Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

kmkkid · Jul 26, 2002, 05:02 PM

/me makes an l shape on his forehead and mutters *losers*

Spheric Harlot · Jul 26, 2002, 08:38 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Troll:
If $100 is "nothing" for you, why don't you take it to your local pharmacy, buy some Neviraprine and send it to South Africa, or take it to your government and pay off some Third World Debt! There are a lot of much better things you can do with "nothing"!<hr /></blockquote>You're detracting from the point. There's always something better to do with your money.

The point you are allegedly responding to was this: the people bitching loudest about this are arguably those least dependent on it or not paying for it themselves (I believe that was implied by the "kids without credit cards" thing).

Those who work for their money, buy their machines, and make real-life financial decisions mostly appear to realize that, at the end of the day, business is business, Apple owes nobody anything, and either buy if it's worth it to them, or get a free email account elsewhere (free webspace/online storage are either non-existant, going away, or an invitation for spam). I pay about $110 a month in communications bills (internet, phone, and mobile). In relation to that, an extra 9 bucks is NOT a lot of money. Sure, I was a little p.o.'d myself (haven't decided yet whether I'll sign up or not), but Apple's move was hardly surprising. C'est la business. Life goes on.

-spheric*

Chuckit · Jul 26, 2002, 09:40 PM

People who feel that businesses have no obligation to be ethical are the reason companies like Enron exist.

So y'all stop with the "business is business."

moki · Jul 26, 2002, 11:29 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Brazuca:
Oh, and about the Ambrosia thread, if you spent any time paying attention to what I said you'll see that I was asking whether some piracy is actually good for a business. A point that was not really answered since Moki didn't feel like considering it. I was mostly quiet given the immense competency of Millenium and Capt. Kangooroski, who arguing the point honestly and logically. <hr /></blockquote>"immense competency of ... Capt. Kangooroski"

oh boy... heh. If you equate "immense competency" with "arguing an entrenched opinion remorselessly, but without the benefit of experience or first-hand knowledge of the subject being argued", well, then... I guess.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

pnp · Jul 26, 2002, 11:58 PM

Since the financial wherewithal and general expertise of the respondents here has suddenly become an issue, let me say something about myself. I'm a 37-year-old with a PhD in theoretical atomic physics; I work for a government research lab, where I make about $90K/year. I used to own about $40K in Apple stock; now it's about $25K. I used a NeXT back in grad school, used unix for the first seven or eight years of my professional career, then was basically forced to switch to Windows, and was thrilled to be able to switch to Mac a year ago. I have a realistic view of how business works, and I do not expect to receive something for nothing.

So, please do not call me a whiny kid who can't afford to pay $9 a month, or a puerile jerk who expects a free ride.

Some people don't care about ethics in business---in fact, they think the whole concept is a joke. "If it's legal, the company can do it, and if it will make them money, they should" seems to be the attitude.

I am not one of those people. One of the many reasons I was eager to leave Windows was that I don't approve of many of Microsoft's practices...even some of their legal ones.

Apple's bait-and-switch may or may not be legal, but it's definitely unethical. I don't like unethical companies. I don't want to own stock in them, and I don't want to give them my money if I can avoid it. I also don't think it is OK to be an apologist for such a company.

As for all of those people who say "it's just a few bucks a month, why don't you pay it": yeah, it's just a few bucks a month, why doesn't APPLE pay it? In fact, the cost to let them keep using my mac.com email address would probably be under a buck a month...and damn right, they should pay it.

All of you people who are whining about the whiners are totally wrong. Apple is behaving not just badly but unethically and indefensibly, and by trying to defend them. As for me, I have to decide what to do with my Apple stock---I certainly don't want to own a company that would behave this way, but I do think the company makes great products and is likely to gain market share and make money. Although it pains me, I guess I'll have to sell at a big loss rather than holding on.

So, to most of the people who have responded to this thread: shut up, you're completely wrong.

Ken_F2 · Jul 27, 2002, 12:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />So, to most of the people who have responded to this thread: shut up, you're completely wrong. <hr /></blockquote>Perhaps you've worked in government for too long?

