send one folder today. Under the app centric model, I need to launch each app I used, open each file I used, send each file via email, then close the file. The recipient will get at least one email for each app (possibly more) and have to repeat the above process to reassemble things. Plus, it will never be as easy to keep track of projects. Let's say that I have 40 files in a project. 20 Word files, 20 Excel files, 4 Filemaker projects, 3 PDFs, 2 JPGs, and one Photoshop file. When I decide to send all of those files to colleagues, how likely do you think it is that I'll remember every single one?
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Unfortunately, though, it looks like Skydrive isn't going to work, either. First, I had to change a bunch of file names because it has the file name limitations of Windows (too many forbidden characters).

A lot of Mac users got into a bad habit of naming their files with all kinds of crazy characters back in the pre OS X and pre Internet days. Unfortunately that is just not going to work out in this era. I recently received a backup CD Mac OS 9 Quark files all named with some nutty italicizes "f" looking character. Could not even list the directory on OS X, Linux, or Windows. They provided a print out of the directory so I knew the file names but I could not access them. Those filenames actually locked up my Mac.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #56 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In case anyone missed links to the Forbes article on Dropbox and it's founders. Well worth a read.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriabarret/2011/10/18/dropbox-the-inside-story-of-techs-hottest-startup/

"...Mark Zuckerberg plotting ways to collaborate over generous portions of bison meat (the Facebook cofounder is eating only what he kills this year)."

WTF!

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #57 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Perhaps this is where the issue is with people wanting iDisk moved into iCloud. IT'S NOTHING LIKE DROPBOX. I already posted a laundry list of issues and differences between the two that should have opened your eyes to how iDisk is not like or in any way as capable as Dropbox.

You're playing the geek game. Listing a bunch of specifications and saying that the products are nothing alike is silly.

What do the two technologies do? They allow you to store files remotely and access them from multiple devices. Both of them do that - and do it well. Your pretense that they're nothing alike is just plain absurd.

Does Dropbox have more features? I'll take your word for it, but I have no way of knowing. I never wanted to use it for anything more than a simple file sync utility like iDisk - and both of them meet my needs perfectly. If someone only needs a Honda Civic, why should they be forced to live with a Chevy Suburban? Because YOU want to demand that every vehicle needs all sorts of unique features? Who make you the arbiter?

Apple could have left iDisk in place - and many, many people would have been happy. I know perhaps several dozen iDisk users - and it met all of their needs in its current format. So by leaving iDisk alone, many people would have been happier than seeing it dropped. If you don't like iDisk? Fine. Use something else. No one is forcing you to use it. But don't take away my functionality because you have a laundry list of geeky needs that don't apply to everyone.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Waiting for people to say how they wont be able to live without iDisk.

Let's face it.  Outside of the USA iDisk never really worked that well.  The performance was slow and spotty at best for everyone I know who used it including myself.  Copying a file to a DVD and taking it home with you was often much, much faster.  

 

The only good thing about it was the sharing of large files through that custom link.  I miss that still.  

 

The only reason that really worked though was that it didn't matter how long it took to upload the file or how long it took the person you were sending it to to download it, thus getting around the horrible slowness problem that iDisk had throughout it's lifetime.  

banned: patpatpat, TEKSTUD, Rot'nApple, JerrySwitched26, iSheldon, DaHarder, Flaneur, Pendergast, thataveragejoe 

Reply

banned: patpatpat, TEKSTUD, Rot'nApple, JerrySwitched26, iSheldon, DaHarder, Flaneur, Pendergast, thataveragejoe 

Reply
post #59 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

For a large group of users (i.e., those who only want to keep their files sync'd across multiple devices, iDisk worked just fine.
No segmenting of files so that a lost connection doesn't require resending the entire file again? You don't see how this consumes time and data? You don't see how not being able to close up a notebook at a coffee shop or after a class as you're saving my files to the cloud because you're only part way done with syncing them is a problem? You consider that to be a 2012 solution? You don't think that sending personal information without encryption over WiFi isn't a problem?

There are now delta-encodings which not only keep you from having to resend all the data but allow you to only send updates if you change a file and to access different versions if you need to correct a mistake. You now have AES-256 encryption with all data. You really think those are just pointless features that have no place in the real world?

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #60 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

A lot of Mac users got into a bad habit of naming their files with all kinds of crazy characters back in the pre OS X and pre Internet days. Unfortunately that is just not going to work out in this era. I recently received a backup CD Mac OS 9 Quark files all named with some nutty italicizes "f" looking character. Could not even list the directory on OS X, Linux, or Windows. They provided a print out of the directory so I knew the file names but I could not access them. Those filenames actually locked up my Mac.

