.Mac opinion
E-Star
My primary email is through my mac.com account. My feeling is that
email should remain a free service, and I fully support having users pay
a fee to have the complete internet service including disk space, web
hosting, etc.
I only use the email and feel that the fee is a lot just for an email
address, especially when I can have a free one elsewhere. If it costs
$100 US, are they going to want $150 CAN for canadian users?!?
I'm sure there are many other mac.com email users out there who feel the
same. Feel free to let Apple know how you feel.
E-Star
NeoLuddite
E-Star <unix...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
I have mixed feeling about this.
I only use my mac.com address for things like newsgroups and chat rooms
and I have set up an iDisk but I've never used it for anything so it's
no big loss to me if I decide not to fork over $49 (as an existing user)
for the upgrade and I can set up secondary email accounts through my
ISP. Plus I'm not ready to spend the money to upgrade my Mac (or buy a
new one) for Mac OS X.
On the other hand nothing is really free, at least not for long. I'd be
happier if .Mac was $25 a year, mostly because I don't need most of the
new features. One thing I would pay for is a solid video conference
system. Some rumors have been floating around that iChat may incorporate
this at some point.
--
Real Email-> neoludditeATmac.com <- Change the "AT" back to @
I don't know nuttin' about Mac OS X, Ten or 10
Blue & White G3/400MHz MacOS 9.1, Starmax 3000/200MHz MacOS 8.6
x@x.x
> My email just went out to the .Mac team.
>
> My primary email is through my mac.com account. My feeling is that
> email should remain a free service, and I fully support having users pay
> a fee to have the complete internet service including disk space, web
> hosting, etc.
>
Yep, i agree. I'm just waiting for their email telling me and then i
will opt-out. I only use mac.com for email, and i download often and
never keep mail in IMAP. I don't use iDisk as backup for anything (it's
too slow), nor use any of the other products (well, i did use iCards
once). I always thought it was dumb for them to automatically give you
iDisk along with email (in fact, this new pricing kind of smells of
bait-and-switch, "come in for free now, pay later when u rely on it").
I'm proud to use mac.com as an email address (except in usenet!) to let
people know i use a Macintosh, and support Apple wholeheartedly, but i
ain't going to pay $100 so i can give Apple my goodwill. After all, i
already pay for an email address from my ISP.
Will this influence any future decision I make to buy Apple
products....?
E-Star
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/iTol/petition.html
Wow, like 100 people in like 5 mins put their name down.
I guess I'm not alone in feeling that the email should be a free service.
E-Star
In article <unix_core-9EAD1...@corp.supernews.com>,
E-Star <unix...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
EE
<see_signature_for_addre...@news.comcast.giganews.c
Have you guys seen this?
Converting your .Mac trial account to an email-only account
IMPORTANT: If you choose to convert your trial account to an email-only
account, all your data files on Apple's servers (except for email
messages) will be removed. Other .Mac services, such as iDisk,
HomePage, Backup, and Virex, are not accessible to email-only accounts.
To convert your trial account to email-only, go to www.mac.com. Click
Account in the .Mac menu bar, then click the Email Account Management
button. Enter the member name and password of the trial account you'd
like to convert, then click Convert.
Print your account information for future reference, then click
Continue.
This is on the Help page of .Mac:
http://www.mac.com/WebObjects/Welcome.woa?aff=consumer&cty=US&lang=en
Choose .Mac.com Email -> On your Desktop -> scroll down to "Converting
your .Mac trial account to an email-only account"
EE
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana (Groucho Marx)
E-Star
In article <170720022313266739%e.echt...@DELETHIShome.nl>,
Doug Brown
EE <e.echt...@DELETHIShome.nl> wrote:
> Have you guys seen this?
>
> Converting your .Mac trial account to an email-only account
>
> IMPORTANT: If you choose to convert your trial account to an email-only
> account, all your data files on Apple's servers (except for email
> messages) will be removed. Other .Mac services, such as iDisk,
> HomePage, Backup, and Virex, are not accessible to email-only accounts.
>
>
> To convert your trial account to email-only, go to www.mac.com. Click
> Account in the .Mac menu bar, then click the Email Account Management
> button. Enter the member name and password of the trial account you'd
> like to convert, then click Convert.
>
> Print your account information for future reference, then click
> Continue.
>
> This is on the Help page of .Mac:
> http://www.mac.com/WebObjects/Welcome.woa?aff=consumer&cty=US&lang=en
> Choose .Mac.com Email -> On your Desktop -> scroll down to "Converting
> your .Mac trial account to an email-only account"
Interesting! I wonder if this "e-mail only" account will be free, or if
it'll be a lower price, or what? Let's hope for the best!
Doug
--
IRCandy: Cocoa IRC client project - http://www.ircandy.com/
Idiot's Guide to Mac Cases - open your Mac: http://maccases.cjb.net/
If you want to reply by email, remove "pleasenospam." and ".invalid"
E-Star
http://help.apple.com/mac/1/help/mail/pgs2/macFmSet.htm
I can't see the botton their talking about.
Can anyone else?
Either the documentation on this was released too early or you must have
a full membership first and this is regarding addition email accounts.
Frustrating.....
In article <170720022313266739%e.echt...@DELETHIShome.nl>,
EE <e.echt...@DELETHIShome.nl> wrote:
Stan Randle
> My primary email is through my mac.com account. My feeling is that
> email should remain a free service
Try Yahoo or Hotmail, which subsidize free use with browser ads and ads
attached to every email you send. Truly free email is dying, for a
reason.
The money has to come from somewhere.
> I only use the email and feel that the fee is a lot just for an email
> address, especially when I can have a free one elsewhere.
So get it elsewhere for free and either pay in terms of ads from one of
the big providers, or in terms of iffy service (or a questionable
future) from a small service (which isn't getting revenue from
freeloaders).
Mac.com has had so many uptime problems since its inception (compared,
say, to Yahoo) that I never was comfortable using it, even though I was
one of the first people to register for it. On the other hand, in May I
gladly paid yahoo $20 for a year's worth of popmail/forwarding when
Yahoo first started charging for it (another sign that times are
changing). Yahoo's mail service, especially their popmail and
autoforwarding, has worked perfectly since I first set up my account
there years ago.
So stick with services offering limited free mail like mail.com or one
of the rebranded outblaze services (like linuxmail.org or
verizonmail.com). But if for some reason you really want a mac.com
address, despite the growing problems it's had, prepare to pay.
Given Apple's increasingly precarious financial position in a) a highly
competitive industry and b) a recession affecting sales of all
computers, I won't begrudge Apple revenue for a service that is costing
them.
Onar Vikingstad
> Have you guys seen this?
>
> Converting your .Mac trial account to an email-only account
Yeah, I saw that, but I think it's only for those people that purchase
additional email accounts to their .mac account. There is no button that
I can see, with the name the help file says, so this feature is probably
only enable for those that have purchased additional email addresses?
Or maybe I could be wrong?
--
Onar Vikingstad - on...@vikingstad.com
http://www.vikingstad.com
Onar Vikingstad
> Mac.com has had so many uptime problems since its inception (compared,
> say, to Yahoo) that I never was comfortable using it, even though I was
> one of the first people to register for it.
Really? That is not my experience at all... I registered my iTools
account the day it was announced, and have used it steadily since. I
have used mostly POP though, so that might explain why, but I have never
experienced any problems with it that I can remember...
I do however recall some reports with mail disappearing, but it never
occured to me!
Scott
stanm...@hotmail.com (Stan Randle) wrote:
> The money has to come from somewhere.
Like buying OSX? You know, the OS that has iDisk in the menu? The one
that will set you up a mac.com email address by default?
Apple decided to give me these perks for buying OSX, so I used it, and
now that my mac.com address is in a lot of very important places, like
my resume and portfolio, I suddenly have to pay. And pay a LOT.
You said you gladly paid Yahoo! $20 for a year of email. Well, I would
gladly pay Apple $20 to keep my email going and forget the rest. But
they want more than double that, and that's just for the first year.
Theyn they want five times that. Fat chance.
Phil Lefebvre
on...@vikingstad.com (Onar Vikingstad) wrote:
>Stan Randle <stanm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mac.com has had so many uptime problems since its inception (compared,
>> say, to Yahoo) that I never was comfortable using it, even though I was
>> one of the first people to register for it.
>
>Really? That is not my experience at all... I registered my iTools
>account the day it was announced, and have used it steadily since. I
>have used mostly POP though, so that might explain why, but I have never
>experienced any problems with it that I can remember...
>
>I do however recall some reports with mail disappearing, but it never
>occured to me!
How would you know if you never got it? Seriously, Apple has been accused,
and quietly admitted, to overly aggressive spam filtering on its servers,
which inadvertantly blocked a lot of legitimate mail. The PowerList
listserv was one such victim, and it occurred several times with them.
As far as e-mail reliability, I recall at least one major outage every 2-3
months. I say that because I thought about switching my wife's e-mail to
mac.com from a friend who serves mail and websites as a hobby for friends.
He was having reliability problems when he moved to the sticks, but his
track record was about the same as Apple. Smart move on our part.
As far as web hosting, Apple began shutting down people's websites without
warning if they exceeded a pretty low threshold. They didn't post
guidelines for several weeks until there was enough of an uproar.
Search macfixit.com and tidbits.com for stories and threads discussing all
these problems.
--
Phil Lefebvre
Chicago, IL
Remove GO from e-mail address to reply.
Stan Randle
> > Mac.com has had so many uptime problems since its inception (compared,
> > say, to Yahoo) that I never was comfortable using it, even though I was
> > one of the first people to register for it.
>
> Really? That is not my experience at all...
This newsgroup (as well as online Mac publications) has reported on the
numerous outages that mac.com has experienced since its inception.
Stan Randle
> > > My primary email is through my mac.com account. My feeling is that
> > >email should remain a free service
> >
> > Try Yahoo or Hotmail, which subsidize free use with browser ads and ads
> > attached to every email you send. Truly free email is dying, for a
> > reason.
> >
> > The money has to come from somewhere.
>
> Like buying OSX?
No. Do you get a free lifetime email account without ads for buying
Windows? Linux? Gateway? Dell? Did Apple promise iTools for life? The
answer to all the above is 'no.'
> Apple decided to give me these perks for buying OSX, so I used it, and
> now that my mac.com address is in a lot of very important places, like
> my resume and portfolio, I suddenly have to pay. And pay a LOT.
If Apple had ever claimed that one of the iTools perquisites was
guarantted for life, I'd agree with you. they didn't so I cannot.
> You said you gladly paid Yahoo! $20 for a year of email. Well, I would
> gladly pay Apple $20 to keep my email going and forget the rest.
Maybe that option will reveal itself. If not, at least now you know of a
recommended email service for that $20 <smile>
Per Erik Rønne
> I only use the email and feel that the fee is a lot just for an email
> address, especially when I can have a free one elsewhere.
I fully agree with you and I can add that I'm not going to pay for that
e-mail address [which, btw., is a kind of plug for Apple too].
Probably, I'll go back to my old college account.
--
Per Erik Rønne, MSc
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj
Telephone + fax +45 38 89 00 16, mobile +45 28 23 09 92
Per Erik Rønne
> Converting your .Mac trial account to an email-only account
And what's the price for such an account?
Daniel Carroll
PerR...@mac.com (Per Erik Rønne) wrote:
> EE <e.echt...@DELETHIShome.nl> wrote:
>
> > Converting your .Mac trial account to an email-only account
>
> And what's the price for such an account?
Not sure... Right now the button to do it isn't there. It could be
free, it could be $10 a year, or you could be required to have an
active, full .mac account, and you can just add that email address to
that account.
Daniel
EE
<bucksfan32-482BB...@clmboh1-nws2.columbus.rr.com>, Daniel
Carroll <bucks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think the latter is true...
:o{=
BreadW...@fractious.net
> E-Star <unix...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> > I only use the email and feel that the fee is a lot just for an email
> > address, especially when I can have a free one elsewhere.
>
> I fully agree with you and I can add that I'm not going to pay for that
> e-mail address [which, btw., is a kind of plug for Apple too].
A professional and paid-for email system would allow you to override
the From: and/or Reply-To: addresses. Security and protection from
spammers is ensured by using smtp-authorization. Apple insists that
in addition to smtp-auth, the From: line contain your @mac.com
address. There are only two possible reasons for that and neither
of them is security: (1) advertising of mac.com; (2) make sure that
your mac.com address is publicized so you cannot easily change mail
providers.
Apple's really dropped it on that. If it's a free account, I've no
problem with an smtp-server configured to benefit marketting. If
we're paying for it, it ought to be a real, professional smtp.
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No MIME in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
Jeremy
>> Converting your .Mac trial account to an email-only account
>
> And what's the price for such an account?
It says $10/year, and it seems you have to already have a real .Mac
account in order to add an additional email-only account.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Per Erik Rønne
> Apple's really dropped it on that. If it's a free account, I've no
> problem with an smtp-server configured to benefit marketting. If
> we're paying for it, it ought to be a real, professional smtp.
I already pay for an e-mail account through my ISP. And I already have
an »eternal« e-mail address from The University of Copenhagen which I
can forward to any e-mail address.
--
Cand.scient. Per Erik Rønne
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj
Tlf + fax 38 89 00 16, mobil 28 23 09 92
Matt Ruben
Jeremy <jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
> Per Erik R?nne <PerR...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> Converting your .Mac trial account to an email-only account
> >
> > And what's the price for such an account?
>
> It says $10/year, and it seems you have to already have a real .Mac
> account in order to add an additional email-only account.
Actually, it's not entirely clear yet. There is wording in the .Mac FAQ
section to the effect that you can _convert_ your trial .Mac membership
into an email-only account. If you do that, the FAQ says, all your other
data--iDisk files, homepages, etc.--will be deleted on Sep. 30.
Given this, it seems that there is (or is going to be) an email-only
option. The interesting thing will be, what will it cost? For the sake
of full .Mac members (who have to pay $10/yr to add extra email addies
to their acconts), Apple would have to charge $10/yr or more for an
email-only account. But the wording in the FAQ is ambiguous on that
point presently.
FYI I went ahead and paid $49 for the membership. I felt it was worth it
to keep my mac.com address, my homepage, and to get Virex and Backup.
I'm not saying these aren't arguable--mac.com email isn't worth much by
itself, Virex seems rough around the edges right now and isn't much
needed on Macs anyway, and backup is a fairly limited app. Nevertheless,
it was worth it to me for these items, and to see what will be added in
the coming year.
When renewal time comes up next year, I'm skeptical about finding enough
stuff to make it worth $99.
One final thing: speaking of renewal, I am mightily p.o.'d that my
membership expires July 17. I would think the right thing to do would be
to make any membership purchased between now and Sept 30 expire on Sept
30 2003. Folks like me who ponied up the $$$ right away to support Apple
(amidst a large backlash I might add) shouldn't be penalized by having
our 2.5 month grace period revoked.
Matt
clvrmnky
> In article <1ffh9po.utuldm1eg7u0wN%stanm...@hotmail.com>,
> stanm...@hotmail.com (Stan Randle) wrote:
>
>
>>The money has to come from somewhere.
>
>
> Like buying OSX? You know, the OS that has iDisk in the menu? The one
> that will set you up a mac.com email address by default?
>
> Apple decided to give me these perks for buying OSX, so I used it, and
> now that my mac.com address is in a lot of very important places, like
> my resume and portfolio, I suddenly have to pay. And pay a LOT.
>
seem to recall some "free" services bundled with Wn9x that asked you all
kinds of questions on install. This is a great way to collect and track
user information, and potential upsell for the future.
The problem is, if a service (email, web, internet connection) is free
on install, and is part of the install (i.e., you have to take steps to
cancel or step around it), there is an implication that it is part of
the operating system. That is, many people may feel that these services
are part of the total purchase price (or upgrade fee) of the OS itself,
regardless of what the vendor plans.
For what it's worth, Apple strongly implied that iTools was free and
would likely remain so. No, I can't point to any specific Apple
collateral that suggests this, but that is definitely the feeling I have.
Well, iTools was, and will always be free, won't it? The service Apple
is selling now is ".Mac", not iTools. New name, new look: new price.
Anyway, the real question might be, "does anyone pay for the Microsoft
Network now?" They had to back away from selling subscriptions to a set
of integrated online services that was built into the operating system,
and move to an ad-based, web-based information service. The OS links to
much of these services were removed or minimized.
My prediction is that many people will expect .Mac or iTools, or
whatever it is called today, is part of the OS they handed out a lot of
money for. I doubt many people will actually voluntarily pay for a few
Gbs of slow disk space when local disk space is far less than a dollar
per megabyte. I doubt that anyone will pay for web space when there
are many, many sites out there that offer identical services at the same
or better price.
We have gotten so used to retiring email addresses that I just don't
trust the attraction of "one, true email" anymore: it's a holy grail
many of us will never find.
I rarely ever use the "Connect to iDisk" menu item now. I expect it
will never be used on my new Mac anymore. I also expect that within a
year it will be removed from most folks' desktops, either officially by
Apple, or via some kind of hack from some clever coders (Fruit Menu, I'm
looking at you).
Let's see where ".Mac" is in one year.
-- cm
alexee
> Apple decided to give me these perks for buying OSX, so I used it, and
> now that my mac.com address is in a lot of very important places, like
> my resume and portfolio, I suddenly have to pay. And pay a LOT.
I, too, use my mac email account in many places because I'm proud of
being a mac user. I think $49 to upgrade is too much because:
1. I don't use iDisk
2. Thanks, but I have my own anti-virus software.
The one they're offeing *is* very appealing for those doing much stuff
with their mac homepage / file sharing, but not for those using it for
email only. I'd be glad if they also offer an email only account (if
they offer a 50 megs email account for $20--or $19.99--per year, I'd be
even happier.
--
email replies to aIe...@hotmail.com
ZnU
John Steinberg <manby...@coldmail.com.theobvious> wrote:
> My .mac opinion:
>
> Never embraced the whole iTools thing in the first place, thus I am not
> personally impacted. Having said that, I don't predict this as being
> something that's going to be embraced by legions of Mac users, and
> therefore not a significant revenue stream for AAPL.
iTools has 2.5 million members. It probably costs Apple at least a few
bucks a year per user. So at at the very least, getting rid of free
accounts will save perhaps $5-15 million/year. I think Apple would
rather have a few paying users than a lot of users that are costing the
company money.
> The whole dot.net thing leaves me cold. The larger implications and
> long term objectives of this strategy leave me cold.
>
> Oh yeah, my .mac opinion is yes. I have one. Not interested in the
> service at all, price is irrelevant.
--
"My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins
here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed
one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that
alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific."
- George W. Bush
Orac
John Steinberg <manby...@coldmail.com.theobvious> wrote:
> My .mac opinion:
>
> Never embraced the whole iTools thing in the first place, thus I am not
> personally impacted. Having said that, I don't predict this as being
> something that's going to be embraced by legions of Mac users, and
> therefore not a significant revenue stream for AAPL.
>
> The whole dot.net thing leaves me cold. The larger implications and
> long term objectives of this strategy leave me cold.
>
> Oh yeah, my .mac opinion is yes. I have one. Not interested in the
> service at all, price is irrelevant.
Personally, I viewed my mac.com address as the coolest free e-mail
address out there. However, it's not worth what Apple is charging to
keep it, especially since I don't use iTools and I already have my own
virus protection. Consequently, when the time comes, I'll sadly allow my
mac.com address to disappear.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
Matthew Russotto
ZnU <z...@mac.com> wrote:
>iTools has 2.5 million members. It probably costs Apple at least a few
>bucks a year per user. So at at the very least, getting rid of free
>accounts will save perhaps $5-15 million/year. I think Apple would
>rather have a few paying users than a lot of users that are costing the
>company money.
Right. This move was predictable when iTools first came out. They
couldn't keep it free forever, as the old accounts remain an continual
expense while generating no new income.
I wish they'd charge for iTunes and make Backup free though :-)
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
=====
Every time you buy a CD, a programmer is kicked in the teeth.
Every time you buy or rent a DVD, a programmer is kicked where it counts.
Every time they kick a programmer, 1000 users are kicked too, and harder.
A proposed US law called the CBDTPA would ban the PC as we know it.
This is not a joke, not an exaggeration. This is real.
http://www.cryptome.org/broadbandits.htm
Sparky
email address, forever changing email box. I think I'll cope with .Mac
better than most because of this. ;)
Jeremy Howard
> E-Star <unix...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> > My primary email is through my mac.com account. My feeling is that
> > email should remain a free service
>
> Try Yahoo or Hotmail, which subsidize free use with browser ads and ads
> attached to every email you send. Truly free email is dying, for a
> reason.
>
> The money has to come from somewhere.
>
storage and no browser ads. The money comes from offering paid
upgrades for more space and features.
There's docs to help set up Mac email clients such as these:
http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/imap/imap-eudoramac.html
http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/imap/imap-mac_oe.html
Disclaimer: I work for FastMail.FM
Scott
> iTools has 2.5 million members. It probably costs Apple at least a few
> bucks a year per user.
So then charge them a few bucks, and give them the option to pass on all
the other gee-whiz stuff.
There is a factor beyond pricing at work here as well. iTools remain
virtually unusable at modem connect speeds. I was just nosing around on
my iDisk seeing if I had any files on it I wanted to retrieve, kicking
the tires, and mulling over my options.
That is, until I opened the software folder. Then, just as always
happens, out came the Wheel Of Misfortune. And it spun and spun and
spun, and threw the finder into a coma. I'd switch to read a few web
pages, come back, still spinning. Read a few more, still spinning, etc.
I don't need big pipe to access my mac.com email address. I do it dozens
of times a day with PowerMail. But even if I WANTED all this other
stuff, it would simply be useless over dialup. So come on, you're
telling me I should gladly pay $50 for something I can't even use
effectively? Or that providing a basic cost-covering fee for keeping my
mail is unreasonable?
You said it yourself. It probably costs Apple a few bucks. Not fifty,
and certainly not a hundred.
If they'd just let me pay for what I can effectively use, I'd do it.
What's so unreasonable about that?
Barry Twycross
<now...@hell.edu> wrote:
> Not to swing too far off-topic, but that's why I use Pobox.com ... One
> email address, forever changing email box. I think I'll cope with .Mac
> better than most because of this. ;)
Same here, I use Netbox for a permanant email address. Its been
permanant since '95 so far. I never did trust anything which was free
to stay around forever, I'd prefer to pay to give it a chance of
surviving. (Netbox seems to be financially sound.)
I did think that Apple had a good chance of staying around and the
mac.com address being permanant. I never thought the price would go up
to $99 though. That's a bit steep just for email.
> clvrmnky <clvr...@coldmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > We have gotten so used to retiring email addresses that I just don't
> > trust the attraction of "one, true email" anymore: it's a holy grail
> > many of us will never find.
--
Barry
Ba...@netbox.com <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
------
(I should put something down here).
ZnU
wrote:
> In article <znu-09D703.2...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> ZnU <z...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > iTools has 2.5 million members. It probably costs Apple at least a few
> > bucks a year per user.
>
> So then charge them a few bucks, and give them the option to pass on all
> the other gee-whiz stuff.
>
> There is a factor beyond pricing at work here as well. iTools remain
> virtually unusable at modem connect speeds. I was just nosing around on
> my iDisk seeing if I had any files on it I wanted to retrieve, kicking
> the tires, and mulling over my options.
>
> That is, until I opened the software folder. Then, just as always
> happens, out came the Wheel Of Misfortune. And it spun and spun and
> spun, and threw the finder into a coma. I'd switch to read a few web
> pages, come back, still spinning. Read a few more, still spinning, etc.
Jaguar does really amazing things for iDisk performance. Over DSL, it
almost feels like you've browsing a local volume. Over a modem, things
are still a bit slow, obviously, but thanks to dramatically improved
multi-threading, the Finder never freezes like that.
> I don't need big pipe to access my mac.com email address. I do it dozens
> of times a day with PowerMail. But even if I WANTED all this other
> stuff, it would simply be useless over dialup. So come on, you're
> telling me I should gladly pay $50 for something I can't even use
> effectively? Or that providing a basic cost-covering fee for keeping my
> mail is unreasonable?
>
> You said it yourself. It probably costs Apple a few bucks. Not fifty,
> and certainly not a hundred.
>
> If they'd just let me pay for what I can effectively use, I'd do it.
> What's so unreasonable about that?
Well, Apple should definitely offer free or cheap e-mail. The rest of
the new services probably do cost Apple quite a bit -- especially that
backup stuff.
Kwan Yeoh
> Personally, I viewed my mac.com address as the coolest free e-mail
> address out there. However, it's not worth what Apple is charging to
> keep it, especially since I don't use iTools and I already have my own
> virus protection.
And this is the case for many people. Already have Retrospect Backup.
Already have Norton Antivirus. ISP already has webspace & email
addresses. Using mac.com only to help promote Apple.
Apple wants to charge us to help promote them? Bugger it...
--
NB. Remove ".SpAmMeNoT" to reply.
I apologise for the necessary use of this antispam measure.
Kwan Yeoh
> iTools has 2.5 million members. It probably costs Apple at least a few
> bucks a year per user. So at at the very least, getting rid of free
> accounts will save perhaps $5-15 million/year. I think Apple would
> rather have a few paying users than a lot of users that are costing the
> company money.
Absolutely. And Apple would have known this from the start. They should
have made it clear from the beginning that they intended to charge at a
later date. Otherwise, the standard assumption was that iTools was being
funded by machine & OS sales. (Remember that it was crippled for OS9
only, in an apparent attempt to get people to upgrade from OS8?)
The sudden introduction of a (probably unreasonable) charge with
inadequate notice is indeed none other than bait-and-switch. People came
to iTools when it was free & are not forced to pay or put up with
considerable inconvenience.
Kwan.
ZnU
KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT (Kwan Yeoh) wrote:
> ZnU <z...@mac.com> wrote:
> > iTools has 2.5 million members. It probably costs Apple at least a few
> > bucks a year per user. So at at the very least, getting rid of free
> > accounts will save perhaps $5-15 million/year. I think Apple would
> > rather have a few paying users than a lot of users that are costing the
> > company money.
>
> Absolutely. And Apple would have known this from the start. They should
> have made it clear from the beginning that they intended to charge at a
> later date. Otherwise, the standard assumption was that iTools was being
> funded by machine & OS sales. (Remember that it was crippled for OS9
> only, in an apparent attempt to get people to upgrade from OS8?)
Well, when .Mac was introduced, the tech sector was in much better
shape. Not only does the downturn mean that Apple doesn't have the spare
cash it used to, it also probably means that bandwidth cost more.
> The sudden introduction of a (probably unreasonable) charge with
> inadequate notice is indeed none other than bait-and-switch. People came
> to iTools when it was free & are not forced to pay or put up with
> considerable inconvenience.
You got 60 days notice. How much do you think you should have gotten?
Larry Fransson
E-Star <unix...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> I guess I'm not alone in feeling that the email should be a free service.
Why do you feel like e-mail should be a free service? Which other services do
you get for free? US mail? Dry cleaning? Doctors? Legal service?
Transportation? Maybe you should be fed, housed and clothed for free as well,
eh?
The whole "this should be free" thing just doesn't make sense to me. I enjoyed
having the mac.com address, and I'm sorry to be losing it. Apparently, Steve
Jobs said "free for life" somewhere along the line. Clearly, that was a mistake
on his part. An apology might be nice. But expecting to get something for
nothing, just because it's Internet related, is ridiculous. There's a lot of
that going around these days, though.
And for the record, I've ordered my copy of Jaguar - $129 plus tax. (Ground
shipping is free, if anyone cares!) If anyone's interested, Mac Mall has it for
$119 and change plus shipping (which isn't free at all). I don't know if they
add sales tax or not.
--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA
Jim Hill
>Orac <Or...@mac.com> wrote:
>> Personally, I viewed my mac.com address as the coolest free e-mail
>> address out there. However, it's not worth what Apple is charging to
>> keep it, especially since I don't use iTools and I already have my own
>> virus protection.
>
>And this is the case for many people. Already have Retrospect Backup.
>Already have Norton Antivirus.
I heard something about antivirus software once. What's it like,
needing a product like that?
Jim
--
"This place blows." -- David Letterman
Larry Fransson
Matt Ruben <mru...@critpath.org> wrote:
> One final thing: speaking of renewal, I am mightily p.o.'d that my
> membership expires July 17. I would think the right thing to do would be
> to make any membership purchased between now and Sept 30 expire on Sept
> 30 2003. Folks like me who ponied up the $$$ right away to support Apple
> (amidst a large backlash I might add) shouldn't be penalized by having
> our 2.5 month grace period revoked.
Did you really expect that you'd get more than a year for your money? You might
need a dose of reality. Actually, I think you just got one.
D.F. Manno
KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT (Kwan Yeoh) wrote:
> The sudden introduction of a (probably unreasonable) charge with
> inadequate notice is indeed none other than bait-and-switch.
It's nothing of the kind. You've been receiving a free service that shortly will
no longer be free. "Bait and switch" refers to falsely advertising items for
sale at a low price when either the items or the price turn out to be
unavailable when the would-be buyer goes to the dealer.
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
Robbo
stanm...@hotmail.com wrote on 18/7/02 8:35 AM:
> E-Star <unix...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
>> My primary email is through my mac.com account. My feeling is that
>> email should remain a free service
>
> Try Yahoo or Hotmail, which subsidize free use with browser ads and ads
> attached to every email you send. Truly free email is dying, for a
> reason.
Hotmail doesn't attach ads.
> The money has to come from somewhere.
Are you that ignorant? The money is for the greed of corporate CEOs that
want more money. All computer companies are greedy (I am now to find one
that isn't, Apple was my last hope of some decency in this world) and they
can't justify their greed.
>> I only use the email and feel that the fee is a lot just for an email
>> address, especially when I can have a free one elsewhere.
>
> So get it elsewhere for free and either pay in terms of ads from one of
> the big providers, or in terms of iffy service (or a questionable
> future) from a small service (which isn't getting revenue from
> freeloaders).
NO
> Mac.com has had so many uptime problems since its inception (compared,
> say, to Yahoo) that I never was comfortable using it, even though I was
> one of the first people to register for it. On the other hand, in May I
> gladly paid yahoo $20 for a year's worth of popmail/forwarding when
> Yahoo first started charging for it (another sign that times are
> changing). Yahoo's mail service, especially their popmail and
> autoforwarding, has worked perfectly since I first set up my account
> there years ago.
>
> So stick with services offering limited free mail like mail.com or one
> of the rebranded outblaze services (like linuxmail.org or
> verizonmail.com). But if for some reason you really want a mac.com
> address, despite the growing problems it's had, prepare to pay.
NO. And there have been no problems since 10.1.5 came out.
> Given Apple's increasingly precarious financial position in a) a highly
> competitive industry and b) a recession affecting sales of all
> computers, I won't begrudge Apple revenue for a service that is costing
> them.
You're an absolute idiot.
Robbo
unix...@linuxmail.org wrote on 18/7/02 3:38 AM:
> My email just went out to the .Mac team.
Where do you do this? I just sent an angry email to Apple Support, but if
there's a better way, please tell me.
Robbo
wrote on 19/7/02 5:36 PM:
> In article <1ffkvpd.9pc2nvwttgxyN%KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT>,
> KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT (Kwan Yeoh) wrote:
>
>> ZnU <z...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> iTools has 2.5 million members. It probably costs Apple at least a few
>>> bucks a year per user. So at at the very least, getting rid of free
>>> accounts will save perhaps $5-15 million/year. I think Apple would
>>> rather have a few paying users than a lot of users that are costing the
>>> company money.
>>
>> Absolutely. And Apple would have known this from the start. They should
>> have made it clear from the beginning that they intended to charge at a
>> later date. Otherwise, the standard assumption was that iTools was being
>> funded by machine & OS sales. (Remember that it was crippled for OS9
>> only, in an apparent attempt to get people to upgrade from OS8?)
>
> Well, when .Mac was introduced, the tech sector was in much better
> shape. Not only does the downturn mean that Apple doesn't have the spare
> cash it used to, it also probably means that bandwidth cost more.
>
>> The sudden introduction of a (probably unreasonable) charge with
>> inadequate notice is indeed none other than bait-and-switch. People came
>> to iTools when it was free & are not forced to pay or put up with
>> considerable inconvenience.
>
> You got 60 days notice. How much do you think you should have gotten?
I have got no notification at all. I found it quite by accident downloading
iTunes 3.
David Blangstrup
"ZnU" <z...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <1ffkvpd.9pc2nvwttgxyN%KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT>,
> KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT (Kwan Yeoh) wrote:
>
>> ZnU <z...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> iTools has 2.5 million members. It probably costs Apple at least a few
>>> bucks a year per user. So at at the very least, getting rid of free
>>> accounts will save perhaps $5-15 million/year. I think Apple would
>>> rather have a few paying users than a lot of users that are costing the
>>> company money.
>>
>> Absolutely. And Apple would have known this from the start. They should
>> have made it clear from the beginning that they intended to charge at a
>> later date. Otherwise, the standard assumption was that iTools was being
>> funded by machine & OS sales. (Remember that it was crippled for OS9
>> only, in an apparent attempt to get people to upgrade from OS8?)
>
> Well, when .Mac was introduced, the tech sector was in much better
> shape. Not only does the downturn mean that Apple doesn't have the spare
> cash it used to, it also probably means that bandwidth cost more.
>
>> The sudden introduction of a (probably unreasonable) charge with
>> inadequate notice is indeed none other than bait-and-switch. People came
>> to iTools when it was free & are not forced to pay or put up with
>> considerable inconvenience.
>
> You got 60 days notice. How much do you think you should have gotten?
If MicroSoft had closed its free services, email etcetera for customers,
what an uproar there would have beenŠ! Steve Jobs clearly must have had an
attack of some kind - in the brain
--
David Blangstrup,
Allerød, Danmark
http://david.blangstrup.dk
E-Star
I use my mac.com address everywhere!! (well, earlier today I've started
using a different one.)
I think if Apple expected to start charging, at least give existing
users the first year free! or at least free email and allow those who
do not want to continue using their account to gradually merge away.
I'm still overwhelmed right now by all the work I will have switching
everything over. You'd be surprised at how many things rely on your
email!
In article <znu-6A2024.0...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
ZnU
David Blangstrup <da...@blangstrup.dk> wrote:
What free services? Hotmail? It's full of ads, and I believe they've now
started charging if you want POP or IMAP access.
Tryme
<em...@domain.com> wrote:
>
>> My email just went out to the .Mac team.
>
> Where do you do this? I just sent an angry email to Apple Support, but if
> there's a better way, please tell me.
>
You can send .Mac feedback here
http://www.apple.com/feedback/mac/gtm.html
--
TY
Sparky
than I'm paying just for forwarding.
Stan Randle
> > Given Apple's increasingly precarious financial position in a) a highly
> > competitive industry and b) a recession affecting sales of all
> > computers, I won't begrudge Apple revenue for a service that is costing
> > them.
>
> You're an absolute idiot.
You're clearly a troll.
BreadW...@fractious.net
> stanm...@hotmail.com (Stan Randle) wrote in message news:<1ffh9po.utuldm1eg7u0wN%stanm...@hotmail.com>...
> http://fastmail.fm provides free IMAP/web-accessible email with 10MB
> storage and no browser ads. The money comes from offering paid
> upgrades for more space and features.
And their cheapest paid account is $15 - one time, for life.
And their SMTP uses proper authentication and doesn't care what
you put in your From: line, so if you use forwarding from, say,
directnic or something, you can put your permanent address in the
From line, as you'd expect.
> Disclaimer: I work for FastMail.FM
I DON'T work for them. I just signed up recently and am blown
away at how good it is. Their webmail access is also the cleanest
webmail interface I've ever seen. They even use the <link> tags
to navigate, and have no annoying graphics. Astoundingly well done.
[very satisfied customer]
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No MIME in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
Ron Goodman
looks like a really good thing. Last summer it was the end of the
world becuase of the $20 shipping and handling for 10.1. Next year it
will be something else.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Kwan Yeoh
> You got 60 days notice. How much do you think you should have gotten?
Actually, I still haven't received notice, on either of my mac.com email
addresses. I found out here, on this newsgroup.
And it certainly takes longer than 60 days to be sure that you've told
all important contacts, mailing lists & companies of a new email
address, & to be sure that they've updated their files.
Barry Twycross
<now...@hell.edu> wrote:
> Right, but that's why it's not just mail. Mail is $10, which is less
> than I'm paying just for forwarding.
There's no obvious way to get mail for $10 without having a $99 full
account. People have said that the help tells you how to do it, but it
doesn't work.
> Barry Twycross <ba...@netbox.com> wrote:
>
> > I did think that Apple had a good chance of staying around and the
> > mac.com address being permanant. I never thought the price would go up
> > to $99 though. That's a bit steep just for email.
--
Barry Twycross
Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> In article <1ffkvpd.9pc2nvwttgxyN%KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT>,
> KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT (Kwan Yeoh) wrote:
>
> > The sudden introduction of a (probably unreasonable) charge with
> > inadequate notice is indeed none other than bait-and-switch.
>
> It's nothing of the kind. You've been receiving a free service that shortly
> will no longer be free. "Bait and switch" refers to falsely advertising
> items for sale at a low price when either the items or the price turn out
> to be unavailable when the would-be buyer goes to the dealer.
I was under the impression that iTools was included with the purchase
of your Mac. It might fit your definition.
MikeJ
dearly for most everything, upgrades etc). I am glad they did provided
some free for a while. I used mac.com email for several years.
Despite that, I will likely give up mac.com email come Sept 30, as it is
just is not worth $100 /year to me. I have not would not likely ever use
anything but email part.
MikeJ
[ See? I am already trying out a free email, this one web based and not
one mentioned by the Applelinks acticle below.]
=====
For some alternative "free" POP email sites, check out
http://www.applelinks.com/mooresviews/bait.shtml
an article by Charles Moore on Applelinks called Switch or Bait &
Switch?"
--
MikeJ
michael...@email.com
Jim Hill
>In article <1fflh2c.16f6io1xz95xcN%KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT>,
> KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT (Kwan Yeoh) wrote:
>
>> And it certainly takes longer than 60 days to be sure that you've told
>> all important contacts, mailing lists & companies of a new email
>> address, & to be sure that they've updated their files.
>
>should take about a day or two for all of them to receive it.
Be aware that a great many people routinely bitbucket any email that
doesn't have their own addresses in the To: or Cc: headers. Bcc: has
been so abused by spammers that it's been lost as anything of real
value.
ZnU
Ron Goodman <rgoo...@taconic.net> wrote:
> I sent them my $50 and was playing with Backup this morning. iSynch
> looks like a really good thing. Last summer it was the end of the
> world becuase of the $20 shipping and handling for 10.1. Next year it
> will be something else.
Meanwhile, everyone ignores Rendezvous, which is going to eventually
(once there's more stuff that takes advantage of it) totally change the
way a lot of people use their computers.
D.F. Manno
<ba...@netbox.com> wrote:
> In article <dommanno-913C7F...@news2.localnet.com>, D.F.
> Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <1ffkvpd.9pc2nvwttgxyN%KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT>,
> > KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT (Kwan Yeoh) wrote:
> >
> > > The sudden introduction of a (probably unreasonable) charge with
> > > inadequate notice is indeed none other than bait-and-switch.
> >
> > It's nothing of the kind. You've been receiving a free service that shortly
> > will no longer be free. "Bait and switch" refers to falsely advertising
> > items for sale at a low price when either the items or the price turn out
> > to be unavailable when the would-be buyer goes to the dealer.
>
> I was under the impression that iTools was included with the purchase
> of your Mac. It might fit your definition.
Not under the iTools membership agreement and acceptable use policy, which reads
in part as follows:
> Apple may change, suspend or discontinue any (or all) aspects of
> iTools at any time, including the availability of any iTools feature
> or content. Apple may also impose limits on the use of or access to
> certain features or portions of iTools, including a charge for or
> imposition of a subscription or other fee for use of iTools or any
> part or feature of iTools, or restrict your access to any part or all
> of iTools, in all cases without notice or liability.
Robbo
stanm...@hotmail.com wrote on 19/7/02 11:13 PM:
And you have no idea. Computer companies love you sort of people, always
gullible and willing to submit to ripoff prices.
What about low-income earners... having to fork out $300AUS odd for these
new services. That's very unreasonable.
I don't count a company which has $4 billion US to play around with and made
a $32 million US profit last year in need of money.
Perhaps Steve Jobs needs a new private jet?
Robbo
KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT wrote on 20/7/02 12:54 AM:
> ZnU <z...@mac.com> wrote:
>> You got 60 days notice. How much do you think you should have gotten?
>
> Actually, I still haven't received notice, on either of my mac.com email
> addresses. I found out here, on this newsgroup.
Same here. I found out when I downloaded iTunes 3. I wondered what ".Mac"
was so I had a look. Thanks for the notice Apple!
Robbo
Steiner at mich...@michelle.org wrote on 20/7/02 3:13 AM:
> In article <B95E06C1.9EBD%em...@domain.com>, Robbo <em...@domain.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Are you that ignorant? The money is for the greed of corporate CEOs that
>> want more money. All computer companies are greedy (I am now to find one
>> that isn't, Apple was my last hope of some decency in this world) and they
>> can't justify their greed.
>
> Define greed.
Alright. Apple has $4 billion in the bank. They made $32 million profit even
with the iTools accounts being free. I don't buy suggestions that they need
the money to maintain services. They can do pretty well without the extra
money, so I don't think they need any more.
If you buy a Mac you should be allowed to use .Mac or iTools or whatever it
would be. It was promised to remain free and it should be. If they really
want to charge it should be for an attractive premium service that is worth
paying. The basic service should remain free.
I'm just waiting for Apple to put keycodes on their systems like Microsoft
so you have to buy 4 copies for 4 computers. That would be the tip of the
cake and with this announcement I reckon its inevitable.
Rodger
wrote:
> If you buy a Mac you should be allowed to use .Mac or iTools or whatever it
> would be. It was promised to remain free and it should be. If they really
> want to charge it should be for an attractive premium service that is worth
> paying. The basic service should remain free.
Can you show documentation where it said "promised to remain free..."?
--
Rodger
Barry Twycross
Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> In article <190720020817546568%ba...@netbox.com>, Barry Twycross
> <ba...@netbox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <dommanno-913C7F...@news2.localnet.com>, D.F.
> > Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1ffkvpd.9pc2nvwttgxyN%KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT>,
> > > KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT (Kwan Yeoh) wrote:
> > >
> > > > The sudden introduction of a (probably unreasonable) charge with
> > > > inadequate notice is indeed none other than bait-and-switch.
> > >
> > > It's nothing of the kind. You've been receiving a free service that
> > > shortly
> > > will no longer be free. "Bait and switch" refers to falsely advertising
> > > items for sale at a low price when either the items or the price turn out
> > > to be unavailable when the would-be buyer goes to the dealer.
> >
> > I was under the impression that iTools was included with the purchase
> > of your Mac. It might fit your definition.
>
> Not under the iTools membership agreement and acceptable use policy, which
> reads in part as follows:
That hardly seems relevant to this discussion. You talk about falsly
advertising, you'd justifyably complain of bait and switch if you
went to a car dealer because of an advertised price only to find the
small print in the contract had a different price.
I got the impression of it being included by watching Steve's
speaches, but its difficult to refer back to those, however...
The itools press release:
<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/jan/05netstrategy.html>
"iTools is free to Macintosh users running the Mac OS 9 operating
system"
from the iMac update Jan 6 2000:
"A suite of free Internet services available exclusively to those of
you who use a Macintosh and Mac OS 9"
The email address is the only thing which really has value, you can
get everything else else where. An email address is hard to change. $99
is steep for just an email address, I pay $12 for mine.
David M. Palmer
> Well, when .Mac was introduced, the tech sector was in much better
> shape. Not only does the downturn mean that Apple doesn't have the spare
> cash it used to, it also probably means that bandwidth cost more.
Supply-and-demand means that bandwidth should be cheaper.
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
David M. Palmer
Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <1ffkvuv.w9bmh71h8acw0N%KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT>,
> KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT (Kwan Yeoh) wrote:
>
> > Apple wants to charge us to help promote them? Bugger it...
>
> Wow! Sending mail from a mac.com address really promotes Apple a heck of
> a lot.
And every Mac user in the world telling everyone in their address books
that they're switching away from mac.com is the perfect complement to
Apple's current advertising campaign.
Hownow
<ba...@netbox.com> wrote:
One might consider that Apple really wants to kill what essentially has
been a cash-consuming marketing tool and that asking $100 a year for it
gets rid of most and weans the others.
Given current market conditions and general media interpretation of
anything Apple, that might be a better way to dump it -- over a period
of time -- so it does not appear to be a failed project.
Either way, the demise of iTools sometime over the next two years, even
sooner, would not surprise me. As a profit center, it is somewhat
aslant of Apple's core business.
- hm
.
ZnU
"David M. Palmer" <dmpa...@email.com> wrote:
> In article <znu-6A2024.0...@news.fu-berlin.de>, ZnU
> <z...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Well, when .Mac was introduced, the tech sector was in much better
> > shape. Not only does the downturn mean that Apple doesn't have the spare
> > cash it used to, it also probably means that bandwidth cost more.
>
> Supply-and-demand means that bandwidth should be cheaper.
Not if all the places that were selling it at, near or below cost have
now raised prices or gone under....
Robbo
NOS...@nowhere.invalid wrote on 20/7/02 12:23 PM:
With pleasure:
The itools press release:
<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/jan/05netstrategy.html>
"iTools is free to Macintosh users running the Mac OS 9 operating
system"
from the iMac update Jan 6 2000:
"A suite of free Internet services available exclusively to those of
you who use a Macintosh and Mac OS 9"
The boxes all had it on there as an "inclusion" as well. Links to it are all
through the System. It is completely unreasonable that it should not be free
if you buy a Mac. If you don't, well perhaps you should pay.
Robbo
Steiner at mich...@michelle.org wrote on 20/7/02 11:57 AM:
> In article <B95EF8FA.A1CD%em...@domain.com>, Robbo <em...@domain.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Are you that ignorant? The money is for the greed of corporate
>>>> CEOs that want more money. All computer companies are greedy (I am
>>>> now to find one that isn't, Apple was my last hope of some decency
>>>> in this world) and they can't justify their greed.
>>>
>>> Define greed.
>>
>> Alright. Apple has $4 billion in the bank. They made $32 million
>> profit even with the iTools accounts being free. I don't buy
>> suggestions that they need the money to maintain services. They can
>> do pretty well without the extra money, so I don't think they need
>> any more.
>
> So, greed is wanting more money than you think they should have. $32
> million is a pittance in this industry. Microsoft's profits last
> quarter was greater than Apple's total revenues for the quarter.
Apple earn quite enough. Compared to your average worker or small company
that is a lot of money. Microsoft would earn a lot of money, they are headed
by Bill Gates and own more than most countries do. They could buy almost a
whole continent with that amount of money.
If Apple were making losses it would be a different story. But they are not.
The extra money is not used for maintenance, we all know that. Perhaps Steve
Jobs' new superjet or something like that... it is always money over
customer worth and that is very sad.
>> If you buy a Mac you should be allowed to use .Mac or iTools or
>> whatever it would be.
>
> You want something for nothing; now, that is what I call greed.
No, I bought a Mac, I am entitled to use iTools for nothing as it was when I
bought it.
>> It was promised to remain free
>
> No, it wasn't. I posted the user agreement here, in which they
> explicitly said they reserved the right to charge for it.
The itools press release:
<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/jan/05netstrategy.html>
"iTools is free to Macintosh users running the Mac OS 9 operating
system"
from the iMac update Jan 6 2000:
"A suite of free Internet services available exclusively to those of
you who use a Macintosh and Mac OS 9"
€ Inclusion on the boxes
€ Inclusion in the system
Do I need any more evidence?
Of course the user agreement would say that. Its a safeguard against Apple
being sued by people so they can do what they want. Ever read some
Government legislation? Hotmail user agreement?
The Australian GST Act gives the GST Commissioner the power to determine
that something happened which did not. That is sort of the scary stuff that
user agreements contain. They give companies absolute power to exploit users
and customers. Most of the time companies are not out to do that but
occasionally they do.
Users were not surveyed about this for one.
The majority of users don't want this, it is extremely obvious.
I have nothing against paying, but I think, like Hotmail, Yahoo and every
other computer company on earth there should be a basic service left there
for Apple users. By all means put in an attractive premium service that is
worth the money, if it is good people will pay.
But you don't bait users by attracting things as being free then taking it
away. Though it might be lawful under the terms of agreement the ethics have
basically gone out the window.
>> If they really want to charge it should be for an attractive premium
>> service that is worth paying. The basic service should remain free.
>
> And you get to determine what is worth paying, and you want something
> for nothing.
>
No, Apple can determine what is worth paying. Premium services that are good
work. You keep the minimum for those who don't want to pay because they are
entitled not to.
Barry Twycross
wrote:
> in article ZQ3_8.13787$t%5.65...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com, Rodger at
> NOS...@nowhere.invalid wrote on 20/7/02 12:23 PM:
> > Can you show documentation where it said "promised to remain free..."?
>
> With pleasure:
>
> The itools press release:
>
> <http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/jan/05netstrategy.html>
>
> "iTools is free to Macintosh users running the Mac OS 9 operating
> system"
>
> from the iMac update Jan 6 2000:
>
> "A suite of free Internet services available exclusively to those of
> you who use a Macintosh and Mac OS 9"
Those don't promise it'll remain free, just that its free (at that
time). That maybe why they've renaimed it from iTools. iTools was
"free". No one's ever said .mac is free.