Apple is a for-profit corporation, not a government entity with a public or ethical mandate; it has no responsibilities whatsoever beyond making money. Apple's only mandate is to make as much money as it can for its shareholders while working within the constraints of the law. For Apple to operate in any other way is unethical. The same goes for any other for-profit corporation.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />As for all of those people who say "it's just a few bucks a month, why don't you pay it": yeah, it's just a few bucks a month, why doesn't APPLE pay it? In fact, the cost to let them keep using my mac.com email address would probably be under a buck a month...and damn right, they should pay it. <hr /></blockquote>Obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about. It costs the typical ISP $7-10/yr to provide email services for the average customer. Multiple that by tens or hundreds of thousands of users, and it becomes quite an expense. And we're not even accounting for iDisk, etc. Apple can't afford to lose the tens of millions each year that Microsoft does on Hotmail.

Apple's profits were cut in half this past quarter from the last, in part the result of reduced sales associated with the economic downturn, as well as increased costs associated with the iTools service. Apple reported that it would remain in the black for the rest of the year, but not by much, and only after .Mac was made a pay service.

[ 07-27-2002, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Ken_F2 ]

Brazuca · Jul 27, 2002, 03:15 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Brazuca:
Oh, and about the Ambrosia thread, if you spent any time paying attention to what I said you'll see that I was asking whether some piracy is actually good for a business. A point that was not really answered since Moki didn't feel like considering it. I was mostly quiet given the immense competency of Millenium and Capt. Kangooroski, who arguing the point honestly and logically. <hr /></blockquote>"immense competency of ... Capt. Kangooroski"

oh boy... heh. If you equate "immense competency" with "arguing an entrenched opinion remorselessly, but without the benefit of experience or first-hand knowledge of the subject being argued", well, then... I guess.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Well Moki, that's your point of view. As I saw the discussion the "entrenched position" was very well researched, argued, and consistent. All the questions posed were so well put they even quoted legal precedents. That's why I say they were "immensely competent". They went beyond the typical "common sense" trap you so often see in these boards and backed their concerns with actual legal cases and examples. Not to mention honestly trying to suggest other options, one of which you did answer with your "escrow" mechanism.

Not to insult you or your intelligence, for I actually respect your capabilities as a developer, but your only defense was to show numbers that were dubious at best (I would know, I'm an economist). But what is satisfactory is very much in the eye of the beholder. You were satisfied , but some of us weren't. If that makes us "entrenched", then so are you. It was still a very enlightening discussion, IMHO.

Back to topic (well, the de facto topic anyways), for someone to believe that a business has no responsibility in ethics is simply naive. Companies hire ethics experts to help them do business "better". If you study any business degree (undergrad or MBA), you'll take business ethics classes. Corporate responsibility is an issue that corporations themselves engage in. Even *lawyers* have ethical standards (however low).

And this is not just a "play nice" issue. There are significant repercussions to corporate irresponsibility. The more recent issues are with the string of corporate fraud and unethical behavior. Consumer confidence plummets and there is a real cost to that.

Also take a look at Multinationals and the Globalization issues. Demonstrations want these companies to behave more ethically. Nike has seen so much bad press that they are trying to change their entire image by revamping their corporate ethics and business models.

And why do you think Microsoft is so hated?

Our society has become more sensitive to issues such as pollution, labor exploitation, corporate bullying, and corruption. A lot of what companies do is legal, but just not acceptable from our society's point of view.

So next time someone says that a corporation has *no* responsibility outside the law, consider sweat shops and slave labor, and how some multinationals are able to *legaly* used them for production. Is that ok with you? Can you defend them?

[ 07-27-2002, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: Brazuca ]

moki · Jul 27, 2002, 04:27 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Brazuca:
Well Moki, that's your point of view. As I saw the discussion the "entrenched position" was very well researched, argued, and consistent. All the questions posed were so well put they even quoted legal precedents. That's why I say they were "immensely competent". They went beyond the typical "common sense" trap you so often see in these boards and backed their concerns with actual legal cases and examples.<hr /></blockquote>We must not have seen the same argument. I saw ideology and unworkable utopianism backed enough demi-researched information to come across as plausible. I stayed in the argument for a bit, but I do have other things I need to do with my time, and I made my points, and saw that continuing it was pointless.

