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 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It uses AES so it's already well ahead of iDiskosaur.
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.
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.
You want to eliminate iDisk simply because it doesn't meet your needs.
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'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.
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.
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??.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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'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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bwinski
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??.
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.
double-post. sorry