Why should there be a limitation at all? For example, Skydrive rejected all files with a backslash (which I used to date files such as "Expense report 9/2/05") or a hyphen, or an ampersand (such as "Department P&L 5/15/03"). It was bad enough 15 years ago that Windows was incapable of handling common characters, but when I shared files, they were automatically converted to something that Windows could handle. They can't figure out how to do it today? After all, Dropbox doesn't care about those characters. iDisk doesn't care about those characters. Other on-line file storage doesn't care about those characters. Why does Skydrive? (Other than the obvious that it's a Microsoft product and they automatically assume that everyone on the planet uses Windows so there's no provision for the exceptions).
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

No segmenting of files so that a lost connection doesn't require resending the entire file again? You don't see how this consumes time and data? You don't see how not being able to close up a notebook at a coffee shop or after a class as you're saving my files to the cloud because you're only part way done with syncing them is a problem? You consider that to be a 2012 solution? You don't think that sending personal information without encryption over WiFi isn't a problem?
There are now delta-encodings which not only keep you from having to resend all the data but allow you to only send updates if you change a file and to access different versions if you need to correct a mistake. You now have AES-256 encryption with all data. You really think those are just pointless features that have no place in the real world?

None of those things ever caused me a problem - nor do they affect everyone as you are pretending. So I have to re-send a file occasionally? Big deal. It's just not that big a deal since the file is sync'd on my computer. I can continue to use it and it will sync when I have a good connection. Only rarely has it ever created a problem.

Could it be better? Sure. And there's no reason Apple couldn't fix that issue. But arguing that iDisk is totally useless and needs to be dropped just because it might occasionally have to send a file again is ridiculous.

For a very small number of people who are routinely sending multi-GB files, it might be a big issue, but they're free to use something else.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropys View Post

Have you used journals in the iPad version of iPhoto?  It seems to work kinda like gallery if you have iCloud activated.  iPhoto on the mac doesn't seem to have journals yet, though.  

It seems clear to me that Apple's strategy with Photos, photo-sharing and mobile devices is really only in the early stages.  

 

If you sync your iOS devices wirelessly for example (Apple's suggestion), and also back them up to iCloud (also their suggestion), the big hole in the middle is iPhoto, and photo syncing and sharing.  If you don't want to buy into the Photostream thing, (which is pretty much a buggy beta at this stage and has few options), all of a sudden you lose all your photo syncing and sharing.  

 

It's an obvious hole that will no doubt be fixed and is probably being worked on as we speak.  There will certainly be users that don't want to use Photostream but still want to sync the photos off of their devices to their home computers.  I'd be surprised if they don't re-introduce the functionality. 

 

All this tells me that the whole area of photos, photo syncing, sharing and display is in flux at the moment.

banned: patpatpat, TEKSTUD, Rot'nApple, JerrySwitched26, iSheldon, DaHarder, Flaneur, Pendergast, thataveragejoe 

Reply

banned: patpatpat, TEKSTUD, Rot'nApple, JerrySwitched26, iSheldon, DaHarder, Flaneur, Pendergast, thataveragejoe 

Reply
post #63 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Let's face it.  Outside of the USA iDisk never really worked that well.  The performance was slow and spotty at best for everyone I know who used it including myself.  Copying a file to a DVD and taking it home with you was often much, much faster.  

The only good thing about it was the sharing of large files through that custom link.  I miss that still.  

The only reason that really worked though was that it didn't matter how long it took to upload the file or how long it took the person you were sending it to to download it, thus getting around the horrible slowness problem that iDisk had throughout it's lifetime.  

Certainly, I can't argue about how well it worked outside the US. If you say it didn't work well, I'll have to take your word for it. But that's a fixable problem. The fact that it worked and worked well for the most part in the US suggests that it's not the basic design that was a problem, but rather that the support infrastructure was insufficient in some locations. Fix the problem rather than scrapping a product that worked well for a lot of people.

Even in the U.S., performance wasn't spectacular. It was good enough that it worked fine for most people when they had it sync'd to their local hard disk, but better infrastructure would have benefited the service even here. But that doesn't mean that the product itself was faulty.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Why should there be a limitation at all? For example, Skydrive rejected all files with a backslash (which I used to date files such as "Expense report 9/2/05") or a hyphen, or an ampersand (such as "Department P&L 5/15/03"). It was bad enough 15 years ago that Windows was incapable of handling common characters, but when I shared files, they were automatically converted to something that Windows could handle. They can't figure out how to do it today? After all, Dropbox doesn't care about those characters. iDisk doesn't care about those characters. Other on-line file storage doesn't care about those characters. Why does Skydrive? (Other than the obvious that it's a Microsoft product and they automatically assume that everyone on the planet uses Windows so there's no provision for the exceptions).

