Time Machine and the all new .Mac
I was just thinking about Time Machine and the lack of a second hard drive in most Macs whilst I was messing about with my not so beautiful face in Photo Booth. I remembered the rumors about the movie streaming service and some people getting an upgraded bandwidth to 1Tb per month.
Do you see an all new .Mac service with an online hard drive and huge amounts of bandwidth as a possible tie in for Time Machine aswell as the iPhone, iTV and other new features in Leopard?
It would be great (security and privacy issues aside) to store snapshots/current/previous data to .Mac so you have a mirror of your drives content online. It would work very nicely for portables such as the MacBook with a 250Gb iDrive. It also opens possibilities for another partnership with Google as they are rumored to be working towards a future where all of our data is stored online.
The New .Mac
AJAX (and a bit of Flash) Everywhere
250Gb iDrive
1Tb Bandwidth
iPhone and iTV support
Time Machine Backup
Extra Content for iLife and Mac OS X
iCal, Address Book etc revamped
Much better iWeb Homepage Management
Do you see an all new .Mac service with an online hard drive and huge amounts of bandwidth as a possible tie in for Time Machine aswell as the iPhone, iTV and other new features in Leopard?
It would be great (security and privacy issues aside) to store snapshots/current/previous data to .Mac so you have a mirror of your drives content online. It would work very nicely for portables such as the MacBook with a 250Gb iDrive. It also opens possibilities for another partnership with Google as they are rumored to be working towards a future where all of our data is stored online.
The New .Mac
AJAX (and a bit of Flash) Everywhere
250Gb iDrive
1Tb Bandwidth
iPhone and iTV support
Time Machine Backup
Extra Content for iLife and Mac OS X
iCal, Address Book etc revamped
Much better iWeb Homepage Management
Comments
The New .Mac
AJAX (and a bit of Flash) Everywhere
250Gb iDrive
1Tb Bandwidth
iPhone and iTV support
Time Machine Backup
Extra Content for iLife and Mac OS X
iCal, Address Book etc revamped
Much better iWeb Homepage Management
Maybe
No
I think it already has this ? I forgot how large the Bandwith is... I'll check later
Yes and No
No (Backup already has this for personal settings, etc.)
Already has this (.Mac Podcast Pack and Backup)
Huh?
Hopefully
Sebastian
And you're talking about 1 TiB of bandwidth. $2,850, baby!
I was just thinking about Time Machine and the lack of a second hard drive in most Macs whilst I was messing about with my not so beautiful face in Photo Booth. I remembered the rumors about the movie streaming service and some people getting an upgraded bandwidth to 1Tb per month.
Do you see an all new .Mac service with an online hard drive and huge amounts of bandwidth as a possible tie in for Time Machine aswell as the iPhone, iTV and other new features in Leopard?
It would be great (security and privacy issues aside) to store snapshots/current/previous data to .Mac so you have a mirror of your drives content online. It would work very nicely for portables such as the MacBook with a 250Gb iDrive. It also opens possibilities for another partnership with Google as they are rumored to be working towards a future where all of our data is stored online.
The New .Mac
AJAX (and a bit of Flash) Everywhere
250Gb iDrive
1Tb Bandwidth
iPhone and iTV support
Time Machine Backup
Extra Content for iLife and Mac OS X
iCal, Address Book etc revamped
Much better iWeb Homepage Management
Nowhere uses flash anymore just for the fun of it. A few years ago people used flash based website for glitz and glamor. The web has grown out of that phase and the key concept in web design right now is simplicity. If you don't know what I am talking about, take a look at facebook and NYTimes. Myspace, albeit absolutely hideous and terribly dysfunctional, also attempts a 'simple' basic theme.
I'm sorry, but I really don't think that Apple can do anything to make .Mac a truly competitive online service when compared to the hundreds of other online services out there. Maybe in a few years, but certainly not now.
1Tb bandwidth was mentioned (not because i'm mental)
Sebastian
I added Flash into the list because Apple sure uses a lot of it on their website in place of Ajax etc. Although I heavily agree that the likes of MySpace are really disgusting; but I was thinking more along the lines of Flash being used for their demos and some navigation etc... the same as they do on their current pages.
1Tb bandwidth was mentioned (not because i'm mental)
My 6.95/mo hosting is 2,000GB of bandwidth and 200GB storage. Free domain forever, 2,500 email addresses, virtually all server technologies except M$ SQL and possibly Oracle.
Sure I don't get the happy happy joy joy .mac integration, but I'll take mine over yours any day.
My 6.95/mo hosting is 2,000GB of bandwidth and 200GB storage. Free domain forever, 2,500 email addresses, virtually all server technologies except M$ SQL and possibly Oracle.
Sure I don't get the happy happy joy joy .mac integration, but I'll take mine over yours any day.
I completely agree (we probably have the same host, Servage?). But that's not the argument here. It's about .Mac being far more capable for generic users who tend to use a lot of digital media these days (especially Mac users with iLife etc) and allowing these people to backup their computers online so they don't need extra hard drives etc... It's about simplifying.
You can drag and drop content in iWeb and you have a pretty cool website that can be uploaded to .Mac. You could travel around the city and have Leopard upload/backup your data for Time Machine whenever you have an internet connection. The link between the internet and Mac OS X has so much MORE potential. I am just one person who wants to see that potential realized.
(Ideally) 12 months of .Mac service could be included as part of the 'complete' package in Leopard. Plus we could have tighter links with Flickr, Google and so on.
I completely agree (we probably have the same host, Servage?). But that's not the argument here. It's about .Mac being far more capable for generic users who tend to use a lot of digital media these days (especially Mac users with iLife etc) and allowing these people to backup their computers online so they don't need extra hard drives etc... It's about simplifying.
You can drag and drop content in iWeb and you have a pretty cool website that can be uploaded to .Mac. You could travel around the city and have Leopard upload/backup your data for Time Machine whenever you have an internet connection. The link between the internet and Mac OS X has so much MORE potential. I am just one person who wants to see that potential realized.
(Ideally) 12 months of .Mac service could be included as part of the 'complete' package in Leopard. Plus we could have tighter links with Flickr, Google and so on.
Btw - I use bluehost.
And I understand that .mac is nice because of the integration and simplicity, but its just not for me. My point was, if people are complaining about it so much, surely there are better alternatives, and there are.
Sebastian
Unfortunately, as nice of an idea as it is, it's just not reasonable for Apple to do. It's expensive and it's not their most popular service, and you would need a HUGE amount of Bandwith to do continuous Backups of everything. Even if Apple could do it, I don't think Too many peoples Internet Connections, including the ones with Fiber, would be too happy about the idea of tying up ones connection for hours at a time.
Sebastian
This is true. I think it's probably way too early for a service like this to exist. Google need to get in and test the waters and once we have public Wi-Fi/Wi-Max/3G Coverage it will probably be worth looking at.
Sebastian
I'm not sure about WiMax, but Wi-Fi currently maxes out at 54 Mbps, I don't count Pre/Draft-N specs. 3G I think is even slower, but I'm not sure. Even then, N has a thoretical maximum of 540Mbits, but is still far to slow. In order to backup my 80 GB HDD to any service, I would need at Minimum, a Gigabit Wireless connection, or else spend hours upon hours waiting for Time Machine to finish.
Sebastian
It's one of those things that would have to work like Spotlight Indexing. It would upload your original files and then sync your data at everypoint possible; on the fly, in the background. It would swallow your internet connection though (unless it was allocated a percentage of your Upload/Download speed). People with bandwidth limits would be screwed too.
1Tb bandwidth was mentioned (not because i'm mental)
Ah, yes.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/...02155911.shtml
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...1tb_per_month/
http://homepage.mac.com/alphamatrix/bandwidth.png
Unfortunately, that's near-useless with the 1 GB space limit. Interesting, though.
Although I do agree 250Gb is steep for an online drive, I think that is only for the time being.
But at the same time, hard drive sizes increase? $100 buys you 320 GBs, $200 buys you 500 and $330 gets you 750 GBs. Prices have been going down fast, and Apple's storage space hasn't.
My 6.95/mo hosting is 2,000GB of bandwidth and 200GB storage. Free domain forever, 2,500 email addresses, virtually all server technologies except M$ SQL and possibly Oracle.
What provider is this?
Ah, yes.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/...02155911.shtml
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...1tb_per_month/
http://homepage.mac.com/alphamatrix/bandwidth.png
Unfortunately, that's near-useless with the 1 GB space limit. Interesting, though.
But at the same time, hard drive sizes increase? $100 buys you 320 GBs, $200 buys you 500 and $330 gets you 750 GBs. Prices have been going down fast, and Apple's storage space hasn't.
What provider is this?
Bluehost
A web host is a completely different service than .Mac.
Using your website for storage is a violation of your ToS (terms of service). Because most websites will never exceed 10 MB, web hosts can offer insanely high space because .01% of people will ever even use within an order of magnitude of it.
.Mac, of course, if they offered 200GB, would see it filled up immediately because it's designed and used primarily for storage.
@ic
A web host is a completely different service than .Mac.
Using your website for storage is a violation of your ToS (terms of service). Because most websites will never exceed 10 MB, web hosts can offer insanely high space because .01% of people will ever even use within an order of magnitude of it.
.Mac, of course, if they offered 200GB, would see it filled up immediately because it's designed and used primarily for storage.
I don't actually use web hosting for storage, I use it for hosting websites. I was just saying that it COULD be used for storage. At any rate, I doubt it would actually be violating the Terms of Service.
I don't actually use web hosting for storage, I use it for hosting websites. I was just saying that it COULD be used for storage. At any rate, I doubt it would actually be violating the Terms of Service.
No, it couldn't, and you would be.
edit:
Engaging in any activity that, in Bluehost.com's sole and absolute discretion, disrupts, interferes with or is harmful to (or threatens to disrupt, interfere with, or be harmful to) the Services, Bluehost.com's business, operations, reputation, goodwill, customers and/or customer relations, or the ability of Bluehost.com's customers to effectively use the Services is prohibited.
That would include wasting their space for data not used for your website.
I actually inquired about this a while back. I asked if I could obtain legal documentation from the company that states that I am allowed to use the full bandwidth, storage etc. They told me that they would give me a written letter showing just this. Therefore giving you legal documentation if they took issue with you later.
They may have agreed because I am one of very few people who would actually make an inquiry like this and challenge them before signing up; whereas the majority of users would be happy using a limited portion of the service they pay for (and to be honest as you said; not many people need to use the full service).
No, it couldn't, and you would be.
edit: That would include wasting their space for data not used for your website.
That is very generic. If bluehost allows up to a certain amount as advertised and stated in the purchase contract, I will damn well use my full limit. If bluehost feels it will be detrimental to offer those large amounts of information storage and bandwidth, then they shouldn't offer/advertise those amounts of storage/bandwidth.
As of now, I use very little space because I don't need it. My photography site is actually hosted on a different site with the subdomain "photos". The main domain & bluehost hosting barley contains any files. Although, technically, in the future, I could easily use up my entire space with photos. And that would CERTAINLY be allowed because it pertains to the site.
If you're abusing their servers for storing personal files, which has nothing to do with their service of web hosting, they will delete you.
More to the point, they simply can't afford to let everyone use that much space. That's why offering those amounts is called "overselling." They just don't have enough storage, period, for more than a handful of people to use anywhere close to that amount of space. That's why Apple can't offer that amount of storage at that price, it's just not profitable. They'd have to eat millions of dollars to do it.
(BTW, of course their ToS is vague and generic. It's called 'legalese.')