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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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'.
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.
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
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.
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
Apple would be very happy to get people to pay for additional data storage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropys
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
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'.
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.
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
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.
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
Apple would be very happy to get people to pay for additional data storage.
Doesn't sound like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
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.
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.
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.
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.
Remember when iCloud was supposed to be this big new thing for Apple (to charge people money for).... while providing basically no value. LOL