Short answer is that certain characters have reserved meaning such as files beginning with "?" and / and & also have different meanings in UNIX which was the foundation of the Internet. In order for better interoperability people should use standard naming conventions.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #65 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I wouldn't say that, but iCloud won't do it for me, either. I need the ability to store my files in one location and access them from anywhere. iCloud only allows documents created from a limited number of apps to be shared. To me, that's a significant loss of functionality and a step backwards.
Since iCloud isn't sufficient, I signed up for Skydrive and am currently moving all my files from iDisk.

I tend to agree.  While I understand them wanting to herd us into using their apps, thus increasing revenue the fact that nothing but Apple products sync with ICloud is annoying at the very least.  In the day of multiple cloud storage options you would think that making the service more iDisk-like would be a no brainer.

 

BTW - Skydrive seems to be a really good option here.  I got an automatic 25gb as a previous user, which honestly you can't beat.  

Reply
Reply
post #66 of 114
5/6/12 at 8:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The word is Apple tried but Dropbox didn't want to sell. Instead they decided to get funded from a venture capitalist. You can say that Apple didn't offer enough money and that everything is for sale, but that's not necessarily true and there is a limit to Dropbox's value.
FB paying $1B for Instagram certainly proves nothing about Apple or Dropbox. I'd say it shows that Zuckerburg was foolish to pay that much for Instagram.

 

While I find Zuckerburg to be a weinie, I doubt he's done a lot of foolish things and gotten to where he is in life.  I would say it's a calculated move, I don't know what for, but I doubt he'd drop a billion on something he didn't see a value in.

Reply
Reply
post #67 of 114
5/6/12 at 9:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

None of those things ever caused me a problem - nor do they affect everyone as you are pretending. So I have to re-send a file occasionally? Big deal. It's just not that big a deal since the file is sync'd on my computer. I can continue to use it and it will sync when I have a good connection. Only rarely has it ever created a problem.
Could it be better? Sure. And there's no reason Apple couldn't fix that issue. But arguing that iDisk is totally useless and needs to be dropped just because it might occasionally have to send a file again is ridiculous.
For a very small number of people who are routinely sending multi-GB files, it might be a big issue, but they're free to use something else.

1)They do cause problems, just because you don't ever upload any large or important files doesn't mean that others don't. But most importantly in 2012 all data should be sent using secure encryption. You can argue that it's the user's fault for not knowing that iDisk doesn't encrypt your data or that users should never store anything important in the cloud but that is bullshit. In 2012 everyone should expect that their cloud data is not sent in plaintext. Telling people to RAR their large iDisk files and to put into a secure Disk Image before putting in iDisk is not a valid solution.

2) I made the argument earlier in this thread of how iDisk can be fixed and stated that no one makes that argument, they only bellyache about this archaic and insecure feature is going away so don't tell me about how it could be better as I haven't read a single thing from you or anyone else that wanted iDisk to be updated. Your claim is that it's perfect fine the way it is and that it should be added to iCloud as is, which is bullshit. My entire position as to why iDisk needs to go away is because it's not better. If you are talking about simply keeping the brand name but creating an entirely new iDIsk that is not what you've stated despite my bone throwing on the first page.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #68 of 114
5/6/12 at 9:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That may be true for lots of people but I'm not sure it's the majority. I have many thousands of files in my iDisk folder. Finding the file I want out of thousands of files would be a nightmare - plus naming could get to be a problem. For someone with limited needs, iCloud's approach is probably fine. It's probably OK for what is largely a media centric device like an iPad (although even there, I prefer using something like LogMeIn which gives me access to my hierarchical files. But as a Finder replacement? I just don't see it....

You don't see it because you aren't "most people."  

 

This is the big problem with tech websites when a bunch of people get together to talk about this stuff.  Even if everyone here agreed that iCloud was crap ... "everyone here" is still a tiny minority of "most people."  

