why .Mac ?

[Patrick Coskren]

On Nov 1, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Chad Leigh wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Google Kreme wrote:
>
>>
>> No one NEEDS .mac.  However, it does make some things much  
>> easier.  Sure, I can uplaode my photos to a acidphoto gallery or  
>> something, but it is a one button operation with .Mac.  ONE BUTTON.
>
> I had an iPhoto plugin at one time that let me export an online  
> slideshow to any space I wanted -- not .Mac
>
> One problem with .Mac is that it seems to be a bastard child of  
> Apple (from the outside looking in at the various reports and  
> discussions).  Every once in a while Apple puts a little effort in  
> to shore it up or add a new feature but soon everything stops  
> working right or things never worked right and you cannot reach  
> support and no one at Apple seems to care.  Then all of a sudden, 6  
> months later, things improve a little.
>
> This is how it appears from the outside.  I own and run a hosting  
> business so don't need what they offer for email or web hosting etc  
> and I don't care to sync things and I don't want a .mac email  
> address.  So I have never bought the service.  Seems kind of like  
> the Apple Groupies™ sort of thing :-)  So I can only tell you the  
> impression I have from looking at the complaints, the discussions,  
> the problems reported, etc.

I'd say you're spot on.  I'm a .Mac subscriber, but each year it's  
marginal whether I renew.  In the end, the syncing pushes me over the  
edge, but just barely.  I wish they'd give it the attention it  
deserves, and hope the new mail interface (which is gorgeous) helps.   
(For all I know, the recent mail problems were related to the  
upgrade.)  To tell the truth, I'd be much happier with it if the  
iDisk sync didn't keep getting confused by my OmniOutliner files.

-Patrick