[kman42]

Check this out:
.Mac re-branding is coming - Blogging Robots

Perhaps they are going to call it something else so that they can market it to Windows users as well? There is quite a bit of evidence pointing to iPhone 2.0 syncing with .mac, so it would make sense for Apple to push a platform-agnostic service.

I wonder what they'll call it. Frankly, I'm going to be ticked off if my .mac email address changes. I've had it since day one.

kman

[Chuckit]

I'm sure they'll keep Mac.com email addresses around even if they change the name of the service from .Mac. They've had Mac.com since it was iTools. (I used to have a Mac.com email address back then. I was one of the people who were extremely ticked off when our "permanent" email address got taken hostage for $100 a year!)

[Randman]

I'm still waiting for my .mac widget dadgumit.

[besson3c]

It needs something. Given the resources Apple has at its disposal, .Mac is a pitiful showing.

[Lateralus]

Man I miss iTools...

[- - e r i k - -]

.Mac definitely needs a serious overhaul. Between Dropbox and Plaxo I now have free solutions for almost everything it offers

[k squared]

I would like an ala cart model to help bring the price down.

[voodoo]

Oh I hope someone at Apple has a clue about what to do with .Mac

[Andrew Stephens]

The only thing I really need is ical syncing between me and my wifes macs. Did use ical exchange but it seems to have stopped working. A .mac account is a bit heavy just for cal syncing though.

[BRussell]

So it looks like it's going to be Mobile Me. That sounds vaguely Microsoft-ish... maybe I'm just remembering Windows Me.

[Luca Rescigno]

It doesn't matter what they do to it. Short of making it free again, it'll never be popular.

[BRussell]

I think it could become quite popular for iPhone users if they provide mobile over-the-air syncing, and it's given the same functionality for Windows people.

[turtle777]

If the only thing that changes is more iPhone crapability, I don't see how this is going to be a big success.

-t

[kman42]

turtle: Do you own an iPhone? Having over-the-air syncing is a HUGE deal to many people, and not just businesses. My iPhone is out of sync with my computers the minute I leave the house in the morning and it isn't rectified until I get home to sync it.

If Apple can provide a quality consumer-oriented service for this, then they are on to something big.

[besson3c]

kman42: the problem with what you want is that it is pretty inelegant, and locks you into proprietary formats and services with Apple.

Apple has already written a CalDAV enabled calendar server for Leopard which works as advertised (it can also run on other Unix based OSes, I'm running it now under FreeBSD). If Apple wrote a network service like Plaxo that worked with vcards, that would take care of address book information. All that would be needed is a network service to store metadata such as notes and whatever other stuff people store on their iPhones.

The end result would be a client/server model that would not only simplify the technology in having this data reside on the server and not having to shuttle around complete files or sync deltas, but it would also open up the possibility of an infrastructure of iPhone servers. .Mac is an unacceptable solution for the enterprise/corporate market that would wish to own and have complete control over their own data, and having ISPs start to offer access to these servers would surely increase iPhone sales far more so than locking consumers into one choice in .Mac.

Look at what Blackberry has done in allowing this integration with MS Exchange, for instance.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Man I miss iTools...

Ditto

[besson3c]

The other advantages to an iPhone server are proper data backup, being able to preload new corporate iPhones with stuff, company LDAP address book lookup, and more expansive storage possibilities.

[BRussell]

But besson, you'd need a company that supports that to get it. What about the 99% of people who are at a company that doesn't use Apple's server, or even users who don't work for a company at all?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by kman42 

turtle: Do you own an iPhone? Having over-the-air syncing is a HUGE deal to many people, and not just businesses. My iPhone is out of sync with my computers the minute I leave the house in the morning and it isn't rectified until I get home to sync it.

I agree. .Mac definitely needs that.

But it lacks in so many more areas.

Webmail, webspace, filesharing, accessibility etc.

-t

[Dork.]

Almost everywhere “.Mac” has been replaced with %@, which means that the name of Apple’s online service will be inserted programmatically by applications.

I think these guys are wrong... I think they are actually going to name the new service %@.

They'll have Prince's unpronouncable symbol perform at the unveiling....

[voodoo]

Mobile me? ... Oh I'll mobile *you*!

As a replacement name for dotmac it isn't worse than MacBook was for iBook. Hideous, but people seemed to ignore it.