 

It's a tired analogy, but it's like when cars came out for the first time and everyone who was into them was some kind of car geek with a spanner in his/her back pocket.  Nowadays no one knows how to fix a car, and the average person doesn't need to know either.  It has nothing to do with IQ or capabilities, you can be a Nobel laureate or a high flying lawyer/businessperson and still have no idea about how computers and filesystems work.  Where I work, it's all PhD's and super geniuses, but the staff I direct still spends all day fixing dumb-ass printer problems for them and explaining what an IP is.  

 

"Most people" are not anywhere near even that smart or knowledgeable and don't care, or want to know what a "file system" even is.  The fact that they had to learn it was exactly what was holding a lot of them back from really using software and computers.  It doesn't mean they are dumb, it just means they don't want to spend time learning something that they shouldn't have to learn just to get the job done.  

 

It's not even anything to do with creation vs. consumption.  That's a current meme, but it's completely faulty if you think about it.  

 

Say I'm an artist or a writer and I use old-fashioned methods.  If I then want to switch to doing those things on a computer for the obvious time saving, security, and general ease of use and compatibility with the world I live in ... why should I have to learn computer technology to do it?  I should be able to create digital document or a digital picture without knowing *anything* about how it all works.  Why not?  

 

If I want to drive to the beach I don't have to learn about internal combustion motors, I just have to learn a few quick rules of driving.  The task of driving the car is now so easy that most people can just fake it and never really need to learn even those minimal rules.  Most of them merely become apparent to the user in the act of driving itself.   

 

The same is true for using computers.  There should be some obvious things and a few rules that if learned keep you on track, but the underlying file system, what types of digital files you are dealing with, where they are ultimately stored and the technology used to do it *should* be completely invisible.  People have better things to do with their time than managing their file systems. 

 

No doubt this is why iOS devices are taking off like the proverbial rocket.  

banned: patpatpat, TEKSTUD, Rot'nApple, JerrySwitched26, iSheldon, DaHarder, Flaneur, Pendergast, thataveragejoe 

Reply

banned: patpatpat, TEKSTUD, Rot'nApple, JerrySwitched26, iSheldon, DaHarder, Flaneur, Pendergast, thataveragejoe 

Reply
post #69 of 114
5/6/12 at 9:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

You don't see it because you aren't "most people."  

This is the big problem with tech websites when a bunch of people get together to talk about this stuff.  Even if everyone here agreed that iCloud was crap ... "everyone here" is still a tiny minority of "most people."  

It's a tired analogy, but it's like when cars came out for the first time and everyone who was into them was some kind of car geek with a spanner in his/her back pocket.  Nowadays no one knows how to fix a car, and the average person doesn't need to know either.  It has nothing to do with IQ or capabilities, you can be a Nobel laureate or a high flying lawyer/businessperson and still have no idea about how computers and filesystems work.  Where I work, it's all PhD's and super geniuses, but the staff I direct still spends all day fixing dumb-ass printer problems for them and explaining what an IP is.  

"Most people" are not anywhere near even that smart or knowledgeable and don't care, or want to know what a "file system" even is.  The fact that they had to learn it was exactly what was holding a lot of them back from really using software and computers.  It doesn't mean they are dumb, it just means they don't want to spend time learning something that they shouldn't have to learn just to get the job done.  

It's not even anything to do with creation vs. consumption.  That's a current meme, but it's completely faulty if you think about it.  

Say I'm an artist or a writer and I use old-fashioned methods.  If I then want to switch to doing those things on a computer for the obvious time saving, security, and general ease of use and compatibility with the world I live in ... why should I have to learn computer technology to do it?  I should be able to create digital document or a digital picture without knowing *anything* about how it all works.  Why not?  

If I want to drive to the beach I don't have to learn about internal combustion motors, I just have to learn a few quick rules of driving.  The task of driving the car is now so easy that most people can just fake it and never really need to learn even those minimal rules.  Most of them merely become apparent to the user in the act of driving itself.   

The same is true for using computers.  There should be some obvious things and a few rules that if learned keep you on track, but the underlying file system, what types of digital files you are dealing with, where they are ultimately stored and the technology used to do it *should* be completely invisible.  People have better things to do with their time than managing their file systems. 

No doubt this is why iOS devices are taking off like the proverbial rocket.  

Do you honestly think that a writer with a vocabulary of tens of thousands of words or a businessman who can navigate a complex financial planning investment application cannot be bothered to understand a relatively simple hierarchical file system which is extremely logical? Just driving around town and remembering where various streets and businesses are located is far more complex than a file system.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #70 of 114
5/6/12 at 9:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post


Do you honestly think that a writer with a vocabulary of tens of thousands of words or a businessman who can navigate a complex financial planning investment application cannot be bothered to understand a relatively simple hierarchical file system which is extremely logical? Just driving around town and remembering where various streets and businesses are located is far more complex than a file system.