Someone with a little knowledge in a particular area can come across as immensely competent if the hand-picked citations and legalese are beyond what the layman is accustomed to. I don't have enough time to debate ad nauseum on a web board; students like the Cpt. have me beat in that regard. But let's leave that argument there.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Brazuca:
Back to topic (well, the de facto topic anyways), for someone to believe that a business has no responsibility in ethics is simply naive. Companies hire ethics experts to help them do business "better". If you study any business degree (undergrad or MBA), you'll take business ethics classes. Corporate responsibility is an issue that corporations themselves engage in. Even *lawyers* have ethical standards (however low).<hr /></blockquote>I agree with this completely -- I find ethics to be extremely important to my business; it is common sense to me, actually. Business is just a fancy framework for interpersonal relationships, when you get right down to it. No one wants to be treated poorly, and businesses that abuse their customers good faith should indeed be held to the fire.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Brazuca:
Also take a look at Multinationals and the Globalization issues. Demonstrations want these companies to behave more ethically. Nike has seen so much bad press that they are trying to change their entire image by revamping their corporate ethics and business models.<hr /></blockquote>Sure. It's all about the have's and the have-nots. Companies that try to abuse their position by exploiting people certainly will rightfully draw their ire.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Brazuca:
So next time someone says that a corporation has *no* responsibility outside the law, consider sweat shops and slave labor, and how some multinationals are able to *legaly* used them for production. Is that ok with you? Can you defend them?<hr /></blockquote>Oh, I agree with you. For a long time I dated a girl who worked in the fashion industry; I was always quick to point out to her the abuses that industry perpetrates.

However, let's get back to Apple here. Exactly what are they doing to abuse their position? Yes, they had a free service for a while, and no one likes to have something taken away from them, even if it cost them nothing to obtain in the first place. It is human nature.

However, reality is important to keep in mind too. Does every company have to keep every policy in place in perpetuity, no matter how much market conditions change? I don't think so. I also don't recall seeing any promises from Apple that iTools would always be free, that it was a "right" that anyone who purchased a Mac had, or anything of the kind.

Let's get back to basics, and stop arguing more ephemeral corporate abuses: what did Apple do wrong by recognizing that their iTools strategy was unsustainable (and given what has happened to other similar businesses, I think that's a pretty clear point), and changing it? Were there specific promises Apple made that they are now breaking?

I agree that their decision isn't a popular one, but I think it is a necessary one for Apple -- and I don't see how they are abusing anyone with this. You got a free service for a while; it is no longer free. If you don't want to use it anymore, then don't pay for it, and don't use it.

From where I sit, the value you get from a .mac account is worth what Apple is charging for it. Compare what you're getting to other similar services, and I think you may reach the same conclusion.

Sven G · Jul 27, 2002, 05:12 AM

Well... of course, in the current market situation, Apple's (and others') "new" policies are somewhat unavoidable... The real problem might, IMHO, be that the market has become a little too important versus ethics and more "human" considerations. Personally, I can afford the new .Mac scheme, and probably I'll buy it in September or October (why not a - discounted? - retail bundle in the form "Jaguar + .Mac"?) - but one of the main problems remains, as in some way previously pointed out: what about those who can't afford .Mac, or even a Macintosh computer, or even a "dirt-cheap" Windows clone? That's a *big* problem (certainly not to be solved with "Gatesian", vertical charitative surrogates): computers - and in particular Macs - are still (in a global context) elite consumer items; OTOH, they should have been something as capillary and diffused as telephones and other appliances!

.Mac could be a formidable means for Apple to substantially expand their "Digital Hub" scheme (I don't like the warfare-like term "strategy"), but, lacking some more profound and "engaged" ethical vision (not only business calculations, that is), the role of Apple as an innovating company can't really take off in a new context.

The real problem might be that today almost no company (contrarily to, for example, the '70s/'80s, also in a different context) has the guts to engage in something *substantially* innovative, in a democracy-enhancing way: very sad indeed - economic banality (and, thus, war, "dog eat dog", etc.) "rulez", today...

[ 07-27-2002, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: Sven G ]

moki · Jul 27, 2002, 06:54 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sven G:
The real problem might be that today almost no company (contrarily to, for example, the '70s/'80s, also in a different context) has the guts to engage in something *substantially* innovative, in a democracy-enhancing way: very sad indeed - economic banality (and, thus, war, "dog eat dog", etc.) "rulez", today...<hr /></blockquote>I don't know where you've been, but that has always been the case. Businesses are about one thing: pleasing their shareholders. If they are able to accomplish this and also do some other great things in the world, more power to 'em. However, expecting businesses to be agents of social reform and welfare... c'mon now.

If you look back in history with an objective eye, you'll actually find that corporations were far MORE abusive in the past than they are now... it isn't even close. For the most part, the further back you go, the worse companies were.

moki · Jul 27, 2002, 06:58 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sven G:
Well... of course, in the current market situation, Apple's (and others') "new" policies are somewhat unavoidable... The real problem might, IMHO, be that the market has become a little too important versus ethics and more "human" considerations. Personally, I can afford the new .Mac scheme, and probably I'll buy it in September or October (why not a - discounted? - retail bundle in the form "Jaguar + .Mac"?) - but one of the main problems remains, as in some way previously pointed out: what about those who can't afford .Mac, or even a Macintosh computer, or even a "dirt-cheap" Windows clone? That's a *big* problem (certainly not to be solved with "Gatesian", vertical charitative surrogates): computers - and in particular Macs - are still (in a global context) elite consumer items; OTOH, they should have been something as capillary and diffused as telephones and other appliances!<hr /></blockquote>Yes, they are. And 50% of the world's population will never place a phone call during their lifetimes, let alone get on the Internet. What's your point? There has never, and there will never be a time where everyone has equal amounts of everything. Equal opportunity... sure, we're moving towards that in some of the 1st world countries -- still not quite there yet, but we're significantly better than 10 or 20 or 50 years ago.

There is an enourmous amount of infrastructure work that would need to be done before handing off computers to people in the world would even make sense... power grids, phone lines, education, etc, etc.

I'm not really sure I understand what you expect to see happen, or why you expect Apple to be doing this?

Person Man · Jul 27, 2002, 09:39 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by pnp:


As for all of those people who say "it's just a few bucks a month, why don't you pay it": yeah, it's just a few bucks a month, why doesn't APPLE pay it?

<hr /></blockquote>Let's say that Apple paid $5/month per iTools user. 2.2 million users x $5 = $11 million. Multiply that by 12 months and you have $132 million a year. Now, when you consider that the majority of those users barely used all the services and that many of them signed up for huge blocks just so they could have free storage space for their warez, Apple would have been dumb to continue things as they were.

However, they need to offer more levels of service, such as:

1. .mac as it stands now for $100, with more features to be added later
2. .mac without Virex and Backup, but with everything else, for $50
3. .mac e-mail only for $10 or $20
4. .mac e-mail, iDisk and web hosting only for $30 or $40

These are just suggestions, and they would still solve the problem of people registering 100 names to get 2000 MB of free disk space to store their warez on. And believe me, people were doing it.

Sven G · Jul 27, 2002, 09:54 AM

... It was only an example, of course: not that I'm actually expecting Apple to do something so ambitious by themselves - even if Steve-O could certainly sell his private jet and invest that money in more useful things!

The telephone, anyway, has a much wider diffusion than the PC or Mac in first world countries (see also the cellphone boom, for example, during the last decade); surely, the phone has had a much longer time to evolve than the PC, but one wonders why there's still such a resistance towards a more large-scale, capillary adoption of the computer... A good example of a massive diffusion of a computer-appliance-like device was the so-called Minitel in France: with such a scheme, almost every family got this little information exchange device with their telephones (if I'm not mistaken, I think this was during the '80s or so).

Of course, there should be more effective collaboration between (*much* more responsive and "enlightened"!) governments and the industry, and between various companies, in order for such things to happen: my main point was simply that today there seems to be more concern for the "profit here and now" ideology (aka neoliberism) than for benefitting the community.

