boycot .mac

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 137
    xionjaxionja Posts: 504member
    .mac, has a really nice ring and look to it, though existing iTools memebers, should get it free the first year. Did anyone notice how it was sometimes .mac and sometimes .Mac?
  • Reply 102 of 137
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    [quote]Originally posted by zaz:

    <strong>Don't make get all 'Atlas Shrugged' on you.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Ayn Rand... now there's a woman whom I can half agree with!
  • Reply 103 of 137
    Stop your bitching!





    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Converting your .Mac trial account to an email-only account



    IMPORTANT: If you choose to convert your trial account to an email-only account, all your data files on Apple's servers (except for email messages) will be removed.



    Other .Mac services, such as iDisk, HomePage, Backup, and Virex, are not accessible to email-only accounts.



    To convert your trial account to email-only, go to <a href="http://www.mac.com."; target="_blank">www.mac.com.</a> Click Account in the .Mac menu bar, then click the Email Account Management button. Enter the member name and password of the trial account you'd like to convert, then click Convert.



    Print your account information for future reference, then click Continue.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Should be implemented soon...



    [ 07-17-2002: Message edited by: apple.otaku ]</p>
  • Reply 104 of 137
    craig12cocraig12co Posts: 106member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scooterboy:

    <strong>Now you can tell everyone you use a Mac every time you send an email". Sounds like Apple's been getting something for free, too. Free advertising.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    amen to that. i liked having the @mac.com e-mail. but that's all i want. and yes, hotmail and yahoo do the same, scaled down e-mail for free, which would be fine by me if Apple followed suit. and i think iDisk deserves a subscription. but when everyone talks about 8 bucks a month for e-mail, let us all remember that you still have to provide your own internet connection. and most of the ones i know of come with free (and multiple) e-mail accounts. to paying for the privilege and joy of @mac.com e-mail seems above and beyond what i want or need. I LOVE Apple, i just wish I didn't have to pay to share that with the world every time I send an e-mail.



    as for the e-mail only, i have yet to see it or use it, but if true, i will convert my account right away.
  • Reply 105 of 137
    They seem to forget that everytime someone emails someone using their mac.com email account it's basically advertising for Apple, so they should at least continue to offer free email accounts.



    <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 106 of 137
    popmetalpopmetal Posts: 95member
    I understand that Apple has to make money out of .mac, but wouldn't it be better for everyone (Apple included) if they were more reasonable about the price? The least the could do is offer a free .mac lite service for people who only need email. Considering that they are not actually providing internet access, for $99 per year they should at least allow you to have more than one email address. A lot more families would jump on it that way. The way it is now, .mac is nothing more than a PR disaster. I haven't seen so many ticked off mac users in a long time!
  • Reply 107 of 137
    boemaneboemane Posts: 311member
    This is weird! Its differentto offer free applications than free internet services. Once you have developed an application, there is no more costs involved, other than distribution, (meaning no ongoing costs, unless you are working on an upgrade). So developing applications is more of an one time expence (more or less - and I know this isnt what we learn from Software Engineering, but think about it). With internet services there are ongoing costs for hardware maintenance, software development and bandwith. Its natural that Apple dont want to lose all this money. You still get all the iApps for free, and if you dont want .mac to host your iPhoto pics or your iMovie movies, i encourage you to find something cheaper that 100 dollars per year to host this kind of service. Remember, you are paying for ease of use here too!



    And dont think .Net will be free either - it most likely wont. <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />



    And its funny, I always considered iTools for the iDisk and Homepage ability. Ive been using iTools to host my digital images, to share with family and friends - The email address always came with it - and ive never acctually used it..



    I wont say im happy to pay 100 dollars a year for .mac, but i think its definately worth it!
  • Reply 108 of 137
    I think that if Apple set a more reasonable price and/or made .mac more family friendly (so you don't have to pay extra to have your wife and kids use it) a lot more people would sign on to it and it would actually make more money for Apple. Right now, I don't see a whole lot of people eager to sign on. Most are either pissed or they never used iTools to start with so they don't care. So even if .mac is worth the $99 per year it doesn't look like it will bring as much revenue as it potentially could. 100,000 mac users paying $99 translates to less revenue than than 1.5 million paying $40.
  • Reply 109 of 137
    I'm too lazy to scan this entire thread, so if it's been posted, sorry to be redundant.



    There's a bunch of weirdass music in iDisk/Software/Extras/FreePlay Music.
  • Reply 110 of 137
    _ alliance __ alliance _ Posts: 2,070member
    [quote]Originally posted by Shanny:

    <strong>I'm too lazy to scan this entire thread, so if it's been posted, sorry to be redundant.



    There's a bunch of weirdass music in iDisk/Software/Extras/FreePlay Music.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    umm...why would anyone have mentioned that...?? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 111 of 137
    moosemanmooseman Posts: 126member
    ...BTW, after I buy some AAPL in the next day or two, I planning on making enough to keep myself in .mac for many years to come in the next 3-4 weeks



    Love those crazy sell-offs. Apple has $12/share in cash.
  • Reply 112 of 137
    moosemanmooseman Posts: 126member
    [quote]Originally posted by Shanny:

    <strong>I'm too lazy to scan this entire thread, so if it's been posted, sorry to be redundant.



    There's a bunch of weirdass music in iDisk/Software/Extras/FreePlay Music.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    ...its been there for a while, its nice *ahem* royalty free music cuts you can use for *ahem* free when you are making videos with your *ahem* free iMovie software and burning them to DVD with your *ahem* free iDVD software.



    BASTARDS!!!!

    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 113 of 137
    hudsonhudson Posts: 22member
    To better convey my thoughts than my previous post:



    I'm not sure that DotMac is going to do for Apple what they are hoping for it to do. Yes, a number of those who live and breath Macintosh will pony up the $100 per year for this. The vast majority of Mac users don't fit into this category. Heck, out of the alleged 25M Macs out there, only 10% are on OS X.



    So what does this mean? I think it's going to be increasingly difficult for Apple to go after more than a token share of the PC market now. The industry-leading ability to integrate apps and functions will be somewhat dependent on people paying a far more than trivial sum per year to derive the benefits that the apps can provide. So, in some ways the whole thing strikes me as a message that "we know you don't need a new computer, we're putting an increasing effort into services, and we're going to get your money that way." The risk that I see that creating is that people may decide they don't need all of this stuff with its associated cost and then they may conclude that they might as well just buy a Wintel box now.



    And who really needs DotMac for simple webpage hosting anyway? Just about every ISP are already providing that as part of their monthly fee.



    I know this may come across as whining -- that's not my intent at all. My real concern is that this effort will be net negative for the platform and hence ultimately bad for us Mac users.
  • Reply 114 of 137
    moosemanmooseman Posts: 126member
    [quote]Originally posted by Hudson:

    <strong>To better convey my thoughts than my previous post:



    I'm not sure that DotMac is going to do for Apple what they are hoping for it to do. Yes, a number of those who live and breath Macintosh will pony up the $100 per year for this. The vast majority of Mac users don't fit into this category. Heck, out of the alleged 25M Macs out there, only 10% are on OS X.



    So what does this mean? I think it's going to be increasingly difficult for Apple to go after more than a token share of the PC market now. The industry-leading ability to integrate apps and functions will be somewhat dependent on people paying a far more than trivial sum per year to derive the benefits that the apps can provide. So, in some ways the whole thing strikes me as a message that "we know you don't need a new computer, we're putting an increasing effort into services, and we're going to get your money that way." The risk that I see that creating is that people may decide they don't need all of this stuff with its associated cost and then they may conclude that they might as well just buy a Wintel box now.



    And who really needs DotMac for simple webpage hosting anyway? Just about every ISP are already providing that as part of their monthly fee.



    I know this may come across as whining -- that's not my intent at all. My real concern is that this effort will be net negative for the platform and hence ultimately bad for us Mac users.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    ...I don't think Apple is trying to focus soley on software (although that could portend a platform switch from PPC to Intel, ie. more income derived from software, less from hardware- I mean if they were gonna do it, they'd have to do it like this to make up for hardware revenue shortfall), but I think that they know hardware won't be back up to par for another 12-18 months. So why blow your wad on hardware when you are waiting on Moto. IBM will be here with the goods eventually, but its gonna be til the Power5 rev most likely before it gets here, and that is MWSF 2004 at the earliest.



    Now the G4 will probably scale to 2Ghz, given the newer G4s extra stages, but after that the G4 is definitely dead end. So the G4 should be petering out about the time Apple gets the supremely bad-ass Power5 derivative and puts Apple at least back on par with the X86 side of the fence.



    So, in short, putting a ton of R&D into hardware ain't gonna make the Power5 get here any sooner, so why not focus on user experience until we get ther real goods in 18 months. Smart management, IMHO. Focus attention on your strength while you work below the surface on making the next leap forward in hardware a damn good one. Then we can start strapping P4 or Itanium derivatives on top of snails again in advertisements.
  • Reply 115 of 137
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    [quote] I'm not sure that DotMac is going to do for Apple what they are hoping for it to do. Yes, a number of those who live and breath Macintosh will pony up the $100 per year for this. The vast majority of Mac users don't fit into this category. Heck, out of the alleged 25M Macs out there, only 10% are on OS X.<hr></blockquote>



    Doesn't really matter. 10% paying customers is better that having %100 non paying customers. Apple has already accomplished one goal. Weeding out the users taking advangtage of iTools in an unfair way.



    [quote]So, in some ways the whole thing strikes me as a message that "we know you don't need a new computer, we're putting an increasing effort into services, and we're going to get your money that way." The risk that I see that creating is that people may decide they don't need all of this stuff with its associated cost and then they may conclude that they might as well just buy a Wintel box now.

    <hr></blockquote>



    You give most customers far too much credit LOL. I've seen Platform decisions revolve around a Color(iMac) or the fact that xx game is only on this platform or a particular application. Most people have needs defined by themselves and it's up to them to assess these needs and make a decision. Apple will win some and lose some. But I can tell you that OSX is becoming a must have and is highly functional out the box. That bodes well for Apple regardless.



    [quote] And who really needs DotMac for simple webpage hosting anyway? Just about every ISP are already providing that as part of their monthly fee. <hr></blockquote>



    Show me an ISP that gives you 100MB of Online Storage for $8. It's unheard of. The question can also be phrased "who doesn't need .mac for simple webpages?" it makes it very simple.



    [quote] I know this may come across as whining -- that's not my intent at all. My real concern is that this effort will be net negative for the platform and hence ultimately bad for us Mac users.



    <hr></blockquote>



    You're not whining...just voiceing your concerns. I'm not as concerned because as a former Salesperson I learned he hard way that people equate FREE with substandard. Human Nature tells us "if they're giving it away free...it must not be worth that much" this attitude causes people to balk at the idea of actually "spending" money on a service they find substandard. These same people might not see ANYTHING wrong with spending $4 on a Latte however.





    You cannot "tell" people they can be empowered using your products..you have to show them. That's always been the magic of Macintosh. It's not always easy to describe why it "Feels" right but you know it when you sit down and think "someone at Apple has been through what I have and has fixed that annoying problem" I never really get that feeling with MS.
  • Reply 116 of 137
    craiger77craiger77 Posts: 133member
    According to this article in todays Seattle Times Microsoft is planning to charge more for much less then .mac offers: <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134494912_msn17.html"; target="_blank">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134494912_msn17.html</a>;



    This idea of a boycott is absurd. If .mac was required in order for your computer to work then maybe that would make sense, but it is a service, and like any service the customer has the choice to make use of it or not. If it does not offer value for the money then people won't buy, which is a huge incentive for Apple to keep improving it to make more sales. With iTools being free there wan't much return on the investment of time and money for Apple to make dramatic improvements. I think we will see a lot coming out in .mac in the next year that we can't even imagine yet. That is why I will spend the $50 and keep it for now...in a years time if I find it worth another $100 to keep it I will, if not I will move on.



    It also appears from links posted here that you will be able to keep your .mac email address for free, but without any of the other .mac services. That should satisfy all those here who just want a free email address.
  • Reply 117 of 137
    towelietowelie Posts: 1member
    [quote]Originally posted by rentedmule:

    <strong>Why on God's green Earth would you think you get that for free?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    because we as mac users pay a premium for the hardware we buy...
  • Reply 118 of 137
    glurxglurx Posts: 1,031member
    The only .mac service I use is email & I'm not going to pay $100 per year to continue it.
  • Reply 119 of 137
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    [quote]Originally posted by towelie:

    <strong>



    because we as mac users pay a premium for the hardware we buy...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    We we should seeing as how we get a Premium Operating System in the deal
  • Reply 120 of 137
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    [quote]Originally posted by craiger77:

    <strong>According to this article in todays Seattle Times Microsoft is planning to charge more for much less then .mac offers: <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134494912_msn17.html"; target="_blank">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134494912_msn17.html</a>;



    This idea of a boycott is absurd. If .mac was required in order for your computer to work then maybe that would make sense, but it is a service, and like any service the customer has the choice to make use of it or not. If it does not offer value for the money then people won't buy, which is a huge incentive for Apple to keep improving it to make more sales. With iTools being free there wan't much return on the investment of time and money for Apple to make dramatic improvements. I think we will see a lot coming out in .mac in the next year that we can't even imagine yet. That is why I will spend the $50 and keep it for now...in a years time if I find it worth another $100 to keep it I will, if not I will move on.



    It also appears from links posted here that you will be able to keep your .mac email address for free, but without any of the other .mac services. That should satisfy all those here who just want a free email address.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    In addition to the MS charges mentioned in that article, TheRegister mentioned yesterday that MS plans to charge for using the MSN Browser if you don't signup for the MSN network...they get you either way. Though i do have a question: anyone ever use MSN Browser? What an ugly, buggy piece of crap that is. Take IE, add a lot of annoying visual distratction to the UI, shrink the viewable browser area to make room for side panel, top panels and bottom panels. Imagine AOL interface, but done in really over the top XP UI, focused on the gaudier eyecandy parts of the UI. Oh, and try to integrate IE, OE, Hotmail and MSN Messenger in one screen and you get an idea what it looks like. ick. ick. ick. And now you get to pay for it. At least .mac looks nice and is actually functional..and you don't pay unless you use it.



    [ 07-18-2002: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.