I'm not disagreeing with your basic premise however, in well over thirty years of my staff having to deal with end users of computers I can tell you the number one issue with the non-computer minded types was always related to having zero grasp or understanding of the filing system.  I refer to it as the  "I don't know where is went" syndrome.  This is why so many people love iPads I suspect, it's not just the portability, battery life etc. it's the lack of having to even think about such things as 'where to save it' or 'where to find it'.

Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #71 of 114
5/6/12 at 10:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I'm not disagreeing with your basic premise however, in well over thirty years of my staff having to deal with end users of computers I can tell you the number one issue with the non-computer minded types was always related to having zero grasp or understanding of the filing system.  I refer to it as the  "I don't know where is went" syndrome.  This is why so many people love iPads I suspect, it's not just the portability, battery life etc. it's the lack of having to even think about such things as 'where to save it' or 'where to find it'.
Quote:
non-computer minded types...

zero grasp or understanding...

lack of having to even think...

Some people just don't care enough to find a missing file. If they had misplaced their wallet or car keys, they would not give up until they found it.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #72 of 114
5/6/12 at 10:48am

I keep deferring this due to hybrid equipment that is Leopard based PPC Mac Pro 2.7GHz Dual and Macbook Air and Macbook Pro 13 with iPads and iPhones.  iCloud does not support Leopard so I need to sort out how to handle this.  Ick

Reply
Reply
post #73 of 114
5/6/12 at 10:57am

As another poster said I too am waiting till the bitter end. The thing with idisk is that it's smooth and easy yo use. For ages I used a transfer client to upload files to idisk as it was faster, but lately (this past friday day even) I've been uploading using the web application and you know what? It wasn't that slow at all. 500 MB in less than ten minutes. So I can't see that being an argument against. It always worked fine and the interface and the OS integration were outstanding. I also love the ease of which I could share files with clients. Click share, accessed my address book and they got a DL link. From what I recall drop box et al weren't that simple, though I haven't given any of them a real shot because idisk still works and I haven't had any issues or felt like it was to slowing me down or really felt like I had to move except for idisk features being discontinued. DB on the other hand made me feel like it was slower. My perception? Arguably.

 

More importantly, didn't we settle this issue already, isn't there some evidence that iCloud will have "idisk features"? There was an AI article (though no one mentioned it) that discussed a hidden feature in Lion that allowed a user to upload to iCloud through a (as of now) hidden system folder. If I remember correctly I tried it once but because idisk was available i just kept using idisk. Bottom line for me, I don't know about the "problems" people have been having with idisk (especially idisk in the last two years; sure back in the day it was rough at times).

 

I'd rather not see the feature pulled and I have hope (especially given the aforementioned "evidence") that Apple is planning on integrating iDisk like features into iCloud and MacOS. The other evidence is that they keep extending the idisk support. If they were't planning on replacing it, why would they keep extending the deadline except because they know the replacement is coming and maybe it's taking a little longer than they hoped. Or maybe they thought they could get rid of idisk only to discover people actually liked it and had to continue to move ahead adding those features. We have to keep in mind that Apple doesn't A/B test. They seem to be classic Hippos to me and maybe they changed strategy when they got thousands of "don't kill idisk" posts on their support forum. Certainly taking some tips from the A/B testing model would have helped with FCP if there was a way to test FCPX out with editors in production houses before the release. (That's assuming they cared about pros at all, but with idisk we're talking about a consumer feature and one that they have gotten allot of feedback about since the announcement it was going to EOL'd. 

 

If you want Apple to keep idisk just keep using it. You know they have been monitoring the traffic since the announcement and you also know that there's a good number of people that plan on using idisk till they can't anymore. 

turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #74 of 114
5/6/12 at 11:12am

Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer revealed last month during a quarterly earnings call that the company considers revenue from iCloud storage plans to be incidental. "Our real desire here was not about selling more storage? We just really wanted to increase the customer delight," he said.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Apple would be very happy to get people to pay for additional data storage.
 

 

Doesn't sound like it.

A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #75 of 114
5/6/12 at 11:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post
Doesn't sound like it.

 

It's not some massive portion of their revenue stream, but don't think they don't care about it.

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #76 of 114
5/6/12 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Short answer is that certain characters have reserved meaning such as files beginning with "?" and / and & also have different meanings in UNIX which was the foundation of the Internet. In order for better interoperability people should use standard naming conventions.