You are right for the details about infrastructure in the developing countries; but a concept of globalization that benefits also those countries should favor their self-sufficiency, not their becoming some sort of colonial territories for "savage", profit-only capitalism.

I must say that I certainly liked Apple more when it had smart slogans like 1984 or Think Different: at least there was *some* form of humanistic involvement (even if only on an ideal level) with their user base. Today, OTOH, it more and more looks like another Microsoft-like monetary deal with the consumer. Anyway, I hope things will get better again - in the meantime, let's see what happens with this .Mac thing...

[ 07-27-2002, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Sven G ]

Ken_F2 · Jul 27, 2002, 10:18 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />1. .mac as it stands now for $100, with more features to be added later
2. .mac without Virex and Backup, but with everything else, for $50
3. .mac e-mail only for $10 or $20
4. .mac e-mail, iDisk and web hosting only for $30 or $40<hr /></blockquote>The backup up they wrote themselves, as best I understand, so there is no out-of-pocket cost per user. The Virex costs Apple less than $1 per user in volume. You are paying $95 of the $99 for the email, iDisk, and web hosting.

[ 07-27-2002, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Ken_F2 ]

Norm1985 · Jul 27, 2002, 12:21 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ken_F2:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />1. .mac as it stands now for $100, with more features to be added later
2. .mac without Virex and Backup, but with everything else, for $50
3. .mac e-mail only for $10 or $20
4. .mac e-mail, iDisk and web hosting only for $30 or $40<hr /></blockquote>The backup up they wrote themselves, as best I understand, so there is no out-of-pocket cost per user. The Virex costs Apple less than $1 per user in volume. You are paying $95 of the $99 for the email, iDisk, and web hosting.<hr /></blockquote>I have a very simple solution, offer less disk space and web mail space, for less money. Like I suggested before, .Mac lite!

Person Man · Jul 27, 2002, 04:14 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Norm1985:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ken_F2:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />1. .mac as it stands now for $100, with more features to be added later
2. .mac without Virex and Backup, but with everything else, for $50
3. .mac e-mail only for $10 or $20
4. .mac e-mail, iDisk and web hosting only for $30 or $40<hr /></blockquote>The backup up they wrote themselves, as best I understand, so there is no out-of-pocket cost per user. The Virex costs Apple less than $1 per user in volume. You are paying $95 of the $99 for the email, iDisk, and web hosting.<hr /></blockquote>I have a very simple solution, offer less disk space and web mail space, for less money. Like I suggested before, .Mac lite!

<hr /></blockquote>Ok, some of the options I proposed above could be called ".mac lite" You can add a fifth option that includes less space.

As far as Virex and Backup not costing Apple a lot, people will look at Virex's retail price and compare Backup to other options out there and would want those prices taken off the total price of .mac, so that's why I propose $50 for .mac without Virex or Backup

pnp · Jul 27, 2002, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Ken_F2:
>Apple is a for-profit corporation, not a government entity with a public or ethical mandate; it has no responsibilities whatsoever beyond making money. Apple's only mandate is to make as much money as it can for its shareholders while working within the constraints of the law.

This is, of course, totally false. The shareholders (of which I am one) are the owners of the company; if they decide the company's mandate is to provide free cottage cheese to people whose last name starts with R, then that's what the company has to do.

But even beyond that, you and I will _never_ agree because we start with different assumptions. As I stated in my original post, I do NOT agree that if something is legal, a company should do it...and I think it's totally _ridiculous_ to claim that it is a company's _mandate_ to do whatever will make the maximum amount of legal money. It is not illegal for a company to behave better than it is legally required to do.

For what it's worth, I am not sure that Apple _is_ behaving legally with their pricing scheme. Apple advertised email as a "freebie" that comes with your purchase, and then put fine print in the purchase agreement that says it may not really be free...and now they're not only not making it free, they're making it very expensive.

> >As for all of those people who say "it's just a few bucks a month, why don't you pay it": yeah, it's just a few bucks a month, why doesn't APPLE pay it? In fact, the cost to let them keep using my mac.com email address would probably be under a buck a month...and damn right, they should pay it.
>Obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about. It costs the typical ISP $7-10/yr to provide email services for the average customer. Multiple that by tens or hundreds of thousands of users, and it becomes quite an expense. And we're not even accounting for iDisk, etc. Apple can't afford to lose the tens of millions each year that Microsoft does on Hotmail.

Oh, gosh, you're right, I must be stupid, I didn't realize it cost Apple anything at all! What a fool I am! Thank you for explaining, you irritating idiot!

Listen, I'll try to use short words so you can understand this: Apple said that if I bought their computer, they would give me "free email." Of course it's not really free: I had to buy their computer as part of the deal, and it cost me over $1700. It would be more correct to say that they promised that an email account is included with the purchase of a mac. They are now reneging on their promise.

Yes, I know it costs them money to provide an email account. They know it too, and they knew it when they made the offer of free email, which I accepted. If they didn't want to pay for it, they shouldn't have offered it to me in the first place.

> Apple's profits were cut in half this past quarter from the last, in part the result of reduced sales associated with the economic downturn, as well as increased costs associated with the iTools service. Apple reported that it would remain in the black for the rest of the year, but not by much, and only after .Mac was made a pay service.

Look, I'm an Apple stockholder; believe me, it pains me that Apple isn't making a lot more money. But cheating their customers is not the solution.

pnp · Jul 27, 2002, 11:31 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Person Man:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by pnp:


As for all of those people who say "it's just a few bucks a month, why don't you pay it": yeah, it's just a few bucks a month, why doesn't APPLE pay it?

<hr /></blockquote>Let's say that Apple paid $5/month per iTools user. 2.2 million users x $5 = $11 million. Multiply that by 12 months and you have $132 million a year. Now, when you consider that the majority of those users barely used all the services and that many of them signed up for huge blocks just so they could have free storage space for their warez, Apple would have been dumb to continue things as they were.

However, they need to offer more levels of service, such as:

1. .mac as it stands now for $100, with more features to be added later
2. .mac without Virex and Backup, but with everything else, for $50
3. .mac e-mail only for $10 or $20
4. .mac e-mail, iDisk and web hosting only for $30 or $40

These are just suggestions, and they would still solve the problem of people registering 100 names to get 2000 MB of free disk space to store their warez on. And believe me, people were doing it.<hr /></blockquote>OK, we like lists, so here's a list:

1) If "the majority of users barely used all the services" then they weren't costing Apple anything. Someone who never signed up for their mac.com email never cost Apple a dime.
2) Apple was well aware of the cost of providing email, when they offered it to me as being included with the price of my computer, and they charged extra for the computer so they could provide the service.
3) Even if circumstances have changed so much that they simply _cannot_ continue to provide "free" email (which is to say, the email service that I paid for when I gave them my $1700 in the first place), $100/year is ridiculous and extortionate. They could break even at about $18/year, or could provide email forwarding for perhaps $5-$9/year. Knowing how much of a pain it is to change one's email address, they figure they have us over a barrel, and that we'll pay up rather than suffer the pain. It's just an awful way for a company to behave.

So, for all of the above reasons, it is wrong for them to charge $100/year to maintain my mac.com email address. I don't mean that it's a poor marketing decision, I don't know about that one way or the other; I mean it is unethical.

I would be interested in hearing an actual reasoned response to these points, as opposed to the non-responsive comments that are so popular, such as (a) "it's just $100", (b) "stop whining", (c)"don't you know it costs money to provide email?" Those comments totally miss the point, so I repeat my comment to the people who are saying those things: shut up.

jrome · Jul 28, 2002, 06:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by pnp:

I would be interested in hearing an actual reasoned response to these points, as opposed to the non-responsive comments that are so popular, such as (a) "it's just $100", (b) "stop whining", (c)"don't you know it costs money to provide email?" Those comments totally miss the point, so I repeat my comment to the people who are saying those things: shut up.<hr /></blockquote>Here's your response: Apple never claimed that they were going to provide free (or pre-paid) email for life. To maintain otherwise is either naive or dishonest. You assumed Apple was going to provide free email for life. Evidently, you didn't ask anyone at Apple to confirm this, and you did not read the Terms of Service. It sucks. Apple should do better for their customers, but they did not promise to provide email for life.

Further, as to the point of you paid $1700 for your computer and iTools was included in that price-- c'mon. Apple never required the purchase of a CPU to use iTools, and never claimed to give special dispensation to those who did.

booboo · Jul 28, 2002, 07:22 PM

I'm sure everyone is *happy* for Apple to spend tens of millions on advertising - and perhaps no-one even question the 'benefits' of that...

But how come everyone pre-supposes iTools/iDisk was just a one-way money chute for Apple?

Maybe iTools - free - brought some unique value to the Mac platform - especially in the education sector where teachers were told the benefits of iDisk outweighed the lack of a floppy drive... and the cost of this change of policy is far more than the revenue it might pull in.

eWorld, anyone?

Maybe Apple didn't make enough noise about iTools and, instead of rectifying the situation, and advertising its unique value, they're effectively throwing out the baby with the bathwater...?

[ 07-28-2002, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: booboo ]

OverclockedHomoSapien · Jul 28, 2002, 08:02 PM

Best way to give Apple the message about .mac is to NOT PAY FOR IT! All else is meaningless. As long as Apple is making money on it, no amount of complaints will change it. But if too few people pay for .mac, well, Apple will have to eat crow.

pnp · Jul 29, 2002, 02:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jrome:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by pnp:

I would be interested in hearing an actual reasoned response to these points, as opposed to the non-responsive comments that are so popular, such as (a) "it's just $100", (b) "stop whining", (c)"don't you know it costs money to provide email?" Those comments totally miss the point, so I repeat my comment to the people who are saying those things: shut up.<hr /></blockquote>Here's your response: Apple never claimed that they were going to provide free (or pre-paid) email for life. To maintain otherwise is either naive or dishonest. You assumed Apple was going to provide free email for life. Evidently, you didn't ask anyone at Apple to confirm this, and you did not read the Terms of Service. It sucks. Apple should do better for their customers, but they did not promise to provide email for life.

Further, as to the point of you paid $1700 for your computer and iTools was included in that price-- c'mon. Apple never required the purchase of a CPU to use iTools, and never claimed to give special dispensation to those who did.<hr /></blockquote>Right "I assumed" it was free email for life. Why would I assume something like that? Here's an excerpt from one of Apple's web pages, which is still available on Google's cache and which was live until a couple of weeks ago:
===
iTools - Get your free iTools account for Mail, HomePage and iDisk storage

Access to your iTools account is built into Mac OS X, so there is nothing to install. You access your iDisk directly in the Finder. This lets you quickly get started creating your own home page. As a Mac OS X user, your Mac.com email is stored on Apple�s Internet servers using the standard IMAP mail protocol, so you can access it from virtually any computer, anywhere, using any standard email program. In fact, Apple is one of the only Internet email providers to offer server-based IMAP
===

This is on the same page where a lot of other things are listed as "built into Mac OS X"...things like file sharing, streaming video, automatic software updates, etc.

There are a whole _bunch_ of things that I "assumed" when I bought the machine. One of them was, that if something is "built into" the operating system, once I've bought the machine that feature will continue to work indefinitely. Did _you_ explicitly ask "hey, will the Finder work forever, or will I someday have to start paying for it?" Of course not.

Apple _intentionally_ misled people on this. Many, many columnists mentioned Apple's always-free email in reviews of their products; I never saw a retraction, "Oh, Apple told us we got that wrong." This went on for years, not weeks or months. Apple knowingly and intentionally implied that mac.com email was a freebie; by doing so, they induced several million people to move to it. It may be illegal; it's definitely immoral.

Troll · Jul 30, 2002, 02:59 PM

I was just in the Powerbook thread looking at <a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=17;t=005342#000011" target="_blank">this thread</a>. I downloaded the TiBook manual and happened upon Page 26 which is titled "iTools - free internet service for Mac users."
<blockquote>quote:<hr />

Email
Get your own Mac.com email address. It�s easy, and it works with your favorite
email programs.
iDisk
Your own 20 MB of free storage on Apple�s Internet server. Share photos,
movies, and other files over the Internet. Purchase additional storage space.
HomePage
Build a personal Web site in three easy steps. Create a photo album, publish an
iMovie, post your r�sum�, and more. Now anyone can view your page on the
Internet.

<hr /></blockquote>I wonder how many of the other Apple manuals referred to iTools as a free service and told us that we would get out own Mac.com address. The fact that it is in the manual suggests that people who bought Ti-Books paid for a mac.com address when they bought the TiBook, no? And how 'bout my own 20MB of free storage?

Roll up all the apologists!

jrome · Jul 30, 2002, 03:10 PM

"Many reviews claimed that iTools would be free for life." That's a paraphrase of what you said. Ok, where are these reviews? I *searched* Google for this info-- itools "free for life", and there were no reviews find, just a few random articles. Where was the creasming when KidSafe was removed? Did you think at that point, "Geeze, Apple is retooling iTools, maybe it won't be free for life?"
Anyways, you don't seem dishonest; but I stand by that if you thought it would be "free for life" that you were a bit naive. The absolute absence of Apple saying that iTools would be "free for life" should have been an indication that it might not be.And as for something will always work b/c it's buil-in to the computer? iPhoto is built-in, and services cost extra. The web browser is included, but you need internet access to use. Hell, printer drivers are built-in.
Was this Apple's plan all along? Maybe, it was certainly a possibility from day one. Should Apple have been more forthright? Well, they didn't know exactly what they were gonna do, & how much it would cost.
Please show me the review which said iTools was great because it would be free for life.

noisefloor · Jul 30, 2002, 03:52 PM

"you could sign up for iTools with any computer."

Unless they changed it at some point, this isn't true. You could only sign up from a mac box.

"Apple never claimed that they were going to provide free (or pre-paid) email for life."

Actually, they did. They promoted the fact that you'd never have to change your email address ever again as a selling point.

They don't explicitly use the term "free forever", but it's VERY strongly implied in their promo ("you can keep it as long as you like and use it with any ISP you sign up with..."):

<a href="http://www.apple.com/enews/2000/12/07enews2.html#article3" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/enews/2000/12/07enews2.html#article3</a>

"What happens when you leave one Internet Service Provider (ISP) for another?
Usually it means that you have to change your email address. And that means re-subscribing to mailing lists, notifying friends, family, and colleagues about your new address, and changing account settings at the Apple Store, Amazon, and other online vendors.
But it doesn�t have to be painful to switch ISPs. Not if you have a Mac.com email account. One of the four Internet services that are part of iTools, a Mac.com account is a snap to set up and easy to remember. That�s because you use your member name (�ulysses�) as part of your email address (�[email protected]�), so as long as you remember your name, you�ll remember your address.
Mac.com also provides all the features you need in an email account, including auto reply and mail forwarding. What�s more, you can keep it as long as you like and use it with any ISP you sign up with, so even if you switch�from AOL to EarthLink, let�s say�you can still get your mail delivered to your Mac.com address."

ppp · Jul 30, 2002, 03:59 PM

Guys. If someone has a problem, what on earth prompts you to jump in and say, "I don't have that problem"? Well, guess what: some people do, and this thread is for them.

Geez, if someone has a heart attack and calls for an ambulance, do you say, "No need for that ambulance, most of us are fine in here?"

If you don't share the problem, why don't you just stay out of the discussion?

workerbee · Jul 30, 2002, 04:11 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Troll:
I wonder how many of the other Apple manuals referred to iTools as a free service and told us that we would get out own Mac.com address. The fact that it is in the manual suggests that people who bought Ti-Books paid for a mac.com address when they bought the TiBook, no? And how 'bout my own 20MB of free storage?

Roll up all the apologists!<hr /></blockquote>Touch�!

It's in my DVI TiBook manual, and in the OSX manual that came with this US$ 4000+ (european prices; Apple's US$ is still about 25% higher than anyone elses) purchase.

I bought this 1 month ago. So the "free" iTools lasted/will last all of 4 months. Cool. <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />