Comments on: dotMAC, Time For A Makeover?

By: Casey

Casey — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:25:46 +0000

Funny I just blogged about this very thing. I received an email to renew my .mac account. After mulling over the possibility of the boys in Cupertino actually responding I thought it best if they really understood why I decided not to renew. It’s gratifying to know that I am not alone in my gripes about how Apple is taking care of its customers and the quality of the services they offer. I very much echo what is written here but if you feel inclined you can read it here. http://homepage.mac.com/prometheus451/iblog/B620186653/C594058048/E20070614083713/index.html

By: matthew

matthew — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:25:26 +0000

Jack, et al, you bring up great points. I think when stacked up against the free alternatives, .Mac looks expensive at $99/year. But you don’t have to pay retail.

I’ve posted a how-to save 20%-50% on DotMac here:

http://homepage.mac.com/cherrypop/blogappleproject/files/2181b108aaec7cdc4260c3d574675109-29.html

The last copy I bought cost me $49 shipped. For all that DotMac offers, plus the integration I find it a value at that price.

I won’t pay full retail anymore, however, as I agree that many (if not all) of DotMac features are in desperate need of an overhaul.

By: Joy

Joy — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:31:45 +0000

I thinkit needs a makeover. And how is it getting ready for the coming era of web 3.0?

By: Don Smith

Don Smith — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:02:39 +0000

I agree, dotMac needs a makeover. I’ve been using it for over 2 years and I’ve not seen any improvements. It seemed like when they first launched I’d get all sorts of free software, but they have not offered anything lately and they even turned off the anti-Virus software they bundled… I just don’t get it anymore. They REALLY need something compelling, along with the “What the heck is .Mac?” stuff.

By: Gnarlodious

Gnarlodious — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:09:09 +0000

I wholeheartedly agree. After 2 weeks of dotMac subscribing I was sorry I signed up. The entire service needs an overhaul. It almost seems like Apple has gone out of their way to make it hard to use, which is so unlike Apple.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:32:47 +0000

I couldn’t agree more. It is as if .Mac is made by the B team at Apple – those that didn’t quite get the top grade in the Apple school of things. I had to laugh at your suggested comment that they should improve iCal on the web side so as to allow users to add appointments . . . eh yes – indeed some would say that that is the definition of a calendar! I have been amazed for years now at the lost opportunity that .Mac represents. Given that its users give the company $100 million a year its even more surprising. Dot mac is a place we go to everyday – its a chance for Apple to offer is the Apple lifestyle – to cement as joyful willing citizens of the shiny happy utopia to which Apple fans, albeit self-conciously, aspire. There is a lot more money than $100 million to be made out of dotmac – we just need to find some young hungry executive in the company to realize this. Here’s hoping.

By: EP

EP — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:43:54 +0000

.Mac is a piece of shit. If it just had all the features it has now only WORKING and not buggy I would be happy.

By: Just Me

Just Me — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:03:28 +0000

I don’t know why people stick with .Mac when SpyMac[.com] is out there with essentially the same features for a fraction of the price. .Mac is old and seriously overpriced.

By: Diego Barros

Diego Barros — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:41:26 +0000

I’d been using .Mac for about three years when my subscription became due a few weeks ago. I couldn’t really justify paying the $129 AUD for another year. The one thing I miss? The syncing between Macs. The rest I can replace with box.net, GMail (using its contacts) and other such services. I’ve yet to try mySync though (http://www.mildmanneredindustries.com/mysync/moreinfo.html), may be what I’m looking for.

By: Daniel Eran

Daniel Eran — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 03:43:18 +0000

I did a series of articles on features Apple could borrow for .Mac:

What the Heck is .Mac?

10 Reasons Why Apple Can Kickstart Web 2.0

Fixing .Mac - Idea 1: Hyperblog the Web

Fixing .Mac - Idea 2: A Reputation System

Fixing .Mac - Idea 3: .Macster!

Fixing .Mac - Idea 4: Secure Identity Services

Fixing .Mac - Idea 5: A .Mac Marketplace

Fixing .Mac - Idea 6: Add Privacy Management

Fixing .Mac - Idea 7: Enhance & Encourage Sharing

Fixing .Mac - Idea 8: Subscription Music

By: Calvin Sman

Calvin Sman — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:36:22 +0000

I’m a happy user of .mac for reasons of syncronization. For $8 a month, I like the ability to take care of everything on one site. I do think it needs a makeover, and should host the latest of helpful technologies. Nonetheless, I like having an OS and an internet account that work together without me thinking about it. iDisk is a wonderful feature and Backup has saved my butt. Yes, I would like more. Who wouldn’t? For now, .mac hosts my website, Mail, iDisk, and Backup, as well as providing a public folder. It meets my basic needs and is thoroughly integrated with OS X. I don’t care for “social networking”. I want a service that provides synchronized backup, plus all the things that I would have to go elsewhere for, all integrated seamlessly in my OS. Where else am I going to find that? Improvements would always be welcome, but I think those that bash .mac should simply take their business to the varied service providers that they need. For me, I’ll stick around as long as I get my basic needs met.

By: Geo

Geo — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:04:51 +0000

I would have liked to have seen Apple purchase pMachine's Expression Engine instead of starting from scratch with iWeb. With EE, Apple already would have a great, CSS-based, blogging and Web site development tool for customers, one with a wide range of features and an intuitive user interface -- because it was developed by Macheads.

This basic is the sort of advancd, Web development software that Apple needs to turn .Mac into the social networking site it should have been. Have you watched teens use MySpace? It offers terrible tools and terrible graphics options and kids with little or no design sense assemble terrible-looking pages.

By: Anant

Anant — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:46:43 +0000

Great article, this is the first time I have visited this site, though I have read references on other blogs. I completely agree, I was quite happy with the offerings from dotmac until I started using some other applications such as gmail and gmail calendar. I used to use the dotmac website to post my pictures until people started complaining about how slow the pictures loaded. I did a test then by posting a picture of equal size and resolution on both typepad and dotmac, and the load time was significantly different. I would not be opposed to paying the same amount of money for a reliable, consistent, quick and innovative set of tools such as what gmail provides. Thanks again for the article. Anant

By: Sid Steward

Sid Steward — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:15:01 +0000

Dcrad-

Thanks for the support for my web services co-op idea. I agree there are risks. OTOH, the co-op model is already widely used to compete in the free market, even at a global level. One example is Sunkist.

With careful planning, I believe it could succeed.

Sid

By: cyen

cyen — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:25:55 +0000

Interesting article and comments (found it via digg). I too never understood the attraction to a .mac account. It was sort of like an AOL tactic for the less tech savy. For much cheaper prices you can get all the benefits (well most), all you have to do is shop around and know a little bit about web hosting. A .mac account has skated the borderline of being a “scam” imho. I think I was soured to the whole .mac when Apple took away my “free” email account. A small blemish on the apple experience. Yes… I am an Apple fan too.

By: Jack Jenkins

Jack Jenkins — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:25:23 +0000

re-posting, with html

Om,

This article, simply put, is completely and entirely spot-on. I applaud your decision to actually SAY what the rest of us have been quietly grumbling about for the past 5 years: .Mac sucks. If anything, it is a slow, antiquated, and very cheap-feeling hodgepodge of various crippled technologies, all of which can be found for FREE elsewhere, not to mention infinitely more usable.

That said, despite all of our personal feelings about Apple's allegedly user-centered business policy, the reality of the matter is that Apple really doesn't have much incentive. A Ford Motor Company executive was once asked in an interview why it was that the Ford Crown Victoria still used ancient assembly technologies such as a bolted-on-body rather than the "unibody" construction typical of almost all vehicles. The Ford executive smiled, and grimly remarked "Because guess what: We'll still sell every damnone of them." This, in my opinion, is the mindset we're looking at with the .Mac technology. No, it's not their biggest seller by any means, but with over a million users each paying $99 a month, it's no small business venture. Morever, people keep buying it, hoping that Apple's insistence on puting "i"'s "e"'s and periods in front of world's is secret code for "this will make the internet easier!" Unfortunately, it does no such thing, but people persist in using it anyways, either out of company loyalty or just force of habit. Ultimately, it would seem that .Mac service proves that Apple is - in some respects - a business at heart.

That said, I still have faith in the company, and would suggest SEVERAL advancements to the .Mac interface. Really though, I'll leave that to someone who can truly take the time to innovate rather than say "make it like Gmail!", which is really all I would do at the moment. :)

Much love - haere e hoki, Jack Jenkins