Slashdot Mirror


Should Apple make .Mac free?

Moby Cock writes "The recent display of iLife '06 at Macworld showed that the suite has a very fine integration with .Mac, Apple's subscription-based web portal. In a recent post to his blog on ZDNet, Dan Farber argues that a .Mac subscription ought to be included with the purchase of an Apple computer. There is no doubt that web portals are huge revenue engines, could Apple be missing an opportunity here?"

22 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. Umm.. No? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .Mac comes with webhosting and a variety of other costs.

    If they gave that to everyone who owns a Mac, they'd have significantly higher costs.

    Just the webhosting alone would put a dent in their profits.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Umm.. No? by hotspotbloc · · Score: 5, Interesting
      .Mac comes with webhosting

      .Mac comes with webhosting that can handle a slashdotting.

      --
      "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
    2. Re:Umm.. No? by Golias · · Score: 4, Interesting

      .Mac? No. It's not worth $100/year to me, but it is to some people.

      I'd rather not have the cost of three years or so of .Mac service quietly rolled into every Mac purchase I make.

      Quicktime Pro, on the other hand, really should be made free. Charging $30 for a non-crippled version of their media player is a silly nickle-and-dime-us-to-death move, and beneath a company like Apple, which prides itself on charging a few extra bucks for a premier product.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    3. Re:Umm.. No? by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't care either way if Quicktime Pro is free or not, but they should get rid of the damnedable nagscreen that displays every time you run the free version. Show it once or something. You know there's a problem when the most desireable feature of the 'pro' version is the lack of nag screen.

    4. Re:Umm.. No? by E1ven · · Score: 5, Informative

      They did.

      The Nag screen has been gone since Quicktime 7, which came out a few months ago.

      --
      Colin Davis
    5. Re:Umm.. No? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here's the member benefits that come with paying for .Mac
      http://www.apple.com/dotmac/features.html
      http://images.apple.com/dotmac/pdfs/DotMac_Product _Overview_20060109.pdf (4.7MB PDF)

      It's one thing to be able to handle a slashdotting , but I think it's another thing entirely to have to pay for ~2% of the PC market's hosting on a regular basis.

      A few of the things that .Mac offers is ad-free web pages + picture & video hosting, 1GB online backup w/a 10GB transfer limit.

      If you take away the $99 a month, how do you recoup those costs without adding advertising? GMail, Hotmail, Yahoo... all have advertising when you access their services.

      My understanding is that .Mac added a lot of additional benefits when they switched away from providing a free service.

      But I don't use a Mac, so I could be wrong.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:Umm.. No? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I still think they should have a free version. Just give people who pay a lot more.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Umm.. No? by adamfranco · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was actually hoping that Apple would release the server side items necessary to allow independent hosting companies to host .mac-like services. Apple would still be able to sell iWeb as the means for easy desktop publishing and still have it's own .mac accounts.

      As far as I know, much of .Mac is just a WebDAV server with Apple's own additional authentication added onto it. These instructions tell how you can spoof your Mac (with your own IP for mac.com) into thinking that your own webdav server is .Mac.

      I ended up setting up an 'rdiff-backup'-based backup system instead, so I never bothered to do the .Mac thing, but it looks pretty do-able. I just wish that Apple would make the setting of your own WebDav/.Mac server an easy configuration. Those of us who already paying for our own hardware aren't going to fork over more $$ for .Mac, so just let us do our own thing without hassle.

      - Adam

      --
      "When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
  2. still waiting for ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    .lnx

  3. Why not? How about why? by th1ckasabr1ck · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The article states that there are a million subscribers at $99 each. That's $100 million that Apple makes from .mac - I really have no idea how much money similar ad-based services make, but I would be surprised if more than a few pulled in that much cash.

    Apple is a corporation and they want to make money. I think the real question is: "Why WOULD they set .mac free?"

  4. It was free by FuzzzyLogik · · Score: 4, Informative

    Uhm... I don't think this is even a relevent topic. It used to be free. Then it started costing them too much money so they started charging for it. I'm sure slashdot covered it. Oh... yes they did

  5. What is your point again? by yardbird · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What a strange little article. The guy answers his own question: "Apple doesn't want to see ads for Dell or Victoria's Secret on .Mac." Apple's market is people who will pay extra for things like an uncluttered interface.


    Nor is .Mac a Web portal with all the external content and Web services-a missed opportunity.


    Am I the only one who find web portals pointless?
    --
    Free, legal music for iTunes users.
  6. One year free by rritterson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .Mac continues to cost Apple money, as users continuously use bandwidth and disk space. On the other hand, software and hardware developing and manufacturing costs are paid for at the time of purchase. That's why I think it's fair to charge a yearly fee for the service.

    Plus, many are arguing that .Mac could go free and then benefit from online advertising. I'd rather have it free from advertising, thank you.

    OTOH, it should come free for, let's say, a year, with purchase of a new computer. 6 months free with iLife or any other software that links to .Mac. It's really annoying to get new stuff and find out you have to buy more stuff to make it work the way it was intended. Apple could easily rise the price by the at-cost value of .Mac to the hardware cost and no one would notice.

    My biggest complaint with the service is that is has exclusive features that don't require .Mac to function. Such as multi-mac syncing. Rendezvous and wifi could easily keep my two macs in sync when they happen to be in the same room. It's stupid to send it to apple's sites then right back down. In fact, rendezvous syncing is much faster, so I could keep larger things like my entire documents folder in sync.