Stan Randle
> >>> Given Apple's increasingly precarious financial position in a) a highly
> >>> competitive industry and b) a recession affecting sales of all
> >>> computers, I won't begrudge Apple revenue for a service that is costing
> >>> them.
> >>
> >> You're an absolute idiot.
> >
> > You're clearly a troll.
> >
> And you have no idea.
No, you're just a troll who insults when a normal
discussion/disagreement was taking place.
Kwan Yeoh
> Just send everyone email--one message, with each addressee BCC--it
> shouldn't take that much time for them to update their email address
> book once they receive it.
>
> Counting transmission delays and the like, it should take no more than a
> week or so for it all to be finished.
And some people need 2, 4, or 6, or more reminders... can take a while.
palamino
On Jan 2000, yes, it was promised free. But They didn't say "iTools will
always be free".
Anyhow, I agree it's overpriced. If only they'd offered another type(s)
of account (email only, for example) I'd buy it.
--
No email, please.
Larry Fransson
> I'm just waiting for Apple to put keycodes on their systems like Microsoft
> so you have to buy 4 copies for 4 computers.
That's the way it's supposed to work already. Apple is just using the honor
system. It looks like you're a software pirate, so the general gist of your
comments is not surprising.
--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA
Robbo
Fransson at newsg...@larryandjenny.net wrote on 21/7/02 6:04 AM:
No:
a) I didn't buy it anyway
b) Was for my family, I think that is legal. If anyone prosecuted for that
they would be a very nasty and greedy person.
c) I would never share software with anyone else (other than family) that I
bought. It is illegal.
So it looks like you're wrong, so the general gist of your comments should
be ignored.
Robbo
stanm...@hotmail.com wrote on 20/7/02 9:33 PM:
What on earth is a troll? I speak English, not netspeak.
Stan Randle
> >>>>> Given Apple's increasingly precarious financial position in a) a highly
> >>>>> competitive industry and b) a recession affecting sales of all
> >>>>> computers, I won't begrudge Apple revenue for a service that is costing
> >>>>> them.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're an absolute idiot.
> >>>
> >>> You're clearly a troll.
> >>>
> >> And you have no idea.
> >
> > No, you're just a troll who insults when a normal
> > discussion/disagreement was taking place.
>
> What on earth is a troll? I speak English, not netspeak.
So, you're a clueless troll. Or a liar. Given that, it's no wonder
you're hiding behind that pseudonym.
Larry Fransson
> b) Was for my family, I think that is legal.
You think incorrectly. Doesn't matter who it's for. Unless stated otherwise,
it's one copy per machine - no less.
Hank Gillette
BreadW...@fractious.net wrote:
> A professional and paid-for email system would allow you to override
> the From: and/or Reply-To: addresses.
Well, I always suspected that Verizon wasn't professional, even though I
was paying them.
--
Hank Gillette
Robbo
Fransson at newsg...@larryandjenny.net wrote on 21/7/02 12:41 PM:
> In article <B9604075.AFB1%em...@domain.com>, Robbo <em...@domain.com> wrote:
>
>> b) Was for my family, I think that is legal.
>
> You think incorrectly. Doesn't matter who it's for. Unless stated otherwise,
> it's one copy per machine - no less.
A copy with a computer is counted as a copy? If so, then I have enough to
cover then legally.
Anyway, how many Apple families actually do that anyway? It would be just as
"illegal" as taping TV shows.
Robbo
stanm...@hotmail.com wrote on 21/7/02 12:08 PM:
Such prolixity...
You still haven't explained to me what a troll is. As far as I know I am not
an axe-wielding mythical creature that is extremely ugly with horns.
Larry Fransson
> You still haven't explained to me what a troll is.
It's a term related to fishing.
Kwan Yeoh
> > "iTools is free to Macintosh users running the Mac OS 9 operating
> > system"
> >
> > from the iMac update Jan 6 2000:
> >
> > "A suite of free Internet services available exclusively to those of
> > you who use a Macintosh and Mac OS 9"
>
> Those don't promise it'll remain free, just that its free (at that
> time). That maybe why they've renaimed it from iTools. iTools was
> "free". No one's ever said .mac is free.
1. The definition of "is" can be either the present tense or the future
tense (not strictly speaking, but in common enough usage to be defined
so anyway). So it is arguable that it should always remain free.
2. If iTools is sold as part of the package of OS 9, if it was on the
packaging of OS 9 when we bought it (& I can't remember), then to
discontinue iTools is the same as removing some functionality of OS 9.
It would be the same as Apple somehow deploying some "feature" which
disables the use of Sherlock, or Clariswork, in OS 9. "Hey, it was
included for free at the time, but we never said it was always going to
be there."
Kwan.
Mike Rosenberg
> You still haven't explained to me what a troll is. As far as I know I am
> not an axe-wielding mythical creature that is extremely ugly with horns.
You'd have to include a link to a photo if you'd like some opinions on
that.
But seriously, think of troll in the fishing sense. He thinks that, in
a matter of speaking, you've tossed some bait just to see what you can
catch.
--
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com>
"If you ever get annoyed, look at me, I'm self employed..."
Hownow
Rosenberg <mi...@POSTTOGROUP.invalid> wrote:
> Robbo <em...@domain.com> wrote:
>
> > You still haven't explained to me what a troll is. As far as I know I am
> > not an axe-wielding mythical creature that is extremely ugly with horns.
>
> You'd have to include a link to a photo if you'd like some opinions on
> that.
>
> But seriously, think of troll in the fishing sense. He thinks that, in
> a matter of speaking, you've tossed some bait just to see what you can
> catch.
Tolling is done from a moving boat with baited lines trailing behind
and is aimed at catching fish that feed on moving prey ... such as the
coho and spring (chinook) salmon, lake trout, etc.
- hm
Matt Ruben
KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT (Kwan Yeoh) wrote:
> Barry Twycross <ba...@netbox.com> wrote:
> > > "iTools is free to Macintosh users running the Mac OS 9 operating
> > > system"
> > >
> > > from the iMac update Jan 6 2000:
> > >
> > > "A suite of free Internet services available exclusively to those of
> > > you who use a Macintosh and Mac OS 9"
> >
> > Those don't promise it'll remain free, just that its free (at that
> > time). That maybe why they've renaimed it from iTools. iTools was
> > "free". No one's ever said .mac is free.
>
>
> 1. The definition of "is" can be either the present tense or the future
> tense (not strictly speaking, but in common enough usage to be defined
> so anyway). So it is arguable that it should always remain free.
Um, no. There is no guarantee or even assertion in the verb "is" that
says or implies it will always remain so.
> 2. If iTools is sold as part of the package of OS 9, if it was on the
> packaging of OS 9 when we bought it (& I can't remember), then to
> discontinue iTools is the same as removing some functionality of OS 9.
> It would be the same as Apple somehow deploying some "feature" which
> disables the use of Sherlock, or Clariswork, in OS 9. "Hey, it was
> included for free at the time, but we never said it was always going to
> be there."
OS9 is discontinued. If iTools is part of OS9 as you say, then there's
nothing stopping Apple from discontinuing iTools. Now, with an internet
service, one would expect that in good faith a company would keep the
service running for a decent amount of time after selling the OS. Well,
OS9 came out in the summer of 99, and OS X came out in March of 2001. So
given the Sept 30 discontinuation of iTools as we know it, iTools will
have been available for more than three years since the release of OS9,
and a full year and a half after the discontinuation of OS9 in favor of
OS X. Furthermore, the functionality of iTools--iDisk, mac.com email and
homepage--will continue to be available (for a fee of course, no
argument there), and compatible with OS 9, for the forseeable future.
Matt
Larry Fransson
KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT (Kwan Yeoh) wrote:
> 1. The definition of "is" can be either the present tense or the future
> tense (not strictly speaking, but in common enough usage to be defined
> so anyway). So it is arguable that it should always remain free.
Bill Clinton's legacy lives on in newsgroup discussions....
Tim Delaney
> From: Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com>
> Organization: mail...@dizum.com
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
> Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 20:10:13 +0200 (CEST)
> Subject: Re: .Mac opinion
>
> This guy from Fastmail has been going round all the mac news groups since
> iTools
> demise. He is a spammer and his service is part of pyramid click spam scheme.
>
> Do not sign up with fastmail.fm, they are just a bunch of notorious spammers
> and should be closed down.
>
> spammer wrote:
>
>> http://fastmail.fm provides free IMAP/web-accessible email with 10MB
>> storage and no browser ads. The money comes from offering paid
>> upgrades for more space and features.
>
>> There's docs to help set up Mac email clients such as these:
>> http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/imap/imap-eudoramac.html
>> http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/imap/imap-mac_oe.html
>
>> Disclaimer: I work for FastMail.FM
>
Larry Fransson
Tim Delaney <timde...@attbi.com> wrote:
> iTools is gone? Gee, what a surprise. Anyone remember eWorld?
Oh, yeah. Got that with my PowerBook 520c. But then that wasn't free. Lots
better than AOL, though!
Kwan Yeoh
> In article <1ffp1v9.hfg4rl1sqpflsN%KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT>,
> KY...@Mac.Com.SpAmMeNoT (Kwan Yeoh) wrote:
> > packaging of OS 9 when we bought it (& I can't remember), then to
> > discontinue iTools is the same as removing some functionality of OS 9.
>
> that required OS 9 to access.
Well, the thing to settle this was the part I wasn't sure about... was
it on the packaging or advertising for OS 9?
Kwan Yeoh
> > 1. The definition of "is" can be either the present tense or the future
> > tense (not strictly speaking, but in common enough usage to be defined
> > so anyway). So it is arguable that it should always remain free.
>
> Um, no. There is no guarantee or even assertion in the verb "is" that
> says or implies it will always remain so.
Eg. "What day is the football on?" If "is" is present tense, this would
be a silly question, as the answer would always be "today". "Is" is here
future tense. I think the tenent is arguable, although I agree it is
rather thready.
> > 2. If iTools is sold as part of the package of OS 9, if it was on the
> > packaging of OS 9 when we bought it (& I can't remember), then to
> > discontinue iTools is the same as removing some functionality of OS 9.
> > It would be the same as Apple somehow deploying some "feature" which
> > disables the use of Sherlock, or Clariswork, in OS 9. "Hey, it was
> > included for free at the time, but we never said it was always going to
> > be there."
>
> OS9 is discontinued. If iTools is part of OS9 as you say, then there's
> nothing stopping Apple from discontinuing iTools. Now, with an internet
> service, one would expect that in good faith a company would keep the
> service running for a decent amount of time after selling the OS. Well,
> OS9 came out in the summer of 99, and OS X came out in March of 2001. So
> given the Sept 30 discontinuation of iTools as we know it, iTools will
> have been available for more than three years since the release of OS9,
> and a full year and a half after the discontinuation of OS9 in favor of
> OS X. Furthermore, the functionality of iTools--iDisk, mac.com email and
> homepage--will continue to be available (for a fee of course, no
> argument there), and compatible with OS 9, for the forseeable future.
OS9 is not discontinued. It still runs fine on my machines.
"Development" is discontinued. There's a difference.
In addition, I'm not running "OS9" really, I'm running OS 9.2.2, which
came out in November 2001, not in 1999.
Stan Randle
> If iTools is sold as part of the package of OS 9
It wasn't.
Bruce
>> I have nothing against paying, but I think, like Hotmail, Yahoo and
>> every other computer company on earth there should be a basic service
>> left there for Apple users.
>
> Hotmail and Yahoo aren't computer companies, trollboy. The bottom line
> is that you want something for nothing because you're a greedy
> cheapskate.
Hotmail is M$.
Neither of them attempted to extort money from their userbase by nailing
shut existing accounts. They just restricted it to Webmail. This thread
possibly wouldnšt exist if Apple had chosen a similar, reasonable, path.
Stan Randle
> >> I have nothing against paying, but I think, like Hotmail, Yahoo and
> >> every other computer company on earth there should be a basic service
> >> left there for Apple users.
> >
> > Hotmail and Yahoo aren't computer companies, trollboy. The bottom line
> > is that you want something for nothing because you're a greedy
> > cheapskate.
>
> Neither of them attempted to extort money
Now it's criminal? Extortion? Get real.
> from their userbase by nailing
> shut existing accounts.
They get revenue streams from related sources Apple doesn't, like ads
when you read mail, and attaching ads to the mail you send out from your
account.
Fact is, apple never offered free email services for life, and the
iTools agreement you AGREED TO recognized that even if Apple had made
that claim they were entitled to change it at any time.
Or don't you bother to read agreements either?
Matthew Russotto
ZnU <z...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <190720021034261267%rgoo...@taconic.net>,
> Ron Goodman <rgoo...@taconic.net> wrote:
>
>> I sent them my $50 and was playing with Backup this morning. iSynch
>> looks like a really good thing. Last summer it was the end of the
>> world becuase of the $20 shipping and handling for 10.1. Next year it
>> will be something else.
>
>Meanwhile, everyone ignores Rendezvous, which is going to eventually
>(once there's more stuff that takes advantage of it) totally change the
>way a lot of people use their computers.
Not likely. It'll get "embraced and extended" into a Windoze thing,
Microsoft will pretend to have been invented it, and screw it up in the
process.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
=====
Every time you buy a CD, a programmer is kicked in the teeth.
Every time you buy or rent a DVD, a programmer is kicked where it counts.
Every time they kick a programmer, 1000 users are kicked too, and harder.
A proposed US law called the CBDTPA would ban the PC as we know it.
This is not a joke, not an exaggeration. This is real.
http://www.cryptome.org/broadbandits.htm
ZnU
russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> In article <znu-14565A.1...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> ZnU <z...@mac.com> wrote:
> >In article <190720021034261267%rgoo...@taconic.net>,
> > Ron Goodman <rgoo...@taconic.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I sent them my $50 and was playing with Backup this morning. iSynch
> >> looks like a really good thing. Last summer it was the end of the
> >> world becuase of the $20 shipping and handling for 10.1. Next year it
> >> will be something else.
> >
> >Meanwhile, everyone ignores Rendezvous, which is going to eventually
> >(once there's more stuff that takes advantage of it) totally change the
> >way a lot of people use their computers.
>
> Not likely. It'll get "embraced and extended" into a Windoze thing,
> Microsoft will pretend to have been invented it, and screw it up in the
> process.
Well, if they stick to the open specification (which they probably will,
now that peripherals are starting to support it), they can botch their
implementation as much as they like, and things will still work fine on
the Mac....
--
"My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins
here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed
one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that
alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific."
- George W. Bush
Jeremy Howard
<...>
> > Do not sign up with fastmail.fm, they are just a bunch of notorious spammers
> > and should be closed down.
Take your lies elsewhere. Your malicious dishonesty is not welcome.
FastMail.FM is frequently the target of vengeful spammers who have
been the victim of our aggressive anti-spam work. Therefore, I trust
an appropriate numbers of grains of salt will be taken when reading
unsubstantiated claims about the service.
--
Jeremy Howard
FastMail.FM
Geoffrey F. Green
j+go...@howard.fm (Jeremy Howard) wrote:
As a satisfied fastmail.fm member, let me echo what Jeremy noted about
Fastmail. It's a great value, extremely reliable, and has a very
supportive user community. They have both free sevices and reasonably
priced enhanced services that provide a number of advanced features,
such as Spamassassin (*well* worth the money -- Apple would do well to
provide it) and multiple aliases. Highly recommended.
Disclaimer: I don't work for Fastmail.fm. Just a satisfied customer.
And my praising of Fastmail shouldn't be taken as a disparagement of
.Mac; in other words, I'm not trying to take sides in the .Mac pricing
debate. Yet.
- geoff
Matthew Russotto
ZnU <z...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <ujoboje...@corp.supernews.com>,
> russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>
>> Not likely. It'll get "embraced and extended" into a Windoze thing,
>> Microsoft will pretend to have been invented it, and screw it up in the
>> process.
>
>Well, if they stick to the open specification (which they probably will,
>now that peripherals are starting to support it), they can botch their
>implementation as much as they like, and things will still work fine on
>the Mac....
The "embrace and extend" trick involves changing the spec just enough
that things which adhere tightly to it don't work, or don't work
reliably.
palamino
I just signed up with them, just trying out. But now I'm thinking about
getting a membership (the one 50 mb for $20/year is a real bargain).
Very professional, dedicated–not just another free mail, clean interface
(customizable) without ads. All I can say is I'm very impressed.
--
No email, please.