[kman42]

besson: I have no problem with Apple using standard protocols for the service (calDAV, vCard, etc). I just want them to offer the service. Most consumers aren't going to run their own server that is on 24/7, so why not have Apple provide the service?

.mac could be much more reliably implemented (probably using the standards you suggest would help), but it is a great idea. I love the fact that my computers stay sync'd (finally, after 10.5.1 they have been reliably sync'd for the first time ever), and would love it if my iPhone were integrated into that situation.

It would also be great if Apple chose to use these open standards so that OSX Server could be easily used to provide the same services to the iPhone for individual organizations. I see no reason why the two are mutually exclusive. Apple provides the new .mac service so that consumers can have over-the-air syncing for their iPhones and they also provide the tools to let organizations set up their own infrastructure (to compete with Exchange).

I'm kind of agnostic about exactly how Apple implements the technologies, although I am all for a standards-based approach. More important to me (and probably most users), is that the service is available. Now, since they have already built in the standards into OSX Server and the client software (iCal and Address Book), it would make total sense for them to replace the current .mac infrastructure with one based on these standards. It would undoubtedly make it faster and more reliable as well. .mac is a relic designed before these standards were available (or maybe they were available but not widely used) that tried to provide a useful service using an infrastructure that just wasn't quite up to the task.

Now would be a great time for them to rectify this and start using modern open standards so that they can offer both a consumer oriented system served by Apple (.mac) and a business/organization-based system geared around OSX Server. Apple's code upkeep would be much simpler if it was all based on open standards.

kman

edit: added last paragraph.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I agree. .Mac definitely needs that.

But it lacks in so many more areas.

Webmail, webspace, filesharing, accessibility etc.

-t

Exactly how is it lacking in the Webmail department?

There are some improvements to be had in the other departments sure, but the webmail is top notch. I'd say better than Gmail even.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

But besson, you'd need a company that supports that to get it. What about the 99% of people who are at a company that doesn't use Apple's server, or even users who don't work for a company at all?

One way or another you are going to have to pay for something to gain this functionality. By developing something that other ISPs, hosting companies, and businesses are free to offer, this provides customers with more options than simply .Mac.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kman42 

besson: I have no problem with Apple using standard protocols for the service (calDAV, vCard, etc). I just want them to offer the service. Most consumers aren't going to run their own server that is on 24/7, so why not have Apple provide the service?

Again, if other ISPs and hosting companies started running this, this would provide the customer with more options, just like there are many options for POP/IMAP email.

It would also be great if Apple chose to use these open standards so that OSX Server could be easily used to provide the same services to the iPhone for individual organizations. I see no reason why the two are mutually exclusive. Apple provides the new .mac service so that consumers can have over-the-air syncing for their iPhones and they also provide the tools to let organizations set up their own infrastructure (to compete with Exchange).

Why would it be OS X Server only? That would be pointless... Or, do you mean Unix/Linux OSes including OS X Server?

I'm kind of agnostic about exactly how Apple implements the technologies, although I am all for a standards-based approach. More important to me (and probably most users), is that the service is available. Now, since they have already built in the standards into OSX Server and the client software (iCal and Address Book), it would make total sense for them to replace the current .mac infrastructure with one based on these standards. It would undoubtedly make it faster and more reliable as well. .mac is a relic designed before these standards were available (or maybe they were available but not widely used) that tried to provide a useful service using an infrastructure that just wasn't quite up to the task.

There are no .Mac technologies built into OS X Server that are not available on other OSes. That is what I hate about Apple and .Mac. Apple has mastered producing such great marketing fluff that people actually think that there is something magical about .Mac and that it is worth every penny. There are some .Mac services that are only available on .Mac, but that is only because Apple decided to restrict OS X to tether you accordingly. Fine, but like I said, you don't get these with OS X Server either.

Now would be a great time for them to rectify this and start using modern open standards so that they can offer both a consumer oriented system served by Apple (.mac) and a business/organization-based system geared around OSX Server. Apple's code upkeep would be much simpler if it was all based on open standards.

Apple actually does follow open standards pretty well, that's not the problem.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Exactly how is it lacking in the Webmail department?

There are some improvements to be had in the other departments sure, but the webmail is top notch. I'd say better than Gmail even.

Does it allow you to set server side mail filters/sieve rules? Does it support multiple identities? Vacation autoresponse messages? Whitelisting/blacklisting?

I haven't used either GMail or .Mac Webmail, but knowing Apple I would be willing to bet that like everything else .Mac Webmail has a magnificent interface, but is light on features.

[kman42]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why would it be OS X Server only? That would be pointless...

Why would it be pointless?! They are in the market of selling XServes. I see that they have two markets/opportunities. One, they want to sell iPhones. Two, they want to sell OSX Servers to provide a solution to creative or small businesses that currently use Exchange, but are willing to switch. They could offer iPhones that work with any server system, but then they would be losing out on selling the complete package. I don't see Apple doing that. Why would they concede the market to the competition when they are now one of only a very few companies that can offer a complete solution from server boxes to a server OS to mobile clients? It is more likely that Apple wants to sell complete packages to creative outfits and small/medium sized businesses. And this is why they sell OSX Server and XServes.

Other corporations that choose to use Exchange will be able to sync with iPhone 2.0, so they are covered and Apple probably wasn't going to get those corporations to switch anyway.

Now there is a valid question here that I don't know the answer to. What is the size of the iPhone market for corporations that don't use Exchange and won't choose to implement an Apple server solution? I have no idea, but I would have to guess that it's not the low hanging fruit that Apple needs to go after at this point.




Aside from businesses, I think it is a great opportunity for Apple to provide a similar, but consumer-oriented solution through a revamped .mac service.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kman42 

Why would it be pointless?! They are in the market of selling XServes. I see that they have two markets/opportunities. One, they want to sell iPhones. Two, they want to sell OSX Servers to provide a solution to creative or small businesses that currently use Exchange, but are willing to switch. They could offer iPhones that work with any server system, but then they would be losing out on selling the complete package. I don't see Apple doing that. Why would they concede the market to the competition when they are now one of only a very few companies that can offer a complete solution from server boxes to a server OS to mobile clients? It is more likely that Apple wants to sell complete packages to creative outfits and small/medium sized businesses. And this is why they sell OSX Server and XServes.

It would be pointless because so few big businesses, hosting companies, and ISPs don't want to touch OS X Server as it stands now. What would be the point in putting the R&D into something that will not sell? If your answer is because this service will result in people running out to buy an XServe to run just for this purpose, do you think this will offer enough pull?

Contrast this to the prospects of getting all sorts of hosting companies, ISPs, and big business who want to run this on their own servers.. This means a lot more iPhones being sold.

Now there is a valid question here that I don't know the answer to. What is the size of the iPhone market for corporations that don't use Exchange and won't choose to implement an Apple server solution? I have no idea, but I would have to guess that it's not the low hanging fruit that Apple needs to go after at this point.

Speaking as somebody whose primary source of income is maintaining email servers right now, I wouldn't touch any Apple 1.0 email solution with a 10 foot pole. Supplementing an existing email infrastructure with an iPhone server is one thing, but replacing Exchange and IMAP environments?

For starters, Apple bundles Cyrus IMAP with OS X Server, last I checked. This is a good choice, but Cyrus already runs on a number of other OSes. So, is Apple going to write their own proprietary IMAP server? If they write mail servers anything like they write mail clients, game over. OS X Mail does not comply to IMAP RFCs very well, and it performs like ass. So, let's just say that Apple manages to write a decent IMAP server that scales well and performs nicely... They still have to support something like sieve rules if they want to do stuff such as automatically file spam into a junk folder, and if they want to replace Exchange they will also have to support folder ACLs, mailbox mappings for multinode environments, shared mailboxes, quotas, delegation, IMAP idle, Exchange telephony stuff, etc. Their competition is already several years ahead of them, so this will be a tough sell to get somebody to convert their entire mail environment to something like this.

This is also just accounting for the IMAP part of this, there would be many other components that would be necessary to replace Exchange. And, if Apple decides to do something like ditch a standard like IMAP, there very well be many environments that resist switching everybody over to an Apple mail client.

So, I don't see it as being likely at all that Apple would be developing an Exchange killer. Their best bet is to write their iPhone server to supplement existing mail environments. This of course, is not even getting into the weaknesses of OS X Server as something to build open source infrastructure on. How will mail be delivered to this mail environment? I'll tell you, compiling an MTA of your choice, SpamAssassin, ClamAV, amavis, and all of its dependencies is no fun at all, and definitely no fun to keep up-to-date. If Apple decides to go this route, it would behoove them greatly to develop an open source package management system like their Unix/Linux competitors already have, and as we've discussed in another thread. If they did that, that would be a decent start in getting the big players to entertain deploying OS X Server, but Apple has a lot of work to do in this and other areas.

[kman42]

besson: You clearly know much more about email/servers than I do. I really wasn't trying to suggest that Apple re-invent the wheel, especially not for email. They currently use IMAP for .mac and it works just fine. They will be adding IDLE to the service, so it will be handy for iPhone users and that seems like a good call. I don't see why this couldn't be added to whatever email server Apple includes in OSX Server.

They also include CalDAV for calendaring in OSX Server. There's no reason they can't make this sync over-the-air (I think that is even in the CalDAV specs). So why not use a similar back end for .mac?

I didn't mean to suggest that Apple is going to go into any Fortune 500 companies and replace Exchange; they obviously aren't. But they can replace most of the functionality required for Exchange in small business environments. I think they have already demonstrated a desire to do this with the direction they have taken iCal Server. They clearly want a piece of that pie.

That being said, Apple knows that Exchange is here to stay, and at least in the short run, Apple isn't going to compete against it in large deployments. That is why they are supporting Exchange ActiveSync in the upcoming iPhone update.

I don't think we really disagree on the need for my original point: a consumer-oriented over-the-air iPhone syncing system. If I understand your points, you are pushing for Apple to release a package that anyone can deploy and use with the iPhone. That's a nice idea, but I think we can agree that it just isn't going to happen. It's not Apple's style and the evidence doesn't point to it. If Apple were going to go that route, then they wouldn't be adding in Exchange services and they wouldn't be moving OSX Server along in the direction it's going (e.g. adding iCal Server). Plus, they already have a set of services in .mac that they aren't going to give up on so easily.

Apple is going to make the iPhone work for large corporations by integrating ActiveSync. They are going to compete in the small business space with OSX Server. And then they are going to attempt to dominate the consumer space with a rebranded .mac.

You may have other ideas about how that last piece should be implemented, but I think the evidence suggests that Apple is going to provide their own service. I, for one, have no problem with that and just hope that it gives me over-the-air syncing of my contacts, calendar events, and ToDos with my iPhone.

I also think it would be cool if it gave me the ability to use Back to My Mac from my iPhone to browse my computers with some simplified CoverFlow-esque interface with QuickLook at my documents. I just added in that last part to give us something else to debate

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kman42 

besson: You clearly know much more about email/servers than I do. I really wasn't trying to suggest that Apple re-invent the wheel, especially not for email. They currently use IMAP for .mac and it works just fine. They will be adding IDLE to the service, so it will be handy for iPhone users and that seems like a good call. I don't see why this couldn't be added to whatever email server Apple includes in OSX Server.

Actually, if Apple is using Cyrus IMAP, it, like most IMAP servers, already support IDLE. What may not is the iPhone client. In general, there are more client-side problems with IDLE than server-side problems.

They also include CalDAV for calendaring in OSX Server. There's no reason they can't make this sync over-the-air (I think that is even in the CalDAV specs). So why not use a similar back end for .mac?

I was surprised and disappointed that the iPhone doesn't support direct read/write to their calendar server. At first I thought it was simply a timing issue, but after all this time it looks like the support still isn't there, and I don't know if the next iPhone rev will support it either. Why not support your own stuff? Weird...

I didn't mean to suggest that Apple is going to go into any Fortune 500 companies and replace Exchange; they obviously aren't. But they can replace most of the functionality required for Exchange in small business environments. I think they have already demonstrated a desire to do this with the direction they have taken iCal Server. They clearly want a piece of that pie.

Yeah, in light of my last paragraph I'm not really sure what Apple plans to do with iCal/Darwin Calendar server. You're right though, it seems logical that they do want a piece of that pie. I think you're absolutely right, Apple cannot replace the monolith that is Exchange, but they can replace the functionality by carving it up into smaller pieces and working on these components. Again, I think their best bet to do so is by opening all of this up with the intention of allowing other server OSes to running these components, just as they did for Darwin Calendar Server. If Apple has to develop new protocols or standards proposals to do this, they ought to. In my opinion, it would be a grave mistake to try to develop some sort of proprietary solution that locks people into OS X Server. If people want to break away from Exchange, it will be hard to convince people to abandon one proprietary vendor-dependent solution for another. The reason why IMAP has been so successful is because it works well, and is flexible enough to build environments around. People are wanting to do all sorts of things with their email these days, so flexibility is of the upmost importance.

I don't think we really disagree on the need for my original point: a consumer-oriented over-the-air iPhone syncing system. If I understand your points, you are pushing for Apple to release a package that anyone can deploy and use with the iPhone. That's a nice idea, but I think we can agree that it just isn't going to happen. It's not Apple's style and the evidence doesn't point to it. If Apple were going to go that route, then they wouldn't be adding in Exchange services and they wouldn't be moving OSX Server along in the direction it's going (e.g. adding iCal Server). Plus, they already have a set of services in .mac that they aren't going to give up on so easily.

We do agree on the need, we just have different ideas about the best way to get there. I'm not sure what direction you think OS X Server is moving in though? Are you aware that iCal Server is open source, and installable on a number of different OSes? How do you account for that?

The .Mac sync technology is pretty simple - just shuttling files back and forth. Maybe there will always be a use for that alongside of a client/server model, but I definitely think that there is enough demand for a client/server model. The reason why one hasn't emerged yet is because nobody really wants to compete with Exchange, but Apple's iPhone really has the potential to change the entire game.

Apple is going to make the iPhone work for large corporations by integrating ActiveSync. They are going to compete in the small business space with OSX Server. And then they are going to attempt to dominate the consumer space with a rebranded .mac.

I really don't see Apple's OS X Server strategy. I don't mean that simply to sound critical or that I'm smarter than Apple or something, I simply do not see what their strategy is. It seems pretty aimless right now.

I also think it would be cool if it gave me the ability to use Back to My Mac from my iPhone to browse my computers with some simplified CoverFlow-esque interface with QuickLook at my documents. I just added in that last part to give us something else to debate

The problem with the whole Back to my Mac thing (which is similar to DynDNS + authentication) is passing through firewalls. This makes the whole just-add-water easy connectivity to your Mac thing very difficult, unfortunately.

[kman42]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think you're absolutely right, Apple cannot replace the monolith that is Exchange, but they can replace the functionality by carving it up into smaller pieces and working on these components. ... If people want to break away from Exchange, it will be hard to convince people to abandon one proprietary vendor-dependent solution for another.

I like your point about Apple working to replace Exchange piecemeal. And I take your point about iCal Server being open source. I knew that it was available even before Leopard on various platforms, but your comment is right on the money. Apple has done well recently participating in the open-source community and then adding on the Apple goodness to market it. Webkit/Safari is a good example of this. If Apple continues down the Darwin Calendar/iCal Server road they could release all the pieces necessary to compete with Exchange to the open-source community and market their own well-integrated, easy to configure solution. And they can do it modularly, as they get pieces completed. Wanna bet Server 10.6 offers an even more complete solution?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The .Mac sync technology is pretty simple - just shuttling files back and forth. Maybe there will always be a use for that alongside of a client/server model, but I definitely think that there is enough demand for a client/server model. The reason why one hasn't emerged yet is because nobody really wants to compete with Exchange, but Apple's iPhone really has the potential to change the entire game.

I'm hoping that .mac's file-shuttling came about because Apple didn't have the need to make a complete server/client model at the time. Now that they have OSX Server and will try to work it into smaller businesses going forward, they have the ability to compete with Exchange in a few years if they build it right. They could easily adapt this client/server technology as the back-end for .mac, replacing the system they have now that just moves the data back-and-forth.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I really don't see Apple's OS X Server strategy. I don't mean that simply to sound critical or that I'm smarter than Apple or something, I simply do not see what their strategy is. It seems pretty aimless right now.

Perhaps this is also do to Apple's inability to release a complete Exchange replacement all at once. It would simply be too resource intensive for them to do it and they have other fish to fry. First came a basic server infrastructure, then came iCal Server, then comes...

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The problem with the whole Back to my Mac thing (which is similar to DynDNS + authentication) is passing through firewalls. This makes the whole just-add-water easy connectivity to your Mac thing very difficult, unfortunately.

I know people have found BtMM fraught with problems, but it works great for me (after much pain configuring my Uverse system) and it is even reliable now. I absolutely love it and hope that Apple continues to try to make it work for more people.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does it allow you to set server side mail filters/sieve rules? Does it support multiple identities? Vacation autoresponse messages? Whitelisting/blacklisting?

Thanks, Besson.

Server side mail filters/sieve rules would be #1 for me.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kman42 

I like your point about Apple working to replace Exchange piecemeal. And I take your point about iCal Server being open source. I knew that it was available even before Leopard on various platforms, but your comment is right on the money. Apple has done well recently participating in the open-source community and then adding on the Apple goodness to market it. Webkit/Safari is a good example of this. If Apple continues down the Darwin Calendar/iCal Server road they could release all the pieces necessary to compete with Exchange to the open-source community and market their own well-integrated, easy to configure solution. And they can do it modularly, as they get pieces completed. Wanna bet Server 10.6 offers an even more complete solution?

Actually, Apple has done extremely poorly in its participation in the open-source community. They have been difficult for OSS developers to work along side of in many respects, including with Webkit. They are right in trying, but they definitely haven't gotten it right yet.

[kman42]

You're right. That sentence should have said, "Apple has done well TO participate in the open-source community..." Many have been unhappy with how Apple has gone about their licensing, etc, but it is a good strategy for them and I hope they keep with it. It's hard for a large, traditionally closed, corporation to suddenly fling open its code, and even in the best of circumstances, it will always be a balancing act for Apple.

[besson3c]

No worries kman... It will be interesting to see how things shake out. Like I said, I think that the iPhone is a very interesting leverage piece for Apple

[Gankdawg]

i know i'm tired of $100/year. if they raise it, i'm done. my renewal comes up every july so i hope we find out soon. How does it work if you buy it somewhere else for $70 like amazon? is there a number you input somewhere?

[OwlBoy]

Originally Posted by Gankdawg 

i know i'm tired of $100/year. if they raise it, i'm done. my renewal comes up every july so i hope we find out soon. How does it work if you buy it somewhere else for $70 like amazon? is there a number you input somewhere?

Yup. You are buying a pre-paid code to use.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does it allow you to set server side mail filters/sieve rules?

Err. No. It has forwarding and junk mail filtering.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does it support multiple identities?

Yes. Like any other webmail you log out and log in as another person.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Vacation autoresponse messages?

Yes.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Whitelisting/blacklisting?

No.

It's webmail, not a mail client.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Err. No. It has forwarding and junk mail filtering.

How is that a replacement for server side rules?

Yes. Like any other webmail you log out and log in as another person.

That is not multiple identity support.

It's webmail, not a mail client.

So is Squirrelmail, and many other web based clients that support this.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That is not multiple identity support.

Oh pray tell me how multiple identity support would work for webmail!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Oh pray tell me how multiple identity support would work for webmail!

That you can set different names, sent-from and reply-to addresses.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Oh pray tell me how multiple identity support would work for webmail!

The same way that it would in Horde/IMP, Roundcube, and a number of other webmail clients: you set multiple full names/reply-to address as well as signatures/PGP keys (if applicable), etc., this data is saved to a local DB table, when you go to compose a message you get to choose from your identity in a pulldown menu.

What did you think multiple identities entailed?

[Randman]

me.com and mobileme.com?

Apple Bought Me.com? .Mac's New Name? - Mac Rumors

[Cipher13]

MobileMe?

That is bloody awful. VERY MS-sounding.

[lpkmckenna]

I think Apple might (re)launch Me as a social networking site.

[- - e r i k - -]

Me will work though.

Apple is definitely on the verge of replacing .Mac with a more comprehensive cloud service.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I think Apple might (re)launch Me as a social networking site.

This will never happen.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

This will never happen.

Along with things like Apple switching to Intel ?

-t

[- - e r i k - -]

Apple switching to Intel made sense. Apple competing with the likes of MySpace and Facebook does not.

It would make as much sense as Apple starting their own search service.

[lpkmckenna]

With members' movies and photos, it already has the bedrock for its own YouTube and Flickr. Add microblogging like Twitter, and you have iPhone paradise.