Apple extends MobileMe subscribers' free 20GB of iCloud storage until September - Page 3

Remember when iCloud was supposed to be this big new thing for Apple (to charge people money for)....  while providing basically no value.  LOL

 

No, I don't recall talk of iCloud ever being paid. Unless you're talking about just the upgrades, but you don't build a business model around that.

I abandoned apples storage offerings when it abandoned me. It doesn't deserve my patronage for a half-baked service.

I now use Dropbox for my online storage/hosting needs.

Yeah well...  given that network speeds are about equal with 1998 level (I can remember getting 800k/sec in 1998) and files these days about about 1,000 times larger....  the whole idea is just stupid.  There, I said it.

What is the point of this?

 

You can't store anything in iCloud that is not specifically created by an app that links to iCloud - such as Pages.  You can't store arbitrary files of your own.  You can't store Microsoft Word, Excel files in iCloud.  The work-arounds were warned by Apple that they may not be supported.

 

The extra storage just sucks up and wastes your money.

 

I wish Apple would keep the iDisk feature of MobileMe.  This gave Apple a Drop-Box feature that they are now giving up for no reason.  Apple did not have to buy Drop-Box.  It already had it in the form of iDisk.

And NO one has answered the question, 'if Apple offered 'free' Snow Leopard for some users to upgrade to, and then they HAD to immediately upgrade to lion (of which MANY COULD NOT DO) , what happens to them???.Everybody just seems to be ignoring this monster gulch that"s got to be breeched !!!!!

Got any suggestions??.

I'm glad that Apple didn't buy Dropbox. One of its best features is that it's cross-platform.

Out of curiosity, why don't you move to a better/faster syncing environment like Dropbox?  Dropbox is way faster than iDisk.  I resisted the change for a while, but have been blown away by the speed and robustness of Dropbox.

As is iCloud. As was MobileMe. As was iDisk. (not to mention iTunes, Safari, etc).

What makes you think that Apple would have dropped Windows support if they had bought Dropbox?

 

What is "those people"?

Solipsey has never said anything like that.

If you think he (she or it) is wrong about something, speak up...it's what the forum is for.

Actually, Solipsism did say almost exactly what Suddeny Newton said. Go back to post #28 to see what SN was responding to.

Solipsism said flat out that he rejected anyone's opinion if they thought iDisk was OK. He believes that it's useless so anyone who disagrees with him is automatically wrong. Clearly, that's wrong since many people were happy enough with iDisk to want to see it retained in iCloud.

I'm still using iDisk even though I do have a Dropbox account. I always liked the way iDisk appeared as just another hd on SL but now in Lion you have to go find it in a menu so it is not as convenient. I need to start using Dropbox since the deadline for iDisk is approaching even though it may be a little later than first announced. I have not migrated to iCloud yet but I also use Back to My Mac almost daily so I need to get that sorted out pretty soon as well.

It may sound silly to you but ... yes.  I see it every day.  

 

It's not necessarily that the concept of a file system is beyond their ken, but more that they have trouble using it and don't want to use it or have to be forced to use it.  

 

These are generalisations of course but in my experience:

 

- almost all computer users keep their files in a big messy pile on the desktop.  

- almost no one but obsessive types even file things into folders more than one level deep. 

 

I see this as a parallel to the non-virtual world where large numbers of folks (and here I don't have a true sense of the numbers), keep their physical files and papers in a big messy pile on the physical desktop.  There are filing cabinets of course, but unless one has a secretary to do the filing for them, these generally are just a big storage area for "stuff I don't need to see anymore" and might as well be shoe boxes for most people.  

 

I see the computer in this sense, as a sort of "magic secretary" that keeps track of things and files them away for you.  If an OS can be developed (hint: iOS), that does all this filing for you and one doesn't have to worry about what folder anything is in beyond one level at the top ... why not?  It seems like a perfect magical solution to me.  

 

With a regular desktop OS one is sort of the "king/queen of one's own filing cabinet."  I would still argue that most people don't want to worry about that however and would opt for the magic secretary.   

I'm fine with the magic secretary option as long as I can opt out. That is my main complaint with iOS. That is why I don't use it for anything other than casual browsing and one liner emails.

Pretty sure those are issues with Microsoft not iCloud.

They are issues with Microsoft, but they're also issues with iCloud.

iCloud's usefulness depends on all apps (or, at least, all the ones you use) using the feature. Given how slowly many developers accept Apple's new features, that is a mistake. iCloud should be set up so it can be used whether or not the software developer supports it.

Well I don't know about the other person but I really like the online Office apps, every photo I take get's uploaded automaticly, the upload speeds are some of the fastest I've seen and you can mount any directory as a normal folder in Windows, OSX and Android. iCloud is getting better though, I can't wait till I can use it like a filemanger for my iPad. Hopefully iOS 6 brings that. 2OGB is awesome, so nice of them to do that. Though Box is still the winner with 50 GB.

Sorry Solips... with all the dialogue going on between you and jragosta, I got it mixed up.  I have much more data than the 2GB free option so I decided to pay for the 50GB version.  It's used for my business so it's a write-off. :)  I also think they are the gold-standard for cloud storage.  iCloud has a lot of promise in terms of iOS App integration but for those that need more flexibility, I think Apple prefers folks like us go the 3rd-part route for that.  I'm okay with it.

Thanks for posting the link.  I didn't realize there were so many competitors out there.  That's a good thing!
 

 

I use Dropbox, MobileMe, iCloud, SkyDrive and any other free service that takes my fancy.

 

Since when did one have to exclusively use one service.

 

Maybe Apple could look into expanding the amount of storage they give, HTC offers 23 extra GB with Dropbox with the One X, Samsung will be offering 50 GB with the Galaxy 3 or III, although I wonder how many people will actually use that much.

You just can't compare an engineering team focused on 1 product vs. another that does multiple products. At some point SJ approached DrobBox, it was because he felt they made it better than Apple did with iDisk. I think everyone can recognize that and it would be very helpful if DropBox could fill the small gaps within OSX that iDrive will leave. I am sure Microsoft and Amazon won't be interested in doing that.

Ultimately, that's undoubtedly what's going to happen. I would have preferred for Apple to continue to offer an iDisk solution (I really don't care whether they did it internally or bought Dropbox). But since they are apparently unwilling to do so, then people will have 4 choices:
1. Settle for the limited capability of iCloud
2. Don't do internet storage at all
3. Use one of the third party services like Dropbox
4. Use 'Back to my Mac' to achieve some of the same things or set up a server to do what iDisk or Dropbox do.

I'll probably do #3 with Dropbox, although I will be exploring whether Back to My Mac might do what I need it to do.

I don't reject any opinion if you want to believe that a giant invisible anus* will swallow you up and you get devored by shit pirranas if you don't do good deeds you have that right, and I respect your right to believe that, but that doesn't mean you're correct or rational in your beliefs. I read why you want iDisk to stay and determined your reasons not to be valid for the whole of society. You can argue all you want that an archaic and insecure system is perfectly acceptable in 2012 and that it's the user's fault if anything goes wrong but that's simply not a rational argument to make.

Again, if you wanted to make the argument that iDisk shouldn't go away but evolved to be more seamless, secure and robust system like other modern offerings you and others have not made that stance. I made that stance on the first page as a counter to my own argument but you and others are simply tried to get iDisk to stay as is and think Apple should accommodate you on this tech that has been well behind the curve since before Apple switched to Intel.


* Borrowed from Patton Oswalt.

Really need them to keep gallery and iWeb around. I paid all those years for .mac and mobileme and put a lot of effort into the stuff I have on those services. I'm plenty ticked they are going away now.

I don't understand the complaint about Gallery. Doesn't iPhoto already include the feature? Now it is just called Journals and requires iPhoto rather than being a seperate app. As for iWeb, that looks long gone since it wasn't include in iLife 11.

Expect a new iPhoto for OS X when ML is released, it'll include Journals. Also, regarding iDisk, it looks like ML and iOS 6 will allow folders in folders for your iCloud files, so instead of an interface that allows you to sync folders with various types of files, Apple is just pushing you to sync through your individual apps.

So in sum, with the exclusion of iWeb iCloud looks like it'll do everything MobileMe did, it'll just require you adjust to a new way to accomplish the same thing.

PS: yes I know your keychain isn't being synced but with the direction we see in ML, again it looks like Safari will sync everything it did and more (i.e. tabs too now).

And once again, you think that you are the only one entitled to an opinion.

For me (and for many people that I know), iDisk is just fine the way it is. Could it be improved? Sure. It could be faster and more robust - but Apple has a history of improving products, so keeping it does not preclude making an improvement.

Somehow, you seem to believe that the fact that iDisk in its current form is not good enough for you deprives everyone else of the right to say that it's good enough for them. Well, you're wrong. In it's current form, iDisk is good enough for my needs. A number of people I've talked to are very happy with iDisk. So your insistence that it has no value is just plain wrong and based on your own self-centered view of the world.

 

The only service that I found that matches the same intregration that iDisk has is Asus Webstorage. Strange I know, try it out though you won't be missing iDisk for very long.

You are the one that think your opinion is that the only one that matters. Just because you want to use doesn't mean it's safe. The shear fact that YOU are equating iDisk to modern and secure services is proof that the average person would not be aware that iDisk sends all data in unencrypted. This is like you saying that Win95 and IE6 are perfectly fine for 2012 simply because you want to use them. This is like you saying that there should be no law requiring children to be in seat belts because your parents didn't force you to wear one and you're not dead. Those are all bogus and selfish arguments to make. iDisk needs to go away because it's unsecured and I don't have elitist attitude that makes me claim "if you're foolish enough to not know everything about this or that then you shouldn't be using computers." Apple is irresponsible for continuing to supply iDisk and and you're irresponsible for pushing it as a synonymous service to Dropbox et al.

Apple was also irresponsible for pushing your MobileMe mail in plain text in 2008. You can make all the excuses you want that people shouldn't be checking their mail on unsecured WiFi at coffee shops but that, again, is a lame argument and you know it. All personal data needs to be encrypted. iCloud has done that, as far as I can tell, which is a major step in the right direction regardless of whether you wish to step out of 1995 or not is your choice. There are plenty of free FTP services you can use.

It uses AES so it's already well ahead of iDiskosaur.

You're really confused. I want to keep iDisk as one option and let the user decide which option he wants to use. If you don't like it, use any of the other dozen options.

You want to eliminate iDisk simply because it doesn't meet your needs.

How is it that you can conclude that I am trying to dictate what happens?

I'd question the ethics of providing an unencrypted file transfer & storage service. I suppose I would be fine if they declared clearly that the file transfers aren't encrypted, or at least offer that encryption, but I've not seen any such declaration from Apple on iDisk. Encryption is not a magically new technology, so I just don't get it. I understand that not everyone needs it, but given the choice, I'd rather have it than not, because I might inadvertently transfer a valuable file forgetting the transfer isn't encrypted.

Since I only use Dropbox out more than a dozen services and have only stated that iDisk needs to be retired you can't conclude that I want it gone because I don't use it. I want it eliminated because it's irresponsible of Apple to offer it as is. I also pointed out how antiquated it is compared to more than a dozen modern services, but there is only one reason for my decision that it needs to go away, and no other option falls into that category.

I'm not sure it's an issue of ethics (or at least have yet to look it that way) but I do think it's highly irresponsible of Apple.

I remember being in a Starbuck when I figured out that my me.com mail was being sent as plaintext after the initial SSL log on. I was nonplussed. How could an email service in 2008 not offer encryption of personal data from their website? When did Gmail first offer this?

I am part of some internet-based sites that actually send a new password via email, sometimes not just a temp password, or sites that send your signup information to your email once you've registered. You could literally loiter all day on a public WiFi and grab plenty of personal information. I don't expect people to know that WiFi routers uses CDMA/CA, are usually omnidirectional, and that all their traffic is received by all other antennas in the area. It's well beyond the scope of what anyone should know unless they are in the field which is why I think all such data should be encrypted.

Are there laws saying that you can't grab information that is freely being given over pubic airwaves? I know the Google Street View issue is still on going but if a network is open it's open. Unethical, sure, but illegal? Is it like walking into a house that unlocked or it more like taking several samples at a store instead of one?



PS: I'm surprised Google has never offered a free VPN service that could display relevant ads an data mine whilst offering the local connection as fully encrypted in return. If anyone could sell and benefit from such a service I'd think Google could. Even know I wish that AI would offer SSL, even if it's a paid feature, so that my forum conversations are hidden.

 Exactly. I've just read 3 pages of Dropbox vs iDisk vs iCloud but noone seems to care that mac owners who cant (or dont want to) upgrade to Lion are going to lose syncing compatibilty between their mac and "the cloud". Apparentely, this iCloud tech is so cutting edge, Snow Leopard and early core 2 duo processors cant handle it.

 

I purchased Lion with the 10.7.1 release and it immediately turned my iMac (late 2008) into a brick. AppleCare suggested going back to Snow Leopard. But even my Time Machine backup wouldnt work - had I not done a manual back up, I would have lost everything.

 

Short story: some of us CAN'T upgrade to Lion just to keep enjoying cloud backup of bookmarks, contacts, notes, keychains, etc, accessible from our own Mac's System Preferences panel.

 

Unfortunately I can't answer your question. Apple is not about the past, but about the future: if you (and I) don't want to upgrade to Lion, or can't, then sorry, no iCloud for you. Can run CS6 ! Can run Final Cut X!.... Can't run iCloud.

 

H.

So what? If it meets the needs of many people, who cares if it's antiquated? Not everyone needs the features you claim are so essential. Furthermore, even the ones that might be useful across the board can be added to iDisk without throwing it out entirely.

Furthermore, you're evading the hypocrisy of your position.

I would like iDisk continued as an option - that is, customers would have the ability to use iDisk or any of the other services out there.

You, OTOH, want to eliminate iDisk - taking away an option that lots of people are happy with.

Yet you keep saying that I'm trying to restrict users' choice when the opposite is actually true. You are advocating that users' options should be limited. Whether you have a reasonable reason for that position is irrelevant. You are the one advocating for less choice, yet you are claiming that I am.