Code strings suggest name change coming for .Mac

Apple may be getting ready to overhaul its .Mac service--or at least change the name.

New code within Mac OS X could mean the end of the .Mac name for Apple's Internet service.

(Credit: Apple)

A Russian site called Deep Apple noted that code within the Mac OS X Leopard 10.5.3 software update contains placeholders for the .Mac name that would allow Apple to drop in a new name at a later date. Dmitry Chestnykh of Coding Robots also noticed similar code within Mail and Safari applications.

Apple's .Mac service is designed to help Mac users extend the capabilities of their iLife software to the Internet by publishing Web pages, sharing photos, and storing data, among other things. But it's not exactly the company's most popular service, and looks expensive and out-of-date next to competing services from companies that make their living on the Internet.

The iPhone might be giving Apple a reason to think different about .Mac. If Apple were to revamp the .Mac service and turn it into something that ties Macs and iPhones together--and cut the price--they might be able to marshal an army of online Mac users and add a nice little chunk of revenue to the income statement.

But as John Gruber of Daring Fireball notes, a service called ".Mac" that is morphing into something more iPhone-centric might need a different name. Long ago, in a distant era (January 2006) Apple trademarked a name called "Mobile Me" that seems to fit the bill, according to Gruber.

The pending code changes could also mean, however, that Apple wants to tie iPhones and Macs into other Internet services, perhaps having decided that others could do a better job providing these types of services.

UPDATE 10:15am - Chestnykh found references to "Mobile Me" in the latest version of the iPhone SDK.

[iertry]

Thanks for the tip. I just got a mac and am using the trial .mac service. I was thinking of buying the .mac full version next week but I might hold off till after WWDC incase they change the price and service at that. If its gonna happen it's almost definitely gonna be at wwdc.

[Mr. Dee]

Why don't they just let Google handle the back end stuff? It would also give .Mac itself and apps like iWeb some breathing room to grow and gain popularity among Mac users.

[fortyonejb]

"Why don't they just let Google handle the back end stuff? It would also give .Mac itself and apps like iWeb some breathing room to grow and gain popularity among Mac users."

Apple is the MOST proprietary company in the industry, their whole business plan is not giving you a choice but locking you into their choice. Apple pretends its so they can assure good performance, but in reality its done to make sure that your money continues towards Apple after you've bought the mac. There is no way they will be offloading anything to someone they view as a competitor.

[FugaMas]

How so "locked in" by Apple? I can't think of one app, not even Finder, that one absolutely must use.

[johnericanderson]

.Mac sounds like .Net - Hmmm...Here's a name for you, "Etch-O-Sketch". Oh, sorry, that's been taken. Mommy, where's my crayons?

[Mr. Dee]

Interestly enough fortyonejb they seem more open with the iPhone when you think about the third party apps and support it comes with especially in the 2.0 update. They use Google Maps, YouTube, so I find it hard for them to make Google handle some of the storage issues that .Mac suffers from. Google could easily provide the Mac user base with decent storage for .Mac users.

[appl_convert]

Anything but "Mobile Me." Too corny. Dot Mac was infinitely more clever. They need a better moniker than that.

Mac Mobile? MacNet? Mac Link? Apple Net? Apple Mobile?

[CredulousDolt]

Ms. fortyonejb writes: "Apple pretends its so they can assure good performance, but in reality its done to make sure that your money continues towards Apple after you've bought the mac."

Dear Madam: like Microsoft, Apple is a *business* that issues stock; unlike Microsoft it is *not* a monopoly. This means that Apple is obligated to its shareholders, and to common sense, to increase its revenue by all legal means. This they do amazingly well.

When Apple's market share is as large as Microsoft's share is now, then *Apple* will be a monopoly, and then their preference for "[making] sure that your money continues towards Apple" will be a fit topic for complaint. Not before.