Apple shutters MobileMe, keeps data available for 'limited time'

124»

Comments

  • Reply 62 of 78
    jnjnjnjnjnjn Posts: 588member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Trilogy View Post




    I moved my iWeb websites over to DV Host (http://www.dvhost.com), and it works just as easily. After changing my publishing settings, I continue to press the "Publish" button in iWeb. It took 10 minutes to change everything. The difference is that it now publishes to DV Host instead of MobileMe.


     


    I think it's a good solution for us MobileMe "refugees" who want to continue using iWeb.


     


    I hope iWeb will still be part of the next version of iLife, because to be honest I haven't found anything that's as simple to use. I tried RapidWeaver, Sandvox, etc, but didn't like any of them.



     


    A problem with other hosts is that not all iWeb functionality is supported because some widgets depend on Apple only server code.


     


    J.

  • Reply 63 of 78
    jnjnjnjnjnjn Posts: 588member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


    Somehow I've not paid attention to this. What about the @me.com email accounts? Will they still work or are they migrating to @icloud.com?



    @me.com email accounts stop working if you do not convert your machine (iPad, iPod, .. or Mac) to iCould.


    So, if all your devices aren't compatible with iCloud, your me.com address will be discarded.


    It is however possible to keep the email address and enable it again by logging in via www.me.com/move and using your email address (and related password) as apple id.


     


    J. 

  • Reply 64 of 78
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,118member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post





    No, to both. You are evidently "insanely misinformed", as another on this forum has pointed out as well, and that alone renders the rest of your post moot.

    The 3G was sold until June 2010 and is still covered by AppleCare for another healthy year, yet one of the primary features Apple marketed it with - data synchronization with all of Apple's products - is no longer available, and for no reason other than Apple chose not to support it. The only way to get the iPhone 3G talking to the rest of one's Apple family again is to upgrade an otherwise perfectly good phone with a year of AppleCare left on it. Really doesn't matter if it was Apple's entry level phone. The features it was purchased with should at least survive the end of the factory warranty period. I could care less if it could run another single iOS update, but it should at a minimum do everything it could do when originally purchased, at least until the phone is no longer supported under warranty by the manufacturer.


     


    I see, so now when we talk about how old a product is, we start the day it was taken off the shelves, not the day it was released. Awesome. The iPhone 3G was released in 2008 and is a 4 year old phone, no matter which way you want to cut it. It's ancient history as far as phones are concerned, and does not support iO5, nor the upcoming iOS6. Technically, it's a dinosaur. As for your example of your unemployed guy using this phone to distribute his resume using idrive, again, if the guy is too idiotic as to be unable to spend a few minutes moving his document to another one of the myriad cloud storage services, which are free, and which have iPhone apps, then he doesn't deserve to find a job. The dropbox app will do the exact same thing.  Apple has clearly moved away from a 'dumb' online storage solution, to one in which documents are transparently available and automatically synced through the devices and apps themselves. There are much better free solutions today than whatever you could do with a payed solution with idrive. Stop reaching so hard and grasping at straws pretending the loss of iDrive is a big deal. It doesnt fit into Apple's strategy anymore, so deal with it, and if the move bothers you so much, don't give Apple any of your business. As for the future, iCloud will be baked in to ML, where you can drag and drop whatever you want there. 

  • Reply 65 of 78
    shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Customers are in a lurch? As far as I can tell iWeb and iWork are both Universal apps that still run on Lion and ML so what lurch are they in? Are you defining lurch as not getting rich updates with a new paid version because that's not what lurch means? Are you defining lurch as Apple allowing other apps like MS Office, RapidWeaver and countless others to be used on a Macs because that's not what lurch means?


     


    Lurch - Definition "to be abandoned in a difficult position without help" 


     


    I don't know about you but I would rather not continue to use a software product that has been dropped by Apple because at some point they will inevitably drop all security updates and support for that product. Technology moves on and it's important to know that the software I'm using will move forward on regular basis. Maybe "lurch" is not the correct term but given the fact that there is no obvious upgrade path to another product many people will need to create their websites from scratch using another application, wasting both time and effort in the process.


     


    As usual you are seeking to nit-pick a specific point. I was trying to make a general statement that Apple are too willing to drop software products and abandon those users.

  • Reply 66 of 78
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    My gripe is with Galleries, mainly. I've been a fool by procrastinating to move to a different service, probably because I simply didn't think Apple wouldn't come out with an alternative before closing down MM. I did look at:

    [LIST]
    [*] www.Dphoto.com (but it's Flash, which I didn't install after a clean OSX install on new SSD)
    [*] www.ZangZing.com (no dice; they're closing shop)
    [*] www.SmugMug.com (reasonably good)
    [*] [URL=http://picasa.google.com]picasa.google.com[/URL] (tasteless)
    [*] www.Flickr.com (reasonably good)
    [*] www.One.com (tasteless)
    [*] www.Zenfolio.com (reasonably good)
    [*] www.Viddler.com (mainly video sharing)
    [/LIST]

    Taste varies / YMMV and all that, which is good, but there simply is no alternative to Galleries, IM(NS)HO. Galleries gave you the option to download the original RAW files as well. There's no photo service out there that I know of; you'd have to share your jpg's in one place and use a file syncing tool at some other site for your raw files. Then sending two links to clients or whatever.

    Currently trying out Zenfolio, which is 'ok' - so far. Perhaps I'll get the $ 25 after the 14 day trial and upgrade for more options. Please let me remove the 'order prints' stuff.

    I also read the 100+ page thread:
    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3102548?start=0&tstart=0
    which kinda 'came up empty'.

    Lastly I thought I'd create my own website, have port 80 open on my router and point it to my MacMini that sits under my TV. That way I'm only uploading whatever people are accessing, and I don't have to sync huge amounts of photo's to some obscure Galleries alternative. Turned out that my 1Mbps ADSL uplink isn't up to the task when several people are trying to access my home gallery after I sent them a link. So I need to sent everyone a link at intervals - not good. For the life of me, why are they killing MM Galleries before releasing PhotoStream? Not that PS would be 'The Perfect MMG replacement' but why kill something without an alternative? They've killed software before, but as far as I recall they simply came out with something different or better.

    Really, no good alternative out there? In the words of Jeremy Clarkson, "how hard can it be?"

    [URL=http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/170264/width/480/height/331][IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/170264/width/480/height/331[/IMG][/URL]
  • Reply 67 of 78


    Just shows that not everything Apple makes sticks. Still, they tried real hard

  • Reply 68 of 78
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,414member
    philboogie wrote: »
    My gripe is with Galleries, mainly. I've been a fool by procrastinating to move to a different service, probably because I simply didn't think Apple wouldn't come out with an alternative before closing down MM. ]
    Not sure if you are aware, butMountain Lion will enable photo sharing when it comes out this month. It will allow you to share via a number of methods (including via webpages) anything in your PhotoStream, and will presumably sport any file format you have.

    http://www.apple.com/ios/ios6/#photostreams

    IOS 6 will add this functionality to the iDevices.

    Like you, I am frustrated Apple didn't overlap these services. It means at least a few weeks downtime, and another couple of months before you are back to where you were with Gallery, hopefully. And PhotoStream is a much better system than Gallery ever was, so this will all be for the better, but it was just handled miserably. Apple puts such a premium on customer service, yet this time they seem to have really botched it. I have to wonder if this was the plan, or if Steve were still around he'd be screaming at the transition team about how eh f***ed up again ...

    I can only hope Apple has an iDisk solution replacement up it's sleeve as well. Web hosting is what it is, Apple doesn't necessarily need to be in the picture on that one, particularly if they are not going to support web construction software. On the other hand, they may have something planned with their cozying up to FaceBook in terms of so-called "vanity website" integration with photo sharing.

    It's so funny, on the one hand Apple makes a big deal about allowing iWeb to incorporate Google ads and the like, and then the next moment just drops the ball like a hot potato. Then there's Ping which was just a massive mistake, and likely a hot-headed response from Steve Jobs after not being able to make a deal with Facebook on his terms.
  • Reply 69 of 78
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,165member
    isaidso wrote: »
    I really don't understand what your talking about. 
    iWeb creates standards based websites just like any other website creation application does. Just load your "rendered" website into any other creation / editor app you want.
    Am I missing something?

    edit: ...and that said; I find (for my needs) iWeb to be the most useful and simple web content creation app around. Why stop using it just because Apple's online hosting service is gone? (I never used that anyway)

    I 100% agree with everything you say. It puzzles me that many, apparently long time Mac users, insist on repeating the untrue notion that iWeb is somehow tied to using MobileMe. I have had up to 50 web sites running on regular hosting servers using the excellent built in FTP which is a joy to use since it is smart enough to only upload the files that have changed. I use iWebSites to change default accounts for iWeb BTW.
  • Reply 70 of 78
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    shaun, uk wrote: »
    Lurch - Definition "to be abandoned in a difficult position without help" 

    I don't know about you but I would rather not continue to use a software product that has been dropped by Apple because at some point they will inevitably drop all security updates and support for that product. Technology moves on and it's important to know that the software I'm using will move forward on regular basis. Maybe "lurch" is not the correct term but given the fact that there is no obvious upgrade path to another product many people will need to create their websites from scratch using another application, wasting both time and effort in the process.

    As usual you are seeking to nit-pick a specific point. I was trying to make a general statement that Apple are too willing to drop software products and abandon those users.

    A lurch is defined as being abrupt. There is nothing abrupt, sudden or unexpected about this transition except that those that have had over a year to make the transition now have more time to do so.

    Your idea that Apple (or any company) should support their cloud services indefinitely is absurd. Technology evolves and you've had plenty of time to prepare. Whether the new solutions by Apple fit your needs or not is irrelevant to the fact that you've had plenty of time to plan for this date.
  • Reply 71 of 78
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mac_128 wrote: »
    I can only hope Apple has an iDisk solution replacement up it's sleeve as well.

    It doesn't look good on this front. Not that Apple has ever had a solid option or understanding here but it would be nice to have a system that as seamless as Dropbox that was part of the iOS/Mac OS system. From my PoV this seems like a great way to get people to buy more storage space since their default 5GB might be not be enough if they are sharing files with other users securely.


    PS: From what i gather from devs iCloud integration is a huge PITA. Even now as Apple does seem committed to the cloud they still seem like they are coming at it from the wrong direction. They really need to take a look at Google and MS et al. to get a better understanding of what will satisfy users.
  • Reply 72 of 78
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Just shows that not everything Apple makes sticks. Still, they tried real hard

    It stuck so much they made a better, free version…

    I know you're someone. Give me a minute or two.
  • Reply 73 of 78
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,524member


    I was one of the very first users of .mac when it came out and never had an issue paying the $99 for it since we heavily used the address, and calendar sync features. This was the only way my family could keep straight what everyone was doing. I also back up various things on iDisk and allow others to share files with me. I have to say this shut down is going to force me to upgrade all my equipment from apple before I was really ready to do so. Only my Ipad is compatable now of our Desk top mac or laptop are. So it mean new computers, upgrade memory and software and new iPhones.


     


    I never though Apple would obsolete me, but they have and more recently this seems to be apple trend of using software features to force people to update hardware. Like like the M$ model of doing business.

  • Reply 74 of 78
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post


    I never though Apple would obsolete me, but they have and more recently this seems to be apple trend of using software features to force people to update hardware. Like like the M$ model of doing business.



    Now I have to consider replacing an old iMac that is not Lion capable but is still a perfectly good computer even though it cannot connect to iCloud because it is only running SL. I can no longer use back to my Mac on that machine which I occasionally did but not very often. Just a little sad to lose it from my list of devices.

  • Reply 75 of 78

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jeffhrsn View Post


    What in the world could have "compatible" with MobileMe that is not "compatible" with iCloud? Lost me BIG time.



    I believe he means the availability of iDisk.  iCloud offers no such service.

  • Reply 76 of 78
    schralpschralp Posts: 23member


    I think this is a huge mistake and wish Apple would reconsider doing away with web hosting (with iWeb publishing) and the galleries. I'm happy to be rid of iDisk; much prefer Dropbox anyway. A number of others seem to feel the same way:


     


    https://discussions.apple.com/message/15355134?searchText=Will Apple continue iWeb support#15355134


     


    Wish they would "just listen" because people like me liked the way it "just worked" especially for publishing galleries from Aperture etc.

  • Reply 77 of 78
    jeffhrsnjeffhrsn Posts: 60member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post





    iDisk allows you to do any file. iCloud lets you do whatever files are compatible with whatever applications have cloud document syncing.


    But the iDisk concept is not part of iCloud, so that's an odd comparison. FWIW, not having iDisk any longer "forced" me to check out DropBox and I so glad I did! Much better execution and concept in the area of file sharing IMO.

  • Reply 78 of 78
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    schralp wrote: »
    I think this is a huge mistake and wish Apple would reconsider doing away with web hosting (with iWeb publishing) and the galleries. I'm happy to be rid of iDisk; much prefer Dropbox anyway. A number of others seem to feel the same way:

    https://discussions.apple.com/message/15355134?searchText=Will%20Apple%20continue%20iWeb%20support#15355134

    Wish they would "just listen" because people like me liked the way it "just worked" especially for publishing galleries from Aperture etc.

    I've been wishing for Apple to reconsider their decision as well for the past year. But nope, they pulled the plug last Sunday and we're left without iDisk & Galleries, amongst others. The thread at Apple still continues, 106 pages long. Do like the new features that are coming, like Photo Stream, but it cannot replace Galleries for me. Still looking and trying out SmugMug & Zenfolio
    I 100% agree with everything you say. It puzzles me that many, apparently long time Mac users, insist on repeating the untrue notion that iWeb is somehow tied to using MobileMe. I have had up to 50 web sites running on regular hosting servers using the excellent built in FTP which is a joy to use since it is smart enough to only upload the files that have changed. I use iWebSites to change default accounts for iWeb BTW.

    Thanks for that iWebSites!
    mac_128 wrote: »
    Not sure if you are aware, butMountain Lion will enable photo sharing when it comes out this month. It will allow you to share via a number of methods (including via webpages) anything in your PhotoStream, and will presumably sport any file format you have.
    http://www.apple.com/ios/ios6/#photostreams
    IOS 6 will add this functionality to the iDevices.
    Like you, I am frustrated Apple didn't overlap these services. It means at least a few weeks downtime, and another couple of months before you are back to where you were with Gallery, hopefully. And PhotoStream is a much better system than Gallery ever was, so this will all be for the better, but it was just handled miserably. Apple puts such a premium on customer service, yet this time they seem to have really botched it. I have to wonder if this was the plan, or if Steve were still around he'd be screaming at the transition team about how eh f***ed up again ...
    I can only hope Apple has an iDisk solution replacement up it's sleeve as well. Web hosting is what it is, Apple doesn't necessarily need to be in the picture on that one, particularly if they are not going to support web construction software. On the other hand, they may have something planned with their cozying up to FaceBook in terms of so-called "vanity website" integration with photo sharing.
    It's so funny, on the one hand Apple makes a big deal about allowing iWeb to incorporate Google ads and the like, and then the next moment just drops the ball like a hot potato. Then there's Ping which was just a massive mistake, and likely a hot-headed response from Steve Jobs after not being able to make a deal with Facebook on his terms.

    Personally I think Photo Stream won't be better than Galleries:

    • Can't share the original raw files accompanying the jpg,
    • iPhoto for iOS discards the sorting order. No worries if you simply have your photo's sorted by date/name or whatever, but the iOS iPhoto software screws it up. Manually sorting every photo on an iPad is no fun; I'd rather create the whole Journal Photo Sharing Thing on my Mac
    • PS has some humongous long URL; Galleries used to be http://gallery.me.com/username/6digit for the homepage
    • There's no iOS app to have all your friends Galleries accessible in one place; you need to keep all your friends' Galleries homepage bookmarked

    and so on and so forth...
Sign In or Register to comment.