Comments on: Apple missing golden .Mac opportunity

Few Mac users take advantage of Apple's .Mac service, probably because of its $99-a-year price tag. But .Mac could be used to sell hardware if the price--and features--were right.

[Sac Tinko]

The value of .Mac is its convenience. For $8.25 per month I can have everything linked together. Sure there are other services, but I need to have multiple passwords, download more software and deal with a host of URLs. Why deal with all of that? If you find $99 a year expensive then instead of posting photos and blogs online you should be posting your resume.

[Rawnchie14]

"If you find $99 a year expensive then instead of posting photos and blogs online you should be posting your resume."

If you pay more than you should pay, you encourage a company to take advantage of you. Besides, its not like you're challenged to do simple tasks like managing photos. Or... are you.

[smokified]

Why do you have to have multiple passwords?
Get your own hard drive for a 1 time fee of $99 and store your own ****.

[Sac Tinko]

Did this work?

[mindhaze]

This article and every other about .Mac miss the real value. Pictures, e-mail, storage are good. I use my .mac e-mail address as my primary and iDisk is one of the greatest inventions ever. I can keep all of my docs for school and work online at all times and access them from anywhere. This is not unique to .Mac, but it sure does work good.

The primary value of .Mac to me is "experience sync". My address book, web links, passwords, e-mail, desktop settings, etc, etc, etc.... are the same on all my Macs. I can switch between my laptop on the go and my desktop at home almost seamlessly. And it works... always. I don't worry about where stuff is.

Would I prefer it to be free? Absolutely. Maybe the features listed in the article should be free as they are more mainstream. I'm probably in the minority as a multi-mac user and using my Mac for business and educational purposes. It is not simply my entertainment device. The service is worth the money to me. I've had it since it was free and haven't had issue one.

[m0kume]

you are trusting Apple to never reveal or give away your information to 3rd parties including your passwords and anything you send through their servers. I am not implying ill will by Apple. It's just companies in general have not proven trustworthy with our data. Also other entities be they government or criminals have proven quite adept at getting confidential information you thought was safe. I'm just not convinced that Apple can secure the data you entrust to their servers.

[m0kume]

I had dot mac for a year and found it not worth the price. I'm not someone who likes to store stuff in the cloud and I trust NO company to safeguard my data. Having tried it I can say I will NEVER use it even if apple made it free.

[jscott418]

I would have to say that .Mac is in need of a price structure improvement. I really think a email only price would help .Mac. I think a limited free email through .Mac would also work. So everyone with a Mac could have a .Mac account for iTunes and maybe get around 5GB of Mail.
I certainly like .Mac and I do shop around and get better prices then Apple's $99. But still, it would be nice for Apple to reward .Mac user's with a auto renew discount. Apple's in a position to really take off so let's hope they don't blow it!

[sdatexas]

We recently purchased a new Macbook and were offered, or should I say badgered repeatedly to buy the .Mac subscription at a discounted price of $69.00. I think their store personnel must be spiffed to sell this and other add-ons. At the discounted price, it was of interest, however we decided that my wife would not use it. She's pretty set in her ways. Perhaps a free service would get more subscribers, however, my experience in marketing says that giving a product or service away just devalues it. Perhaps a better price is in line with the market. Say $49 per year.

[shashiprab]

I think Apple to sell the .Mac service to Google, since they already are hooked up to Google for other services. Apple can be the "integration tools" supplier- but have the services hosted by Google. It will be a great incentive for Google to get a whole bunch of loyal users over to their camp- especially in light of Microsofts attempts to get into the pants of Yahoo users.

Shashi P

[irondog1970]

The iDisk is awesome. In a world of unlimited email storage, email attachments are still constrained to 10 MB. There are times when I have to deal with high resolution images, and 10 MB is quickly exceeded. So, the sender can pop open a Web browser & drop it in my Public folder.

Also, I use .Mac's Backup utility. I not only backup my hard drive on a weekly basis to my external drive, I also use my iDisk to maintain a remote copy backup of my super important files.

Although I would agree with the writer. $49/year would be a phenomenal deal.

[JackTheWire]

It's been stated in a few comments above, but the real value in the .Mac service is integration and convenience. I think a better strategy for Apple would to create pricing levels. You are going to have multi-device users who are more likely to pay more for having access from 2+ devices, compared to the single device power user who will be integrating with many different Apple software products on their Mac, all the way down to the nominal user who just wants email and maybe some photo storage (things they could get for 'free' using GMail and Flickr).