And, yet, the back-slash symbol works fine on Mac OS X - which is a Unix system. And many of these files predate the time when I was using the Internet.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 114
5/6/12 at 11:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

100% agree.

 

I just do not understand why they cannot simply include Gallery in iCloud.  

 

I, too, agree. But in the meantime I have been experimenting with the Journal function of iPhoto on my iPad (and iPhone). It offers some of the functionality of Gallery, even though it seems geared for travelers. 

A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #78 of 114
5/6/12 at 11:29am

I couldn't care less about what Apple does relating to MobileMe until it launches Gallery functionality in iCloud with iPhoto integration.

 

The entire reason my elderly parents got an iMac was for its ease of use and integration.

They would never be able to do what they do without the integration that MobileMe provided.

 

Apple is really dropping the ball with iCloud.

Offers less functionality that MobileMe.

Reply
Reply
post #79 of 114
5/6/12 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

You don't see it because you aren't "most people."  

This is the big problem with tech websites when a bunch of people get together to talk about this stuff.  Even if everyone here agreed that iCloud was crap ... "everyone here" is still a tiny minority of "most people."  

It's a tired analogy, but it's like when cars came out for the first time and everyone who was into them was some kind of car geek with a spanner in his/her back pocket.  Nowadays no one knows how to fix a car, and the average person doesn't need to know either.  It has nothing to do with IQ or capabilities, you can be a Nobel laureate or a high flying lawyer/businessperson and still have no idea about how computers and filesystems work.  Where I work, it's all PhD's and super geniuses, but the staff I direct still spends all day fixing dumb-ass printer problems for them and explaining what an IP is.  

"Most people" are not anywhere near even that smart or knowledgeable and don't care, or want to know what a "file system" even is.  The fact that they had to learn it was exactly what was holding a lot of them back from really using software and computers.  It doesn't mean they are dumb, it just means they don't want to spend time learning something that they shouldn't have to learn just to get the job done.  

It's not even anything to do with creation vs. consumption.  That's a current meme, but it's completely faulty if you think about it.  

Say I'm an artist or a writer and I use old-fashioned methods.  If I then want to switch to doing those things on a computer for the obvious time saving, security, and general ease of use and compatibility with the world I live in ... why should I have to learn computer technology to do it?  I should be able to create digital document or a digital picture without knowing *anything* about how it all works.  Why not?  

If I want to drive to the beach I don't have to learn about internal combustion motors, I just have to learn a few quick rules of driving.  The task of driving the car is now so easy that most people can just fake it and never really need to learn even those minimal rules.  Most of them merely become apparent to the user in the act of driving itself.   

The same is true for using computers.  There should be some obvious things and a few rules that if learned keep you on track, but the underlying file system, what types of digital files you are dealing with, where they are ultimately stored and the technology used to do it *should* be completely invisible.  People have better things to do with their time than managing their file systems. 

No doubt this is why iOS devices are taking off like the proverbial rocket.  

Re: the bolded and the rest of your diatribe.

Your comments are misplaced. I'm not the one advocating that Apple shouldn't do cloud storage. I don't have any problem at all with them offering apps that save directly to the cloud.

I do, however, object to them dropping iDisk as an option. If they simply retained iDisk in iCloud, then users could have a choice. They could use the iOS cloud stuff that you're advocating, but more experienced users could also use files in the OS X way. I don't see that Apple loses anything by doing that.

Your comments could actually be addressed more accurately toward solipsism. He keeps saying that because he has some specific problem with iDisk that it needed to be thrown out and that no one could find it useful. His view seems to be that since iDisk apparently causes him a problem that no one should be allowed to use it.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 114
5/6/12 at 11:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And, yet, the back-slash symbol works fine on Mac OS X - which is a Unix system. And many of these files predate the time when I was using the Internet.

Apple has done some magic tricks with the Finder to try to accommodate legacy OS 9 file names but you are just asking for trouble if you use nonconventional file names. Under the hood BSD kernel does not support many non alphanumerical characters in filenames and especially not in directory names but Apple has used attributes to mask those incompatibilties. If you ever intend on doing work with government agencies, they have very strict file naming rules that are based on ISO standards. I know you want to name your files however you wish but that is not how computers work. It is especially frustrating for non English speakers but that is just the way it is and not likely to change any time soon.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iCloud
  • Apple extends MobileMe subscribers' free 20GB of iCloud storage until September
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iCloud › Apple extends MobileMe subscribers' free 20GB of iCloud storage until September