.Mac is good business, like it or not this is good news.
Microsoft is desperately trying to setup desireable subscription based services, this is the direction the industry is heading. I don't want to debate if this is a good direction. It is a good thing that while Apple may be behind in hardware, their business model is ahead of the curve.
<strong>[QUOTE]The way it is now, a family of 4 would have to pay $400 per year (because the additional email-only accounts don't provide access to " the service foundation under Jaguar" you speak of ). That's more than AOL charges for services and actual internet access! THAT'S PREPOSTEROUS!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can you explain this? Do you mean a family of four with four different computers? Why couldn't the current iteration of .Mac handle a family of four on one computer?
Can you explain this? Do you mean a family of four with four different computers? Why couldn't the current iteration of .Mac handle a family of four on one computer?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It wouldn't handle a family of 4 on one mac because judging form the name of the "email-only" account , it will not work with iChat , iCal, etc. And it doesn't help either if the family had four different macs.
Plus, the current iteration can't even handle email for family of four without paying $10 (some say it's actually $20 ) per email-only account in addition to the already hefty cost of $99.
It wouldn't handle a family of 4 on one mac because judging form the name of the "email-only" account , it will not work with iChat , iCal, etc. And it doesn't help either if the family had four different macs.
Plus, the current iteration can't even handle email for family of four without paying $10 (some say it's actually $20 ) per email-only account in addition to the already hefty cost of $99.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not so sure you will the first part to be true but I'd take a wait and see approach to it for now. As for the second part most online email providers are starting to charge or package it with other services.
Part of me wouldn't mind seeing Apple bundle 5 email addresses (most families won't need more than 5) with .Mac but $10 per mac.com address is a lot better than $20 for hotmail in my opinion.
<strong>That's how I understood iTools when I bought my Mac; that it is a part of my Mac purchase. "Mac.com email address for life". A short life it was! I feel betrayed. It can't cost Apple $100 per user of iTools. But if the entire user base, or even half that, signed up, that would be what, around $15,000,000,000 per year, or $15 Billion per year. I think the Apple execs who made this decision were blinded by all the dollar signs in their eyes.
First of all, professional (keyword professional) hosting costs a lot; I know because I worked for a hosting company during the .com days. Apple's price is very just. Second, if half of iTools users converted over, it would be the greatest internet subscription story that has ever existed because the industry average is 10% and according to phil, that is exactly what they are expecting.
You know what annoys me .. People from the US complaining about how little money .mac is.
Try going to a country that doesn't enjoy a strong cross rate. Say Australia where it costs us twice as much to get .mac. And it is not proportionally twice as much.
For example, take the McDonalds Big Mac:
Big Mac in the US is say 2.5 US dollars.
Big Mac in Australia is say 3 AUD dollars = 1.5 US dollars.
Big Mac is roughly the same cost to produce in both countries. And since Apple isn't making localised .mac hosting .. it screws overseas people generally quite badly.
So US people have some sympathy for those overseas people. Especially Iraq. Heh wait, put down that nuke, I was only joking
You know what annoys me .. People from the US complaining about how little money .mac is.
Try going to a country that doesn't enjoy a strong cross rate. Say Australia where it costs us twice as much to get .mac. And it is not proportionally twice as much.
For example, take the McDonalds Big Mac:
Big Mac in the US is say 2.5 US dollars.
Big Mac in Australia is say 3 AUD dollars = 1.5 US dollars.
Big Mac is roughly the same cost to produce in both countries. And since Apple isn't making localised .mac hosting .. it screws overseas people generally quite badly.
So US people have some sympathy for those overseas people. Especially Iraq. Heh wait, put down that nuke, I was only joking
my personal recomendation to those of you that are mac users prior to the introduction of .mac
Instead of a petition to offer a tiered service, or to boycott .mac all together, i would recomend a petition for current users to be able to keep just their(one) email address for free, or for a very modest per year fee. Apple has already laid the groundwork for these accounts, and made the initial investment, and most of the email addy's are ones people come to rely on.
Big Mac in Australia is say 3 AUD dollars = 1.5 US dollars.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just to go off topic a minute and because I really do like this index for those of you who don't know about the Big Mac index here is basically what it indicates.
It is used as a rough indication fo the relative value of a currency. For instance you can say that Big Mac should be roughly worth the same amount in both countries, therefore in A$ it is undervalued so the A$ must currently be undervalued. As it happens currency prices are a little more complex but I still think it's a nifty little index
Anyway sorry to disrupt please go back to .Mac.
I agree with what you are saying in general naden but Internet in Australia is seriously overpriced so I doubt you'd want a localised price in this one.
I believe that the Big Mac index originated with the Economist Magazine, which I've read religiously for many years. The index is published several times a year and serves as a rough guide to over/undervalued currencies.
Note: this index should not be confused with Thomas Friedman's McDonalds theory of conflict prevention.
Jobs said that Apple doesn't expect significant profits from the service, but had opted to charge for it so that the company could afford to invest in developing new tools that will eventually be offered through the service.
"Now that we're out of the 'everything is free' mode, we can invest in developing great new things," Jobs said. "It's a good deal."
Possibilities include extending .Mac's offerings to allow subscribers access to products ranging from discounted software to movie tickets.
"Maybe we can eventually work out a deal where you can get everything we do for a flat monthly fee," Jobs said. "I think that's possible."
I'd be willing to bet that Apple has had a basic .Mac package designed from the get-go. Too many people have expressed concern with the apparent lack of options and prices for Apple to turn a deaf ear.
So when the new PowerMacs are introduced (mid-August or whenever), Apple says that "..we've had alot of feedback about the .Mac program... we've listened to our customers... we're going to introduce a basic package for e-mail and iDisk for only x dollars a year...". The beauty of this plan is that Apple wins at every turn. The people who were going to abandon ship now reconsider, and some, perhaps most, sign up for the basic service. The people who have reluctantly signed up have no basis for complaint; the service was free until Sept. 30th. The die hard fans who have already signed up couldn't care less. Most importantly though, is what this does for Apple's image. The Abandon Ship people think Apple has heard their voice and changed accordingly; they love Apple. The Early Adopters realize how much they are getting for only a few dollars more a year (the first year, at least), and think "what a deal"; they love Apple. It's a win-win situation for Apple.
What's the advantage of delaying the basic package? The extra revenue generated by the Early Adopters who sign up between now and the announcement. And once someone has the full .Mac package, are they likely to downgrade to the basic?
One thing I don't understand is why there is only a yearly option. Several people here have mentioned how it is easy to come up with $8 a month, and I can agree with that. But I can't sign up for only $8 a month--I have to fork over the $100 dollard for a year.
I would even like to sign up, but I don't have that kind of cash on hand. Even a quarterly option I might be able to swing. Why cut out younger, poorer users by requiring an up front investment instead of a subscription system.
<strong>my personal recomendation to those of you that are mac users prior to the introduction of .mac
Instead of a petition to offer a tiered service, or to boycott .mac all together, i would recomend a petition for current users to be able to keep just their(one) email address for free, or for a very modest per year fee. Apple has already laid the groundwork for these accounts, and made the initial investment, and most of the email addy's are ones people come to rely on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's all I want....keep "@mac.com" for $10-$20 per year
That's all I want....keep "@mac.com" for $10-$20 per year
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here here.
Derrick, we need more like you.
This .Mac mayhem seems to be extremely divided.
There is a severe gap is why many object... from never pay at all to Apple is guilty of 'Bait and Switch' to they are alienating their user base.
Among the objectors no one agrees on the hows and why's. And the loudest voices are among the most unreasonable.
A common stand behind this would be a decent compromise. A nod to Apple that we recognize this stuff ain't free... in return a nod from them that they appreciate our patronage.
These flame petitions and rants will fall on deaf ears at Apple.
I'm reposting from another thread, unceremoniously closed, because the mod thought i didn't know how to send this note to Jobs--so just so you know, it's gone to Jobs in expanded form, been posted in .mac feedback and all over the place. I just think it is a good idea worthy of feedback and discussion:
>>>
Steve,
What .mac needs is value-added service--if it is going to be $100 a year, there needs to be *something* that balances that beyond the extortion of getting to keep our own email addresses and webpages of our kids playing in the sandbox. Virus protection and some kind of half-assed backup doesn't cut it.
here's my proposal: dial-up access. Not full access, but national dial-up numbers, and every iTools account gets 20 hours a week free, after which they have to pay a nominal sum (say $1 an hour).
It doesn't replace your standard dial-up, but if you are on the road you can always dial in--the fact that folks can't stay on all the time limits traffic, and it's a nice backup feature that adds the kind of value people need, especially broadband adopters--it's nice to have a backup.
I'm not saying this puts .mac over the top, but it would really make a big difference to me.
Exactly how did you send it to Jobs? I bet a lot of people would like to know your secret.
As for Apple offering internet service dial up, they already do, it is called Earthlink. If you even think that they will compromise that business venture just to make you happy, I think you are highly mistaken.
"As for Apple offering internet service dial up, they already do, it is called Earthlink. If you even think that they will compromise that business venture just to make you happy, I think you are highly mistaken."
Given their investments in Earthlink, I actually was thinking they would simply work with Earthlink to make this possible, and since it isn't 24/7 dialup, those who need that service as their primary net link would still be paying Earthlink.
I wish I understood why I get so much animosity from folks about suggesting ways to extend .Mac so that it would represent a better deal for people. "Just to make you happy..."--what's with the tone? I think this is a great suggestion. Is there anyone else here with me? At this point, I'm just curious.
Comments
Microsoft is desperately trying to setup desireable subscription based services, this is the direction the industry is heading. I don't want to debate if this is a good direction. It is a good thing that while Apple may be behind in hardware, their business model is ahead of the curve.
<strong>[QUOTE]The way it is now, a family of 4 would have to pay $400 per year (because the additional email-only accounts don't provide access to " the service foundation under Jaguar" you speak of ). That's more than AOL charges for services and actual internet access! THAT'S PREPOSTEROUS!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can you explain this? Do you mean a family of four with four different computers? Why couldn't the current iteration of .Mac handle a family of four on one computer?
<strong>
Can you explain this? Do you mean a family of four with four different computers? Why couldn't the current iteration of .Mac handle a family of four on one computer?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It wouldn't handle a family of 4 on one mac because judging form the name of the "email-only" account , it will not work with iChat , iCal, etc. And it doesn't help either if the family had four different macs.
Plus, the current iteration can't even handle email for family of four without paying $10 (some say it's actually $20 ) per email-only account in addition to the already hefty cost of $99.
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: popmetal ]</p>
<strong>
It wouldn't handle a family of 4 on one mac because judging form the name of the "email-only" account , it will not work with iChat , iCal, etc. And it doesn't help either if the family had four different macs.
Plus, the current iteration can't even handle email for family of four without paying $10 (some say it's actually $20 ) per email-only account in addition to the already hefty cost of $99.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not so sure you will the first part to be true but I'd take a wait and see approach to it for now. As for the second part most online email providers are starting to charge or package it with other services.
Part of me wouldn't mind seeing Apple bundle 5 email addresses (most families won't need more than 5) with .Mac but $10 per mac.com address is a lot better than $20 for hotmail in my opinion.
<strong>That's how I understood iTools when I bought my Mac; that it is a part of my Mac purchase. "Mac.com email address for life". A short life it was! I feel betrayed. It can't cost Apple $100 per user of iTools. But if the entire user base, or even half that, signed up, that would be what, around $15,000,000,000 per year, or $15 Billion per year. I think the Apple execs who made this decision were blinded by all the dollar signs in their eyes.
[ 07-18-2002: Message edited by: Scooterboy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
First of all, professional (keyword professional) hosting costs a lot; I know because I worked for a hosting company during the .com days. Apple's price is very just. Second, if half of iTools users converted over, it would be the greatest internet subscription story that has ever existed because the industry average is 10% and according to phil, that is exactly what they are expecting.
Try going to a country that doesn't enjoy a strong cross rate. Say Australia where it costs us twice as much to get .mac. And it is not proportionally twice as much.
For example, take the McDonalds Big Mac:
Big Mac in the US is say 2.5 US dollars.
Big Mac in Australia is say 3 AUD dollars = 1.5 US dollars.
Big Mac is roughly the same cost to produce in both countries. And since Apple isn't making localised .mac hosting .. it screws overseas people generally quite badly.
So US people have some sympathy for those overseas people. Especially Iraq. Heh wait, put down that nuke, I was only joking
Try going to a country that doesn't enjoy a strong cross rate. Say Australia where it costs us twice as much to get .mac. And it is not proportionally twice as much.
For example, take the McDonalds Big Mac:
Big Mac in the US is say 2.5 US dollars.
Big Mac in Australia is say 3 AUD dollars = 1.5 US dollars.
Big Mac is roughly the same cost to produce in both countries. And since Apple isn't making localised .mac hosting .. it screws overseas people generally quite badly.
So US people have some sympathy for those overseas people. Especially Iraq. Heh wait, put down that nuke, I was only joking
Instead of a petition to offer a tiered service, or to boycott .mac all together, i would recomend a petition for current users to be able to keep just their(one) email address for free, or for a very modest per year fee. Apple has already laid the groundwork for these accounts, and made the initial investment, and most of the email addy's are ones people come to rely on.
<strong>For example, take the McDonalds Big Mac:
Big Mac in the US is say 2.5 US dollars.
Big Mac in Australia is say 3 AUD dollars = 1.5 US dollars.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just to go off topic a minute and because I really do like this index for those of you who don't know about the Big Mac index here is basically what it indicates.
It is used as a rough indication fo the relative value of a currency. For instance you can say that Big Mac should be roughly worth the same amount in both countries, therefore in A$ it is undervalued so the A$ must currently be undervalued. As it happens currency prices are a little more complex but I still think it's a nifty little index
Anyway sorry to disrupt please go back to .Mac.
I agree with what you are saying in general naden but Internet in Australia is seriously overpriced so I doubt you'd want a localised price in this one.
Note: this index should not be confused with Thomas Friedman's McDonalds theory of conflict prevention.
"Now that we're out of the 'everything is free' mode, we can invest in developing great new things," Jobs said. "It's a good deal."
Possibilities include extending .Mac's offerings to allow subscribers access to products ranging from discounted software to movie tickets.
"Maybe we can eventually work out a deal where you can get everything we do for a flat monthly fee," Jobs said. "I think that's possible."
<a href="http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,53952,00.html"; target="_blank">Wired Story..</a>
So when the new PowerMacs are introduced (mid-August or whenever), Apple says that "..we've had alot of feedback about the .Mac program... we've listened to our customers... we're going to introduce a basic package for e-mail and iDisk for only x dollars a year...". The beauty of this plan is that Apple wins at every turn. The people who were going to abandon ship now reconsider, and some, perhaps most, sign up for the basic service. The people who have reluctantly signed up have no basis for complaint; the service was free until Sept. 30th. The die hard fans who have already signed up couldn't care less. Most importantly though, is what this does for Apple's image. The Abandon Ship people think Apple has heard their voice and changed accordingly; they love Apple. The Early Adopters realize how much they are getting for only a few dollars more a year (the first year, at least), and think "what a deal"; they love Apple. It's a win-win situation for Apple.
What's the advantage of delaying the basic package? The extra revenue generated by the Early Adopters who sign up between now and the announcement. And once someone has the full .Mac package, are they likely to downgrade to the basic?
I would even like to sign up, but I don't have that kind of cash on hand. Even a quarterly option I might be able to swing. Why cut out younger, poorer users by requiring an up front investment instead of a subscription system.
<strong>my personal recomendation to those of you that are mac users prior to the introduction of .mac
Instead of a petition to offer a tiered service, or to boycott .mac all together, i would recomend a petition for current users to be able to keep just their(one) email address for free, or for a very modest per year fee. Apple has already laid the groundwork for these accounts, and made the initial investment, and most of the email addy's are ones people come to rely on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's all I want....keep "@mac.com" for $10-$20 per year
<strong>
That's all I want....keep "@mac.com" for $10-$20 per year
Here here.
Derrick, we need more like you.
This .Mac mayhem seems to be extremely divided.
There is a severe gap is why many object... from never pay at all to Apple is guilty of 'Bait and Switch' to they are alienating their user base.
Among the objectors no one agrees on the hows and why's. And the loudest voices are among the most unreasonable.
A common stand behind this would be a decent compromise. A nod to Apple that we recognize this stuff ain't free... in return a nod from them that they appreciate our patronage.
These flame petitions and rants will fall on deaf ears at Apple.
$25
20 MB idisk
Basic HTML Homepage
5 MB e-mail
$50
50 MB idisk
Enhanced Homepage (just more than HTML)
10 MB e-mail
Anti-virus
$100
100 MB idisk
Complete Homepage (do anything)
20 MB e-mail
Anti-Virus
>>>
Steve,
What .mac needs is value-added service--if it is going to be $100 a year, there needs to be *something* that balances that beyond the extortion of getting to keep our own email addresses and webpages of our kids playing in the sandbox. Virus protection and some kind of half-assed backup doesn't cut it.
here's my proposal: dial-up access. Not full access, but national dial-up numbers, and every iTools account gets 20 hours a week free, after which they have to pay a nominal sum (say $1 an hour).
It doesn't replace your standard dial-up, but if you are on the road you can always dial in--the fact that folks can't stay on all the time limits traffic, and it's a nice backup feature that adds the kind of value people need, especially broadband adopters--it's nice to have a backup.
I'm not saying this puts .mac over the top, but it would really make a big difference to me.
>>>
As for Apple offering internet service dial up, they already do, it is called Earthlink. If you even think that they will compromise that business venture just to make you happy, I think you are highly mistaken.
I don't know if anyone has run across this online petition, if not it is worth checking out. It is already up to 19,000 signatures. Help it expand. <a href="http://www.PetitionOnline.com/iTol/petition.html"; target="_blank">http://www.PetitionOnline.com/iTol/petition.html</a>;
Given their investments in Earthlink, I actually was thinking they would simply work with Earthlink to make this possible, and since it isn't 24/7 dialup, those who need that service as their primary net link would still be paying Earthlink.
I wish I understood why I get so much animosity from folks about suggesting ways to extend .Mac so that it would represent a better deal for people. "Just to make you happy..."--what's with the tone? I think this is a great suggestion. Is there anyone else here with me? At this point, I'm just curious.