By keeping a pricing structure (say $19 a year for the base level, $49 for mid level, and $99 for multi-device access) they will build perceived value into a service that really DOES have value. Things like GMail and Flickr are great, but .Mac centralizes everything within one account (convenient) and keeps in line with their tightly integrated user experience; people don't have to hope between different third-party sites for the services.

I don't think $99 is too much for the service, I think they should have cheaper 'flavors' for those who won't use/don't need all the capabilities.

[mayadanteamihan]

If Apple reduces .Mac price to $49 a year, I will gladly double my subscription to get 30 gb.

But Apple also has to work on improving upload of great quantities of data for its Back-Up system. The latter can take only a maximum of 100 mb uploads, so I have to chop up my folders -- and that's a pain. Back-up should work upwards of 500 mb to 1 gb uploads if Apple wants to gain more customers.

[halsue2]

I agree with the writer - dotMac is a wasted opportunity. The price should be free, or at least halved. Then, the service should be overhauled. I find it cumbersome and convoluted. On one of my Macs I think I am saving to a local folder that then synchronizes with an online folder. For a while I didn't know this and would close down the Mac before it had synched. Then, at the other end I would not have the files I though I should have access to. The other Mac seems to work directly against the server. I can't really figure it out. I find the instructions and guides incomplete and confusing. The management of a family account still leaves me unsure if I have done everything right. I'm really not sure how to control the other user accounts. And then there is speed. dotMac is slow. Period.
For me its a great idea, beautifully executed, but dropped half way through development. A project never completed, kinda

[SteenMachine]

I agree with most of the positive comments on this story.

I always buy .Mac via Amazon for $69. And for that price, I get seamless integration with the iLife apps I use, iDisk, web site hosting, etc.

At some point, your time is worth more than the out-going dollar. For me, $69 / year (~ 1 high-end Starbuck's drink per month) is a good value, even for today's .Mac features.

I'm not saying that that the service shouldn't be improved upon (as suggested by other posts). In fact, it's my expectation it will.

[kool_skatkat]

Isn't it wrong time to talk about .Mac.... everything could change in a few weeks. The verdict might be much different then. Let's wait a bit and see... unless this will server as a comparison with the changes that might be made soon.

[411Tuber]

.Mac is a failed brand. it should be re-branded "mac.com" so that's it's easier for prospective customers to understand that is a web service. Also mac.com should offer a customizable home page similar to iGoogle.

[ceejer53]

.Mac works beautifully with my Mac OS 10.3, same with Mac OS X 10.4.

I've been using .Mac for years and am just fine with the price. Plus, Apple keeps adding features and space from time to time.

[TexasBob]

I have been using .mac since its free beginnings as iTools 8 or 10 years ago. The change from free to $99 a year was not that big of a deal, especially since I can add my entire family for another $30.

[sandor_f]

how many people remember iTools?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/jan/05netstrategy.html

Yeah not many. but back in '00 is when i first got my free mac.com email address and my iDisk. OS 9 was sweet...

i bet more than three-quarters of those posting here never used OS 9.... <sigh>

[thedreaming]

I bought an ibook and l love it and I was tempted to get the .mac service, but when I realized they wanted $99 yearly for services I already get for free, I turned them down and moved on to the next screen on the installation wizard.

[ssmiroldo]

Great article! I totally agree 100%. Apple needs to give 1 year free access to .Mac with a new Mac purchase to those who do not already have .Mac, and charge $49 a year after the 1 year "trial".

I've used .Mac for a few years now and have benefited from the sync, web hosting and tie-ins to iPhoto and iWeb. The recent Web Gallery feature is especially easy.

Apple definitely needs to enhance the service by increasing speed, possibly offering virtual domains, and some more features tied into their iLife and, especially, their iWork suite!

[kapurkk]

FREE .MAC 1GB - If Steve Jobs is not smart enough to offer this to all IMac users anywhere in the world, it will be one of the fatal mistakes Apple will look back to regret while Yahoo, Google, MSN and the bit players power on with. It took me 15 years to put my money down on an IMac and I can tell you , i will NEVER pay Apple for a .Mac service.

[tech4fun]

I think the article is on target. $99/year is non-competitive. Yes, there are committed mac users who will pay it - but it's not a good value. Give them a break...and it would make financial sense for Apple. MANY more of us would sign up if it was in the $24-$49/year range. I have a mix of macs and pcs in my house so the convenience only goes so far for me.