    --
    -Ryan
    AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
    1. Re:One year free by DECS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The peer to peer sync you describe (like rsync) would be an entirely different service and product than the sync services used by .Mac; your idea is closer to the Portable Home Directory sync built into Mac OS X Server, which is "free" for people who have access to a Mac OS X Server Open Directory.

      When you sync using .Mac, your bookmarks, contacts, calendar, etc., are kept in a offsite location, and you can also access them from the web, from any machine. With .Mac, after hosing something in my sync engiine, I can upload a clean version from .Mac. If .Mac gets hosed, I can selectively upload/overwrite the broken bit from one of my client Macs. This has proven a livesaver to me several times.

      If I rsync from Mac1 to Mac2 as you describe, and then Mac1 gets messed up, my system automatically contaminates Mac2.

      I think Apple should productize an "Xserve mini" as a household server that provided central file storage, Directory Services, and Portable Home Directories. That would be cool.

  7. The mac should be free... by blanktek · · Score: 5, Funny

    with your .Mac subscription

  8. It's a part of their Retail Strategy by skidknee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I work(ed) at an Apple Retail store, and let me tell you, Dot Mac is a crucial part of their sales, in the sense that, it's a part of their selling structure. They push for "naked" sales, meaning without it being attached to anything, and AppleCare is included along with Dot Mac in the same selling strategy. If you think about it, all the extra Apple add ons are pricey. $349 for insurance on a PowerBook/PowerMac? $99 a year for Dot Mac? I'm glad I got my Dot Mac for free, but in any case, if they are beginning to integrate Dot Mac fully into OS X and the daily uses of iLife and other apps, a 60-90 day trial version would leave most customers pretty reliant on those services. Of course, it only applies to those that really use the services that Dot Mac offers, but with more features, they'll net more users and subscribers. I'm sure the only way Apple will gain considerable ground in market share would be a lowering of prices, but it doesn't seem that way for now or in the near future. By the way, my first slashdot post. Yay.

  9. My unbiased answer is yes by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Funny

    And the fact that I own an iBook has no influence on my opinion.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  10. More expensive, but... by lpangelrob · · Score: 4, Interesting
    My current web hosting provider is GoDaddy.

    GoDaddy = $8.95 / year (for .com name), $3.95 / mo. for basic web hosting service (5 GB space, 250 GB transfer). You get some builtin easy-to-setup applications (though probably hard to set up for the average user), 10 MySQL databases and PHP or ASP support. Total = $56.35.

    .mac = $99.95 / year. No domain name, but applications are included, and I presume, easy to use. 1 GB space, unknown transfer... to get 3 GB of space, you have to double your costs. Apps include syncing and backup.

    So if you use the most basic plan of each, it's a $43 difference, whereas if you're working the disk space angle, it's no less than $198 for .Mac.

    The difference is in those applications. Are iSync, Backup, Group Management, Photocasting and one-click publishing important to you? Odds are to most people here it isn't, but to their parents it might be. .Mac is certainly more cost-effective now than it has been, that's for sure.

  11. Re:Why not? How about why? by mysqlrocks · · Score: 5, Funny

    The article states that there are a million subscribers at $99 each. That's $100 million that Apple makes from .mac

    Sorry to nitpick, but that's actually $99 million.

  12. SET .MAC FREE - Sell the server. by GoRK · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think it's right to suggest that Apple should give away the .mac service for free -- after all it does cost them money. Bundling a year or more of subscription time into the cost of new machines is ridiculous too -- you only need one .mac account if you have 3 computers, plus what about the people that don't want it? You can't have a product that you force-sell to people (even those who don't want it) and expect them to be content with it. Other bundled software like iLife is different because there is not a huge unit cost for apple associated with bundling it as there would be with .mac.

    However, they should SET .mac free by selling the server side as an installable package for OS X server (and other typical server platforms too) .. I mean .mac backup is nice, but what if I have 100GB of data to back up?, what if I have 2GB of email? What if I don't care anything about having a .mac email address and just want to continue to use the one I have had for years? Sell me the server software and I'll buy it. I probably wont be buying .mac.

    At least give me the option to turn .mac off.. Every time I go to the connect menu or use iSync I'm reminded in a not so subtle manner how nice this computer works with a service I don't want. If Microsoft tried that they'd be raked over the coals.

  13. Are /.ers freeloaders? by a_greer2005 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is not flamebaitjust a question

    What is so bad about asking a fair price for a service? why should apple give it away?

    Look at the features here:
    ***1gb mail/web/media content, not much for geeks but more than plenty for most.
    ***1TB/Mo of throughput -- these two features alone would cost a headty price from a Serverbeach or prohosters or rackspace or any of the like
    ***Syncing, roaming bookmarks: two features that I have yet to see anywhere else on the consumer level.
    *** iLife integration, and photocasting along with .mac hosting -- what geeks have been doing for a long time, made possible to the grandmothers and busy soccer parent set.

    So it aint free, well it is ad, spam, spyware, tracker and all-arround garbage free and it works seemlessly with OSX. Seems to me that a lot of people here are just being bastards about it.

    There is no such thing as a free lunch, the resteraunt has to buy the food it is giving you so it costs someone along the line

  14. Re:Why not? How about why? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Sorry to nitpick, but that's actually $99 million."

    It's $100 million for extremely large values of $99.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai