And I just read through my documentation* and I guess I missed the exact line where Apple promised to give me free services, (that cost them plenty to run) for life.
* OK, I didn't really read anything, I'm pretty sure that's not there though.
<strong>I've never heard of a bar advertising free beer "for life" though. Poor analogy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Say I believe the email for life quote. So what they changed their mind. Bush sn said no new taxes. He changed his mind raised taxes and helped for a time bring down the deficit and with the Clinton tax cut create a surplus.
my dad promised me a pony when I turned 12. I am 28 now. Still no pony. Reality sometimes makes it necessaru to change your mind.
I finally got all of my e-mail problems worked out, and decided to settle on a mac.com address. I told hundreds of people I talk regularly with, and I thought I could keep mac.com without worrying about changing my e-mail when going off to school, changing internet providers, etc.
Fine, I'm not happy but I'm willing to pay to keep it... But 100 bucks a year when all I want is e-mail? Ludicrous!
This means that microsoft actually charges LESS than apple for something?! Wow.
Say I believe the email for life quote. So what they changed their mind. Bush sn said no new taxes. He changed his mind raised taxes and helped for a time bring down the deficit and with the Clinton tax cut create a surplus.
my dad promised me a pony when I turned 12. I am 28 now. Still no pony. Reality sometimes makes it necessaru to change your mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That still doesn't change the fact that it's a poor analogy.
And remember what happened to Bush sn in 1992? Read my lips: that was the worst possible example you could have picked
I finally got all of my e-mail problems worked out, and decided to settle on a mac.com address. I told hundreds of people I talk regularly with, and I thought I could keep mac.com without worrying about changing my e-mail when going off to school, changing internet providers, etc.
Fine, I'm not happy but I'm willing to pay to keep it... But 100 bucks a year when all I want is e-mail? Ludicrous!
This means that microsoft actually charges LESS than apple for something?! Wow.
This is exactly the reason for which Apple has to compromise. They either have to allow people who already have an account to keep at least the email for free. Or they have to offer a scaled down version of .Mac (maybe with less iDisk space and without anti-virus software) for a more reasonable price. Or they have do something else that is reasonable and satisfies mac users. Or they have to face the consequences of a PR disaster.
This is exactly the reason for which Apple has to compromise. They either have to allow people who already have an account to keep at least the email for free. Or they have to offer a scaled down version of .Mac (maybe with less iDisk space and without anti-virus software) for a more reasonable price. Or they have do something else that is reasonable and satisfies mac users. Or they have to face the consequences of a PR disaster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we misjudge what a PR disaster this will be. Outside the Mac community wwho will be surprised that they charge for a service?
I think we misjudge what a PR disaster this will be. Outside the Mac community wwho will be surprised that they charge for a service?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the Mac community that affects Apple the most.
And if PC users see their Mac friends go through experiences such as that of alexius, they would be less inclined to "switch." I don't think Apple wants that.
It's the Mac community that affects Apple the most.
And if PC users see their Mac friends go through experiences such as that of alexius, they would be less inclined to "switch." I don't think Apple wants that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. We matter shit. Most of us would but almost anything Apple sells given it is a quality product in the Apple tradition. So why try to please us?
I disagree. We matter shit. Most of us would but almost anything Apple sells given it is a quality product in the Apple tradition. So why try to please us?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't seem that way with .Mac. It is a quality product, but very few are rushing out to buy it. The majority is unhappy with the pricing.
I purchase my .mac account yesterday. I was planning on upgrading to a larger 100MB iDisk account anyways. I use it for sharing my photos and a few movies (not iMovies but 320x240 avi's off my digital camera). Actually I just figured out how to get those into iMovie so now I can use those to string together all my 20 second clips from my fuji camera.
-
If you use the services, its a good deal... if you dont, its not. That simple.
It doesn't seem that way with .Mac. It is a quality product, but very few are rushing out to buy it. The majority is unhappy with the pricing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And if no one signs up Apple wins. they save the cost of providing the free service. its a win win for them.
I don't know how I can see "I want my Mac.com account back" and "I don't want to pay $100 for it" in the same sentence.
It's fifty dollars for your first year. Just fifty. By this time next year, there will be so many features and so many little tie-ins with the OS and its applications, that owning a .Mac account will be almost necessitated--people won't think twice about it.
In the REAL world, services cost money. Most of the people in that keynote audience were probably real journalists that KNOW that services cost money. They're not angry with Apple for doing something that actually makes sense from a business perspective. It's how the world works, damn it. The only people pissed off are you whiny fifteen year olds who are mad because Apple took away your supposed "right" to register a new iTools account for every single photo album (two examples I can think of recently--an entire iTools account for a place to hold Switch ad spoofs and an entire iTools account for a place to hold MWNY2002 pictures). That's just ridiculous.
And for Christ's sake: stop saying Apple promised free Mac.com email for life. They never, ever said that. Ever. Period. End of story. Why would they even advertise "free for life"? What would give them a reason to do that? Watch any keynote, read any press release, and you will NOT find "free for life" ANYWHERE. Again, this was just probably some angry thirteen year old that started spreading that rumor because he was upset that he couldn't use mommy's credit card to retain his [email protected] address. Too freakin' bad.
And if no one signs up Apple wins. they save the cost of providing the free service. its a win win for them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, on the surface it looks that way, but is it really so when you look at the big picture? Customer satisfaction will drop. I doubt that anyone would join the dark side simply because of .Mac, but Mac users as a community will be less eager to urge their friends to join if they are not happy. And even if they want to convert a friend, they will have less reasons to offer. No longer can they point to free email. When they point to free iApps, doubtful friends would only sneer that they'll only be free until Apple pulls another .Mac and starts charging crazy money for them too. So I don't know if Apple will really profit. This really isn't a quantitative thing that can be measured. Only time will tell. But my guess is that it will do more harm than profit.
Furthermore, Apple can increase their profits if they offer a scaled down version of .Mac for less money. Many people seem to not need anti-virus and are happy with less iDisk space. A lower priced .mac lite version would probably attract more customers and hence result in more profits for Apple.
Well, on the surface it looks that way, but is it really so when you look at the big picture? Customer satisfaction will drop. I doubt that anyone would join the dark side simply because of .Mac, but Mac users as a community will be less eager to urge their friends to join if they are not happy. And even if they want to convert a friend, they will have less reasons to offer. No longer can they point to free email. When they point to free iApps, doubtful friends would only sneer that they'll only be free until Apple pulls another .Mac and starts charging crazy money for them too. So I don't know if Apple will really profit. This really isn't a quantitative thing that can be measured. Only time will tell. But my guess is that it will do more harm than profit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Free email isn't going to woo PC users to the Mac platform any more than a subscription-based .Mac is going to use Mac users away from their platform. And don't say, "well, they should at LEAST keep the email free." To explain the scenario Apple is in, I will simply copy and paste from the other .Mac bitching thread in this forum:
(Originally posted by ME)
[quote]You really don't know where .Mac is going, do you? .Mac is going to be the service foundation under Jaguar and even future iterations of Mac OS X. Instead of some lame pick-and-choose method that you want, there should be a universal fee--it's simpler, especially when there start to get plugs into almost every application and component in the operating system in the future.
Don't tell me you want to pick and choose. $5/year for iCal sharing. $2/year for slideshow sharing. What happens if you later decide you want something? Where does the billing pick up? Your whole plan makes no sense. In the tradition of simplicity, Apple is creating one-fee method of paying for .Mac. Right now, .Mac may be little more than iTools 1.1, but in the future, it will be a necessity for every Mac user, I can assure you. At that point, your tiered system will make very little sense.
You people are still thinking of .Mac as just an email service; it's time to look at the big picture.<hr></blockquote>
So, you see, Jaguar will continue to offer benefits to users of .Mac that probably don't even have any costs associated with them to Apple--or perhaps minimal ones--but are simply there for the loyal .Mac subscribers. Countless tie-ins in applications and the OS itself in the future will make it all worth it later on. Should your supposed ".Mac Lite" customers get these benefits / OS plugs? What about those that opt for email and nothing more? Where do you draw the line? Why can't we just opt for simplicity?
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Jon Rubinstein ]</p>
Maybe that's true, Fellowship--if their customers are the same as the Linux crowd--the same idiots that think that everything should be free, and that they should never be charged for anything outside of the hardware they run stuff on. It's a shame, too, that these people are living in a fantasy land.
"How DARE they make money!"
This whole argument is so foolish. This is seriously the most retarded thing I've seen separate the AppleInsider forums in my eight months of lurking/posting--it truly shows the maturity of some of the members.
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Jon Rubinstein ]</p>
Free email isn't going to woo PC users to the Mac platform any more than a subscription-based .Mac is going to use Mac users away from their platform. And don't say, "well, they should at LEAST keep the email free." To explain the scenario Apple is in, I will simply copy and paste from the other .Mac bitching thread in this forum:
...
So, you see, Jaguar will continue to offer benefits to users of .Mac that probably don't even have any costs associated with them to Apple--or perhaps minimal ones--but are simply there for the loyal .Mac subscribers. Countless tie-ins in applications and the OS itself in the future will make it all worth it later on. Should your supposed ".Mac Lite" customers get these benefits / OS plugs? What about those that opt for email and nothing more? Where do you draw the line? Why can't we just opt for simplicity?
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Jon Rubinstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jon, did you even read what I wrote? I never said or even implied that free email will woo PC users to switch. It's just that Apple's draconian "pay up or go to hell" methods will not be perceived well by mac users or by their PC friends. And if what you say that ".Mac is going to be the service foundation under Jaguar" is true, then Apple really is saying "pay up or go to hell" because if you don't pay the extra for .Mac, you will be missing, what you say is, the "service foundation" of the Jaguar you already paid $129 for. It's very coercive and such behavior on the part of Apple will inevitably scare some potential switchers away. The least Apple could have done was to have been more subtle and gentle and bundled .Mac into a higher priced Jaguar.
And to quote my response from the other .Mac bitching thread:
[quote]Originally posted by popmetal:
<strong>
And even if Apple keeps the current price for the reasons you stated, the service should be more family-friendly and take care of a family of three or four without charging more. 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>
just to clear this up, "email-only" means no iChat, no iCal, noWhateverElseIsSupposedToComeInTheFuture
i don't think i will purchase a .mac account. i think it's a fair idea... i guess. it's just that as a student i can't afford this "luxury". sure, i used idisk and email, but i just can't justify spending $50, then $100 yearly at this point.
so if we don't purchase .mac, we cannot use ichat?
<strong>i don't think i will purchase a .mac account. i think it's a fair idea... i guess. it's just that as a student i can't afford this "luxury". sure, i used idisk and email, but i just can't justify spending $50, then $100 yearly at this point.
so if we don't purchase .mac, we cannot use ichat?
Popmetal, the plan IS very family friendly: $100 per year, plus $10 for an extra .Mac account under the same paid subscription. So it would be $130 instead of $400. Seems pretty damned fair to me, if Mom, Pop, Billy, and Jessica all need their own account.
The fact is, this is just something you're going to have to get used to. Subscription services are the future, whether you like them or not. Microsoft's doing it, every other dot-com on the net that hasn't gone bankrupt yet is doing it, and now Apple is doing it. Unlocking features in software is just how the world works.
Services cost money. The cable company charges you for a cable box--that's your hardware. The cable company charges you for cable--that's the "software," or the ability to use the hardware. And yes, the cable company charges you for additional channels, which expand what you have--this is a "luxury" item, but if you think about it, it's almost required if you want to get the most out of cable (you don't want to be stuck with network TV, do you?).
And as for you, fellowship--fine, use Hotmail. Microsoft just started charging for use of the actual MSN client (that integrated browser/email program), which is the only way to kill the ads. If you don't want to pay for that, too effing bad: deal with popups, and banners galore. And not only is it the most spammed email domain in the history of the internet (something, I might add, is remedied by Jag), but the storage on the Hotmail account is less than two megabytes. If you think that's sufficient, by all means, use it--just pray someone doesn't send you an inline JPEG.
Also, saying that AOL charges less for their services and internet access than .Mac makes me question the basic math skills of some of you: twenty-three dollars times twelve is $276. .Mac allows you much more expanded services (there isn't any online storage on AOL and absolutely no operating system integration with their services), and costs only $100 a year. For what Apple offers, it's pretty damned good. But of course, you've still got the mentality that ".Mac is just an email address." Also, the amount of dropped connections, etc. makes me feel AOL should pay YOU for using their service.
The full version of Jag costs $130. .Mac costs $100. To get the absolute maximum out of your Macintosh experience, you're probably going to have to end up paying $230 per year (less if Apple decides to tone down the price of future X upgrades).
Contrast to Microsoft: $200 for the full version of Windows alone, plus whatever extra tacked on expenses Microsoft wants you to pay for .NET (and just WAIT until you see what they are planning for Windows Codename Blackcomb if you think Apple's gone nuts with subscriptions).
If you can't handle the expenses, then get a PC--that's all I can say. You're using a God-damned Macintosh, one of the most expensive computer experiences on earth; what do you expect?
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Jon Rubinstein ]</p>
Comments
And I just read through my documentation* and I guess I missed the exact line where Apple promised to give me free services, (that cost them plenty to run) for life.
* OK, I didn't really read anything, I'm pretty sure that's not there though.
<strong>I've never heard of a bar advertising free beer "for life" though. Poor analogy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Say I believe the email for life quote. So what they changed their mind. Bush sn said no new taxes. He changed his mind raised taxes and helped for a time bring down the deficit and with the Clinton tax cut create a surplus.
my dad promised me a pony when I turned 12. I am 28 now. Still no pony. Reality sometimes makes it necessaru to change your mind.
I finally got all of my e-mail problems worked out, and decided to settle on a mac.com address. I told hundreds of people I talk regularly with, and I thought I could keep mac.com without worrying about changing my e-mail when going off to school, changing internet providers, etc.
Fine, I'm not happy but I'm willing to pay to keep it... But 100 bucks a year when all I want is e-mail? Ludicrous!
This means that microsoft actually charges LESS than apple for something?! Wow.
[ 07-18-2002: Message edited by: alexius ]</p>
<strong>
Say I believe the email for life quote. So what they changed their mind. Bush sn said no new taxes. He changed his mind raised taxes and helped for a time bring down the deficit and with the Clinton tax cut create a surplus.
my dad promised me a pony when I turned 12. I am 28 now. Still no pony. Reality sometimes makes it necessaru to change your mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That still doesn't change the fact that it's a poor analogy.
And remember what happened to Bush sn in 1992? Read my lips: that was the worst possible example you could have picked
<strong>Promises aside,
I finally got all of my e-mail problems worked out, and decided to settle on a mac.com address. I told hundreds of people I talk regularly with, and I thought I could keep mac.com without worrying about changing my e-mail when going off to school, changing internet providers, etc.
Fine, I'm not happy but I'm willing to pay to keep it... But 100 bucks a year when all I want is e-mail? Ludicrous!
This means that microsoft actually charges LESS than apple for something?! Wow.
[ 07-18-2002: Message edited by: alexius ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is exactly the reason for which Apple has to compromise. They either have to allow people who already have an account to keep at least the email for free. Or they have to offer a scaled down version of .Mac (maybe with less iDisk space and without anti-virus software) for a more reasonable price. Or they have do something else that is reasonable and satisfies mac users. Or they have to face the consequences of a PR disaster.
<strong>
This is exactly the reason for which Apple has to compromise. They either have to allow people who already have an account to keep at least the email for free. Or they have to offer a scaled down version of .Mac (maybe with less iDisk space and without anti-virus software) for a more reasonable price. Or they have do something else that is reasonable and satisfies mac users. Or they have to face the consequences of a PR disaster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we misjudge what a PR disaster this will be. Outside the Mac community wwho will be surprised that they charge for a service?
<strong>
I think we misjudge what a PR disaster this will be. Outside the Mac community wwho will be surprised that they charge for a service?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the Mac community that affects Apple the most.
And if PC users see their Mac friends go through experiences such as that of alexius, they would be less inclined to "switch." I don't think Apple wants that.
<strong>
It's the Mac community that affects Apple the most.
And if PC users see their Mac friends go through experiences such as that of alexius, they would be less inclined to "switch." I don't think Apple wants that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. We matter shit. Most of us would but almost anything Apple sells given it is a quality product in the Apple tradition. So why try to please us?
<strong>
I disagree. We matter shit. Most of us would but almost anything Apple sells given it is a quality product in the Apple tradition. So why try to please us?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't seem that way with .Mac. It is a quality product, but very few are rushing out to buy it. The majority is unhappy with the pricing.
-
If you use the services, its a good deal... if you dont, its not. That simple.
-
<strong>
It doesn't seem that way with .Mac. It is a quality product, but very few are rushing out to buy it. The majority is unhappy with the pricing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And if no one signs up Apple wins. they save the cost of providing the free service. its a win win for them.
It's fifty dollars for your first year. Just fifty. By this time next year, there will be so many features and so many little tie-ins with the OS and its applications, that owning a .Mac account will be almost necessitated--people won't think twice about it.
In the REAL world, services cost money. Most of the people in that keynote audience were probably real journalists that KNOW that services cost money. They're not angry with Apple for doing something that actually makes sense from a business perspective. It's how the world works, damn it. The only people pissed off are you whiny fifteen year olds who are mad because Apple took away your supposed "right" to register a new iTools account for every single photo album (two examples I can think of recently--an entire iTools account for a place to hold Switch ad spoofs and an entire iTools account for a place to hold MWNY2002 pictures). That's just ridiculous.
And for Christ's sake: stop saying Apple promised free Mac.com email for life. They never, ever said that. Ever. Period. End of story. Why would they even advertise "free for life"? What would give them a reason to do that? Watch any keynote, read any press release, and you will NOT find "free for life" ANYWHERE. Again, this was just probably some angry thirteen year old that started spreading that rumor because he was upset that he couldn't use mommy's credit card to retain his [email protected] address. Too freakin' bad.
<strong>
And if no one signs up Apple wins. they save the cost of providing the free service. its a win win for them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, on the surface it looks that way, but is it really so when you look at the big picture? Customer satisfaction will drop. I doubt that anyone would join the dark side simply because of .Mac, but Mac users as a community will be less eager to urge their friends to join if they are not happy. And even if they want to convert a friend, they will have less reasons to offer. No longer can they point to free email. When they point to free iApps, doubtful friends would only sneer that they'll only be free until Apple pulls another .Mac and starts charging crazy money for them too. So I don't know if Apple will really profit. This really isn't a quantitative thing that can be measured. Only time will tell. But my guess is that it will do more harm than profit.
<strong>
Well, on the surface it looks that way, but is it really so when you look at the big picture? Customer satisfaction will drop. I doubt that anyone would join the dark side simply because of .Mac, but Mac users as a community will be less eager to urge their friends to join if they are not happy. And even if they want to convert a friend, they will have less reasons to offer. No longer can they point to free email. When they point to free iApps, doubtful friends would only sneer that they'll only be free until Apple pulls another .Mac and starts charging crazy money for them too. So I don't know if Apple will really profit. This really isn't a quantitative thing that can be measured. Only time will tell. But my guess is that it will do more harm than profit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Free email isn't going to woo PC users to the Mac platform any more than a subscription-based .Mac is going to use Mac users away from their platform. And don't say, "well, they should at LEAST keep the email free." To explain the scenario Apple is in, I will simply copy and paste from the other .Mac bitching thread in this forum:
(Originally posted by ME)
[quote]You really don't know where .Mac is going, do you? .Mac is going to be the service foundation under Jaguar and even future iterations of Mac OS X. Instead of some lame pick-and-choose method that you want, there should be a universal fee--it's simpler, especially when there start to get plugs into almost every application and component in the operating system in the future.
Don't tell me you want to pick and choose. $5/year for iCal sharing. $2/year for slideshow sharing. What happens if you later decide you want something? Where does the billing pick up? Your whole plan makes no sense. In the tradition of simplicity, Apple is creating one-fee method of paying for .Mac. Right now, .Mac may be little more than iTools 1.1, but in the future, it will be a necessity for every Mac user, I can assure you. At that point, your tiered system will make very little sense.
You people are still thinking of .Mac as just an email service; it's time to look at the big picture.<hr></blockquote>
So, you see, Jaguar will continue to offer benefits to users of .Mac that probably don't even have any costs associated with them to Apple--or perhaps minimal ones--but are simply there for the loyal .Mac subscribers. Countless tie-ins in applications and the OS itself in the future will make it all worth it later on. Should your supposed ".Mac Lite" customers get these benefits / OS plugs? What about those that opt for email and nothing more? Where do you draw the line? Why can't we just opt for simplicity?
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Jon Rubinstein ]</p>
"How DARE they make money!"
This whole argument is so foolish. This is seriously the most retarded thing I've seen separate the AppleInsider forums in my eight months of lurking/posting--it truly shows the maturity of some of the members.
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Jon Rubinstein ]</p>
<strong>
Free email isn't going to woo PC users to the Mac platform any more than a subscription-based .Mac is going to use Mac users away from their platform. And don't say, "well, they should at LEAST keep the email free." To explain the scenario Apple is in, I will simply copy and paste from the other .Mac bitching thread in this forum:
...
So, you see, Jaguar will continue to offer benefits to users of .Mac that probably don't even have any costs associated with them to Apple--or perhaps minimal ones--but are simply there for the loyal .Mac subscribers. Countless tie-ins in applications and the OS itself in the future will make it all worth it later on. Should your supposed ".Mac Lite" customers get these benefits / OS plugs? What about those that opt for email and nothing more? Where do you draw the line? Why can't we just opt for simplicity?
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Jon Rubinstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jon, did you even read what I wrote? I never said or even implied that free email will woo PC users to switch. It's just that Apple's draconian "pay up or go to hell" methods will not be perceived well by mac users or by their PC friends. And if what you say that ".Mac is going to be the service foundation under Jaguar" is true, then Apple really is saying "pay up or go to hell" because if you don't pay the extra for .Mac, you will be missing, what you say is, the "service foundation" of the Jaguar you already paid $129 for. It's very coercive and such behavior on the part of Apple will inevitably scare some potential switchers away. The least Apple could have done was to have been more subtle and gentle and bundled .Mac into a higher priced Jaguar.
And to quote my response from the other .Mac bitching thread:
[quote]Originally posted by popmetal:
<strong>
And even if Apple keeps the current price for the reasons you stated, the service should be more family-friendly and take care of a family of three or four without charging more. 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>
just to clear this up, "email-only" means no iChat, no iCal, noWhateverElseIsSupposedToComeInTheFuture
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: popmetal ]</p>
so if we don't purchase .mac, we cannot use ichat?
<img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
<strong>i don't think i will purchase a .mac account. i think it's a fair idea... i guess. it's just that as a student i can't afford this "luxury". sure, i used idisk and email, but i just can't justify spending $50, then $100 yearly at this point.
so if we don't purchase .mac, we cannot use ichat?
<img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I am pretty much in the same boat as you.
You can use iChat with an AIM screen name, so at least that's good.
The fact is, this is just something you're going to have to get used to. Subscription services are the future, whether you like them or not. Microsoft's doing it, every other dot-com on the net that hasn't gone bankrupt yet is doing it, and now Apple is doing it. Unlocking features in software is just how the world works.
Services cost money. The cable company charges you for a cable box--that's your hardware. The cable company charges you for cable--that's the "software," or the ability to use the hardware. And yes, the cable company charges you for additional channels, which expand what you have--this is a "luxury" item, but if you think about it, it's almost required if you want to get the most out of cable (you don't want to be stuck with network TV, do you?).
And as for you, fellowship--fine, use Hotmail. Microsoft just started charging for use of the actual MSN client (that integrated browser/email program), which is the only way to kill the ads. If you don't want to pay for that, too effing bad: deal with popups, and banners galore. And not only is it the most spammed email domain in the history of the internet (something, I might add, is remedied by Jag), but the storage on the Hotmail account is less than two megabytes. If you think that's sufficient, by all means, use it--just pray someone doesn't send you an inline JPEG.
Also, saying that AOL charges less for their services and internet access than .Mac makes me question the basic math skills of some of you: twenty-three dollars times twelve is $276. .Mac allows you much more expanded services (there isn't any online storage on AOL and absolutely no operating system integration with their services), and costs only $100 a year. For what Apple offers, it's pretty damned good. But of course, you've still got the mentality that ".Mac is just an email address." Also, the amount of dropped connections, etc. makes me feel AOL should pay YOU for using their service.
The full version of Jag costs $130. .Mac costs $100. To get the absolute maximum out of your Macintosh experience, you're probably going to have to end up paying $230 per year (less if Apple decides to tone down the price of future X upgrades).
Contrast to Microsoft: $200 for the full version of Windows alone, plus whatever extra tacked on expenses Microsoft wants you to pay for .NET (and just WAIT until you see what they are planning for Windows Codename Blackcomb if you think Apple's gone nuts with subscriptions).
If you can't handle the expenses, then get a PC--that's all I can say. You're using a God-damned Macintosh, one of the most expensive computer experiences on earth; what do you expect?
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Jon Rubinstein ]</p>