Apple to charge $100/year for .Mac services (formerly iTools)?

in General Discussion edited January 2014
At least according to

<a href=""; target="_blank"></a>;

I could see paying $100 for NEW, really cool services and features, but if iDisk, iCards and my e-mail are all hinging on that, that's going to be quite maddening.

Do you honestly think people will cough up $100, especially for stuff that's been free up until now?

I can imagine some some boos and hisses during the keynote Wednesday when (if) Jobs unveils this particular news.


  • Reply 1 of 15
    macsrgood4umacsrgood4u Posts: 3,007member
    Info is from rumor site and should be taken with a grain of salt (or pepper if you like). Wait until Apple actually introduces .Mac. I'm sure iTools will continue to be free.
  • Reply 2 of 15
    stroszekstroszek Posts: 801member
    I agree with MacsRGood4Uas far as the salt or pepper thing(I prefer pepper).

    But to address the question at hand:

    $100 for the current services would be ridiculous considering that it is all basically advertising for Apple. I would think that they would want their address floating around the internet, and with hotmail being free (or $20/yr for the ability to pop ) I would think that there would be a stampede away from And charging for iCards? comeon! I'm not going to pay to be able to advertise for any company. Even Apple.
  • Reply 3 of 15
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    That would be hilarious.

    People actually use iCards?
  • Reply 4 of 15
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    No, people don't, but it's still there. Hey, if I did send online greeting cards, Apple's does have nice ones: Cassandre's work especially.

    SlapTech reported the same thing, but either Apple is out of its gourd or these rumor sites don't have the full picture. I have a feeling that Apple will expand on its web-based services, but I imagine that they will keep basic e-mail at the very minimum, if not free iDisk space too. I think this $100 number might be the next step up: $8-10 per month will get you extra iDisk space, extra e-mail features (don't ask me what, I'm no e-mail power user), plus some other services (again, don't ask me what, I have no imagination tonight).

    I can't imagine paying for iCards. :eek:

    [ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 15
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    Maybe something like an advanced homepage, with to ability to hand code right on the server. They could add some features to iCards, like being able to add sound and animations. They might reintroduce KidSafe. I could think of more, but I have a looooong day tomorrow.
  • Reply 6 of 15
    carpetcarpet Posts: 17member
    That would be FUBAR for Apple to charge to use iTools. I am not paying $100 a year for an e-mail address and a web page when there are free ones out there!
  • Reply 7 of 15
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    In the past, Apple has often offered basic software for free while offering much more powerful versions of the software for a lot of money. iMovie and iDVD are free, while Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro are expensive but more powerful. iTools will surely stay free. But I could definitely see a powerful internet service thingy (I really don't know what the F they're for, or what they're called, but I'm referring to something like Microsoft's .NET) for a monthly fee.
  • Reply 8 of 15
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Hey guys, as previously noted elsewhere, the .Mac moniker seems to be playing off of the .Net name. We all know that .Net is about providing web services, ie, application support over the internet.

    What Apple is about to introduce some CONSUMER web services far in advance of those to be offered by Microsoft? Something cool, something KILLER?

    The problem with .Net is, nobody much can figure out what people are going to do across the net that they don't already do well locally on their own machines. To really open up the remote client movement will require something truly revolutionary.

    I'm trying to think of something right now that would be a nifty applicatiion that would be widely used by remote. Sure, word processors and image manipulation exist, but that's not going to be something you can charge people to use.

    Maybe wireless services? Blackberry's not making anybody rich, it's hit a wall. Anyway, that might require something small, like a cellphone or PDA, and let's just don't go there with this thread.

    .Mac service is fairly unattractive if you don't have broadband. I use it more now than I ever did before DSL. Digital video? Maybe they'll offer to professionally burn DVDs for you if you upload it to your .Mac account? Too much data...WAAAAY too much data. Strike that.

    Maybe an Apple dating service?

    A MacWorld version of Ultima Online? Become a Mac Genius and stalk the halls of Javits looking for rumors or, games is not a market to enter.

    Man, I just can't think of anything that could push me into paying to have this service!

  • Reply 9 of 15
    naghanagha Posts: 71member

    the $100/yr for iTools/.Mac is unfortunately quite true... you should be seeing a CNET/ piece on this quite soon. however, i don't know what kind of new services Apple plans on offering to start charging such a hefty fee.

    &lt;$10/mo is reasonable but it should be a pretty decent set of features. I definitely wouldn't want to pay for the email - that should be a bonus for being a Mac user.

  • Reply 10 of 15
    spotbugspotbug Posts: 361member
    Regarding the .NET/.Mac remote applications comparison:

    Apple has had WebObjects for like... how long? They could spiff-up WebObjects and re-brand it as part of .Mac to compete in the same area as MS's .NET.
  • Reply 11 of 15
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    This might have something to do with QT6 and MPEG 4.

    While it MPEG 4 is ready to go on QT6, the MPEG-LA group is still holding out on the 2 cents per hour royalty plus 1 million dollars per year (for every 50,000 users)

    Could be that an internet TV system will require subscription. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 12 of 15
    maskermasker Posts: 451member
    As suggested by Jon Rubinstein in another thread...

    What if Jaguar' upgrade path cost $100 but with that you get a one-year .Mac account?

    This may not be accurate but there are plenty of ways to make a $100 year charge more palatable.

    Maybe we don't know enought yet. or we are overlooking something that would make this look like more of a deal.

  • Reply 13 of 15
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>While it MPEG 4 is ready to go on QT6, the MPEG-LA group is still holding out on the 2 cents per hour royalty plus 1 million dollars per year (for every 50,000 users) </strong><hr></blockquote>

    Ah...not quite. First 50 000 users are free then you have an option to pay by hour streamed, pay by user or a flat $1 million fee. The first two are also capped at $1 million. You will never pay above the $1 million amount.

    It still isn't perfect but it's better.
  • Reply 14 of 15
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Apple's products are already too expensive, they need to include as much free or low cost software and service as they can, and then a little more. The iApps are a great start, iTools (current form) MUST be free, a much better AppleWorks and a PRO APPLE OFFICE SUITE should all be included for the price.

    It's one thing to go out and pick up a white PC box then get hosed for any apps you need. At least you got a great deal on the box. It's a different thing to get hosed on the box and get hosed in monthly instalments thereafter!
  • Reply 15 of 15
    [quote]Originally posted by nagha:


    the $100/yr for iTools/.Mac is unfortunately quite true... you should be seeing a CNET/ piece on this quite soon. however, i don't know what kind of new services Apple plans on offering to start charging such a hefty fee.


    Well since Cnet has gotten in the habit lately of just quoting rumors posted on ThinkSecret, I would expect nothing less. Somehow one rumor site quoting another rumor site makes the original rumor now more legitimate. Don't know how that logic works, but that's what's been happening all this week.
Sign In or Register to comment.