Think Secret and ".Mac" brand
Someone had to bring this up:
<a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/news/itoolsdotmac.html"; target="_blank">http://www.thinksecret.com/news/itoolsdotmac.html</a>;
Think Secret is reporting that iTools will be rebranded as ".Mac" with a screenie of the evidence in a Jag pre-release build. One the one hand, hooray! No more i-everything. I might like this if it becomes a trend (assuming that not everything will start with "dot" now).
On the other, is Think Secret's suggestion that .Mac is to Apple as .NET is to Microsoft a legit comparison? My understanding of .NET (which is limited) is that it's a platform for creating and serving web-based applications and services. Microsoft will obviously be the main client, serving up its own service and subscription apps over the middleware, but is this what .Mac is? Seems that .Mac would be the client-side of the chain, more limited and less ambitious than .NET, assumably using more "standard" platforms and protocols.
If this turns out to be true, do you think Apple plans on staying in the client/service end of the line (e-mail, Sherlock), or do you think they have more ambitious plans with the Java and WebObjects development communities?
<a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/news/itoolsdotmac.html"; target="_blank">http://www.thinksecret.com/news/itoolsdotmac.html</a>;
Think Secret is reporting that iTools will be rebranded as ".Mac" with a screenie of the evidence in a Jag pre-release build. One the one hand, hooray! No more i-everything. I might like this if it becomes a trend (assuming that not everything will start with "dot" now).
On the other, is Think Secret's suggestion that .Mac is to Apple as .NET is to Microsoft a legit comparison? My understanding of .NET (which is limited) is that it's a platform for creating and serving web-based applications and services. Microsoft will obviously be the main client, serving up its own service and subscription apps over the middleware, but is this what .Mac is? Seems that .Mac would be the client-side of the chain, more limited and less ambitious than .NET, assumably using more "standard" platforms and protocols.
If this turns out to be true, do you think Apple plans on staying in the client/service end of the line (e-mail, Sherlock), or do you think they have more ambitious plans with the Java and WebObjects development communities?
Comments
let's kick Micro$oft a$$ !!
[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Defiant ]</p>
.NET is a stupid name, and somehow Apple's managed to come up with an even dumber one.
<strong><a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/news/itoolsdotmac.html"; target="_blank">http://www.thinksecret.com/news/itoolsdotmac.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
[quote]From ThinkSecret:
"I was shocked, to say the least," said one Mac developer who spoke with Think Secret on the condition of anonymity. "Can we possibly get used to this new, very confusing name?"<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> If I said stuff this stupid, I'd be speaking on the condition of anonymity too! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
And why so anti-Myriad? It's a nice font. My only question is why Myriad when you already have Lucida?
I'm not anti-Myriad, I'm pro-Apple Garamond.
Lucida Grande is a lovely font at medium and smaller sizes, but doesn't look so great at display sizes. Give it a try. Kind of blah.
Regarding .Mac... seems smart to me. I think it's jumping on the .NET bandwagon for sure, which is clever, though at this point iTools/.Mac is much, much less ambitious than .NET (for good or for bad).
No one exactly understand what .NET is, anyway, so my bet is that Apple can get away this.
It's interesting for Apple to even position it in that category, though. And it does seem to point in the direction of more web services in the future, and perhaps even a .Mac standard that embraces the .NET protocols.
No doubt Apple will take it nice and slow, and wait first to see if .NET really takes off.
Until then, I think it works best as Apple's .NET in the sense that they are very vaguely and loosely similar, so it's simply good marketing on Apple's part.
It's also a good thing since there's another product out there called iTools - .Mac is a very refreshing name.
<strong>What are the odds this is just a clever inside joke for a Jaguar build or two?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I highly doubt that.
Can you imagine how PISSED Steve would be if he found out that during this *crunch* to get Jaguar buttoned-up and ready for prime time... Developers and designers were wasting time and resources just to make that panel as a joke...? Heads would roll. It's not as if it just took 5 minutes to do... a change like that goes through design AND development as well as copy revisions. MANY people would have seen it before its seeding, and they ALL would have to be in on the "joke".
I dunno... I just don't see that being the case.
[EDIT: UBB didn't like my link.]
[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Spart ]</p>
<strong>Wouldn't it be cool if Apple was in control of .mac domain names and for 20 dollars a year instead of <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/username"; target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/username</a>; it would be <a href="http://www.username.mac?"; target="_blank">www.username.mac</a>? Or maybe even free...
[EDIT: UBB didn't like my link.]
[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Spart ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I could be wrong, but I don't think that a company would be allowed to have anything like that. If it were possible, then other companies would already be doing it.
<strong>I like Myriad too. It's a nice display font -- goes well with Apple's new look.
Lucida Grande is a lovely font at medium and smaller sizes, but doesn't look so great at display sizes. Give it a try. Kind of blah.</strong>
I like Myriad as well, but I think I'd choose Frutiger over it. It's just a little more stylized.
Oh, well, it's just a control panel.
<strong>Wouldn't it be cool if Apple was in control of .mac domain names and for 20 dollars a year instead of <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/username"; target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/username</a>; it would be <a href="http://www.username.mac?"; target="_blank">www.username.mac</a>? Or maybe even free...
[EDIT: UBB didn't like my link.]
[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Spart ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
what about <a href="http://username.mac.com/"; target="_blank">http://username.mac.com/</a>; ? i think that would work better...
I like the idea and more people would reconize it because .mac is in every url anyway... kinda like a built-in naming scheme...
we'll see tho...
anyway, i think .Mac is a cool name, but it doesn't seem logical. What exactly is it trying to imply... With iTools, people know that it's "Internet Tools", but .Mac, it can be confusing to people who aren't familar with Apple or the platform. It's not exactly a domain name, and it sounds like it's only the suffix of a url. and in the screenshot, Apple alternates in the capitalization from .Mac to .mac...make up your mind! and that font has to go. i want Apple Garamond back as the only trademark font.
instead of calling the service .Mac, they should call it Mac.com.
Mac.com Mail, Mac.com Homepage, Mac.com iDisk, Mac.com iCards, Mac.com iChat etc.
<strong>What are the odds this is just a clever inside joke for a Jaguar build or two?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This might be a fake from outside of Apple; five minutes of Photoshop time and the creator gets to see the rumors fly. One thing I noticed is that the large graphic refers to ".mac" (lowercase) while the other references are to ".Mac." Seems a bit suspect.