Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

lookmark · Jul 12, 2002, 12:59 AM

According to slaptech, the upcoming rebranded, slightly enhanced iTools will not only be renamed .Mac but shift to a paid service.

It's clear Apple is looking for revenue streams, and fast, but that's a whole 'nother topic. The speculative question is this: how much would you pay for a year of .Mac, including:

- iDisk, w/ 40MB disk space
- Mac.com webmail and mail services
- HomePage, w/ increased bandwidth
- the hint of nifty services to come

[ 07-12-2002, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: lookmark ]

Brazuca · Jul 12, 2002, 01:20 AM

The reason why charging for .Mac would be bad for Apple:

the iTools (.Mac) system is one of the attractions of the Mac today. It's a selling point that makes the Mac very integrated with the web and the digital hub idea.
Charging for it simply increases the cost of a Mac, which is not cheap to begin with.

Not to mention that it will simply **** people off.

I myself would not pay an yearly fee for the service. I pay enough for other internet services. There are plenty of other free email options out there. The downside is that I would no longer be able to tell my friends how great having a Mac is. In order to use its greatest benefits they would have to shell out extra cash. Not what they want to hear to be convinced to buy a Mac over a PC.

Apple, be a bit less shortsighted and think about the other 95%....

[ 07-12-2002, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Brazuca ]

Brazuca · Jul 12, 2002, 01:43 AM

...and, the reason why charging for .Mac can be good for Apple:

Charging an yearly fee for iTools (.Mac) will provide Apple with a revenue stream from its installed base. Apple will be able to move beyond the simple business of selling computers and get into providing a service as a complete solution. This looks like a good idea, but it can easily backfire.

When M$ started charging for Hotmail upgrades and hackling users to switch to a paid service, I made fun of the "suckers" who decided to stick with it. Now it looks like I will be the greatest "sucker".

I still don't like it as a user. In effect Apple will be increasing the cost of owning a Mac and using its greatest advantages.

I'd rather pay for the OS updates.

[ 07-12-2002, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: Brazuca ]

gorickey · Jul 12, 2002, 01:44 AM

Yeah, no way in hell I am going to pay, it's not something I would miss all that much besides e-mail, and as stated, I can find another free option somewhere else.

curmi · Jul 12, 2002, 02:20 AM

I've used iTools to show people why the Mac is cool...something you get for free when you buy a mac. If you have to pay for it, it has no advantage.

Ken_F2 · Jul 12, 2002, 03:56 AM

iTools was always intended to be a pay service, just like Microsoft's "My Services .Net." You're going to pay by the month or a year for a subscription.

It's simple economics. When only a few people are using iTools, the infrastructure isn't terribly expensive. But now that OSX has become more popular, and a much higher percentage of OSX users are likely to use the service (as with 10.2), it will become very expensive. And as you all know, Apple needs revenue, and subscription services are one way to get it.

Microsoft was to offer an iTools-like service called "My Services .Net," except with far more features (and full integration with Windows and Office), and they intended to charge about $10 a month for the service. This spring, they announced they were putting those plans off for the forseeable future. A good part of "My Services" involved storing one's documents, personal information, and software settings and licenses on Microsoft servers accessible on the Internet, and I suppose they perceived that most of their customers just weren't ready to trust them with that kind of data. With "My Services .Net", any Windows user would have been able to sit down and front of ANY Internet-connected PDA or Windows PC (preinstalled with Office, etc), enter their username and password, and then instantly have their own personal desktop with all their documents, application settings, personal information, and the like (all stored on MS servers)...just as if they were sitting at their home computer.

According to reports in the press, the complete infrastructure, setup, and support for Microsoft's "My Services .Net" for Windows XP and PocketPC users was to cost a staggering $8 billion to $10 billion dollars in the first year alone. So we need to be realistic here, Apple can't afford to give away a popular and useful service for free. Sure, they only have 4% of computer users (and 1.5% ? with OSX), but it's still costs $$$$$$$. And with the release of 10.2, OSX will only become more popular, and thus more expensive to support (if .mac was free).

More recently, about four or five months ago, the plans for the next verson of Office became available; Microsoft intends to offer a set of iTools-like services that is totally integrated with Microsoft Office (and Windows); you will get a one year subscription as part of buying the next-version of Office, and you will have to resubscribe to use these Office.Net services after the first year (won't have to resubscribe to use Office, just the online tools). Here are some screenshots from presentation:

<img src="http://kfowler.bizland.com/temp/ONG_3_lg.jpg" alt=" - " />

<img src="http://kfowler.bizland.com/temp/ONG_1_lg.jpg" alt=" - " />

<img src="http://kfowler.bizland.com/temp/ONG_4_lg.jpg" alt=" - " />

Apple is just leading the way in implementation of new strategies and technologies. First it was QuartzExtreme, the 3D OS acceleration that MS has talked about for some time, but has two years away. Now Apple intends to offer a set of pay services, similar to those offered in an Office subscription, except they are doing it this fall, instead of next May (when next Office is released).

Ken_F2 · Jul 12, 2002, 04:05 AM

Why do you feel it is fair for Apple to charge for OSX, but not for iTools? The dissenters need to get past this idea that anything and everything on the Internet should be free. iTools (now .Mac) is costly to develop and support/maintain, just like the OSX operating system.

With the posts to this thread, and the poll results, it makes me wonder what planet some of you've been living on these past two years. The dot coms collapsed. Behind every service, there must be a business model--a way to make money or at least cover costs--and a free .Mac service is just not it.

Best of all, by paying for .Mac subscription, you are supporting Apple and the OSX cause. Your dollars will not only get you an improved service, with more space, and more traffic on Apple's Mac.com servers, but you will be helping to finance future versions of OSX, iApps, and Apple hardware.

[ 07-12-2002, 04:28 AM: Message edited by: Ken_F2 ]

juanvaldes · Jul 12, 2002, 04:12 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gorickey:
Yeah, no way in hell I am going to pay, it's not something I would miss all that much besides e-mail, and as stated, I can find another free option somewhere else.<hr /></blockquote>I agree, the email is the only part I use all the time, as for data storage there are plenty of other sites giving away even more space for free.

Now I don't mind apple trying to make money I just think it would be short sited to make ALL of the iTools services pay-to-play. Some/most should stay free as a part of the 'mac advantage'.

Nathan Adams · Jul 12, 2002, 04:31 AM

I like the way it is now
Apple gives all mac users a base access - and for increased storage you can pay (and if you think about it, its the people with more storage that will have higher bandwidth, and therefore the ones that cost apple the most money).
If apple do move to a paid scheme, I think it will just be an extension of that (which is similar to the quicktime - quicktime pro scheme), basic use is free, if you want more than you pay a small fee.

Doerak- · Jul 12, 2002, 05:55 AM

This is what I think.

I would give $50/year for:

- at least 50 MB online storage
- imap mail (with above 50 MB usable)
- WebDav file access
- http access
- Fast service, why not akamize all mac.com services? In Holland the mailservers from mac.com are slooooow...

pliny · Jul 12, 2002, 07:30 AM

not a cent.

JKT · Jul 12, 2002, 09:27 AM

Remember the saying folks - nothing in life is free.

iTools is "free" at the moment as I imagine it was intended to act as a loss leader for Apple - it offered an attractive service to draw in new users or caused people to upgrade to OS9 (and now OSX). If they were to start charging, then this would indicate one or more things - that the "loss" is getting too large and/or that it isn't drawing in enough converts. Personally, if they do start charging, depending on the price I would reluctantly pay for it if:

1) it prevented me from having to look at ads on the site (which would be the only other option open to Apple to maintain its free stature),
2) the service improved to be practically always accessible and stable,
3) the implementation in OS X/OS 9 improved - even in 10.1.5 it is still a touch on the sluggish side and can still lock up the Finder whilst listing large numbers of files (hopefully this is all corrected by 10.2!),
4) and most importantly - decent SPAM filters were integrated into the service and/or Apple blocked them from reaching you in the first place.

There may well be other services around the web that are "free" but A) how long will that last and B) how many ads do you have to look at in these places (ad blocking features of browsers notwithstanding)? Also, how well are they integrated into the OS and applications like iPhoto? iDisk etc have some big advantages over these other sites that make it worth paying for (if necessary) for those of us that utilise them. But anything more than $30 a year and it will be too much IMHO.

Also, what is to say that they wouldn't maintain a basic free service - e.g. 5MB e-mail with 5MB iDisk space? That way, Apple could still use it as a loss leader type of service.

FWIW, the laughability of charging for hotmail was that it is such a terrible service to begin with... "you mean I have to pay to have my 200+ spams a day stored"... er, no thanks. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Jerommeke · Jul 12, 2002, 09:34 AM

less than $ 25.

- it's slow
- it's down sometimes
- it's a part of the os for which i've given MUCH money

and when I do have to pay;

please not only with a CREDIT CARD! I have none, so I can NOT pay with one. When do companies learn that not EVERYone has a credit card?

memento · Jul 12, 2002, 10:06 AM

I think the best scenario is this:

All mac users have basic free tools with limits (20MB iDisk, xxx bandwidth limit, etc) so that we can still use this to our advantage to help gain Windows users. We will also not lose many current users by trying to make us pay for something that WAS free.

For those that want more, offer several levels at different price points. This will offset the cost of high-bandwidth or large websites - providing Apple with the revenue stream and compensation for expensive usage.

M$ can GOUGE because people are dumb enough to pay whatever M$ says when they think that M$ is the king and there is no alternative. How much does Office cost? $400? ludicrous.

KaptainKaya · Jul 12, 2002, 10:13 AM

I think that with a new computer purchase, instead of those crappy magazine deals, you should get a certain amount of time free for iTools, kinda like a trial period. Then after its over you have the option of upgrading to a yearly fee or you can go your own way and use something else.

The downside is I am converting my parents to Mac.com services and I don't think its right to charge each person in the family...there should be a limit, of say 4 user names and such to go along with it.

Also, what about schools that might use OS X for the multi-user stuff? You think the schools would want to pay for each student to have their own site and all that?

Hopefully, Apple has already thought about this (provided the paying idea is true).

rjenkinson · Jul 12, 2002, 10:21 AM

since no one knows what .mac is or whether it will be implemented if it does exist, i don't see how anyone can pretend to know what a reasonable price for it might be.

-r.

winterlandia · Jul 12, 2002, 10:22 AM

What are they smoking? It already ISN'T free.

You have to have a mac to sign up.
You need a mac to really use the service properly.You paid a premium for the mac which already paid for the iTools service.
Ummm.. how do you think they've been able to offer it free so far? Because we already paid for it when we bought the computer.
Same for the iApps, trust me, you paid for them indirectly when you bought the machine. Apple is paying for those apps to be created and the $ was taken from hardware sales.

Leaving the iTools as is free would be acceptable, with more $ asked only if you need more disk space or more functionality. However, paying for the existing service would result in an instant cancellation of my mac.com account. I have plenty of other mail accounts out there and don't really use the rest of iTools.

Nearly everyone that had a "netaddress" USA.net account (was a great free email with free pop3) cancelled when they started charging $15 a year. The same would happen for apple.

Now, if they decreased the hardware costs accordingly that would make more sense. So if they charge $45 for .mac, every single mac should go down $45 in cost.

[ 07-12-2002, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: winterlandia ]

KaptainKaya · Jul 12, 2002, 10:27 AM

<img border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" title="" src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" />

[ 07-12-2002, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: KaptainKaya ]

ringo · Jul 12, 2002, 11:21 AM

No way I'd pay. I paid enough when I helped support the fat Apple profit margin when I bought my Mac.

Why pay for something that can be had for free somewhere else? Just for the "Mac" name in my email address? When a "switcher" gets his/her pricey Apple machine and starts Mail for the first time, will they need to immediately pull out their credit card to set up email?

Keda · Jul 12, 2002, 11:41 AM

I wouldn't pay for .Mac. I like iTools, but all I really use is my iDisk.

But, Apple is not that dumb. I cant see them charging for iTools. If .Mac is a fee based service, then Im sure it will include more than the iTools of today. There are too many free email & 'iDisk' services available (true, they mostly suck...).

Right now, I cant think of anything I need from .Mac, .net, wateva.

Proudest Monkey · Jul 12, 2002, 11:43 AM

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

...there should be a limit, of say 4 user names and such to go along with it.
<hr /></blockquote>this is a very good idea ... and it makes a lot of sense. I also see apple keeping [email protected] a free service, otherwise i don't think apple would have developed Mail.app just to stray people away from Entourage. Many websites offer free email, and a lot of people that use iTools today only use it for email. Online storage is not something a lot of places are willing to offer for free, and it is certainly understandable if apple chooses to start charging for storage and any other goodies they throw into the .Mac service, but email and others will remain free under the iTools name i predict, despite what current builds of Jag say.

Brazuca · Jul 12, 2002, 01:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ken_F2:
Why do you feel it is fair for Apple to charge for OSX, but not for iTools? The dissenters need to get past this idea that anything and everything on the Internet should be free. iTools (now .Mac) is costly to develop and support/maintain, just like the OSX operating system.

With the posts to this thread, and the poll results, it makes me wonder what planet some of you've been living on these past two years. The dot coms collapsed. Behind every service, there must be a business model--a way to make money or at least cover costs--and a free .Mac service is just not it.

Best of all, by paying for .Mac subscription, you are supporting Apple and the OSX cause. Your dollars will not only get you an improved service, with more space, and more traffic on Apple's Mac.com servers, but you will be helping to finance future versions of OSX, iApps, and Apple hardware.<hr /></blockquote>You fail to grasp the notion of "shooting yourself in the foot". Just charging for something does _not_ guarantee a profit, or even a stream of income. Here is an exercise: If Apple increases its price by 1% and the number of users decreases by 2% as a result, do you think they will benefit or lose money??
Now you are familiar with the concept of elasticity.

Some of us are saying that not only is the iTools/.Mac system already being paid for out of current revenue sources (where else do you think they get the money from?), charging for .Mac access takes away a significant selling point for the Mac. This is what goes against what you call the OSX cause.

So consider that just because I want Apple, the Mac, and OSX to succeed doesn't mean that I will pay anything that Apple asks. And I care more about how attractive our platform is to potential buyers since marketshare is the name of the game.

Is Apple happy enough with its current marketshare that it is willing to turn away converts in lieu of more (?) profits today?

Imagine a user walking into the Apple store:

Wow, cool looking place! Nice computers! How much? That's a bit much. Can I do my digital pictures? Movies? Music? Email? It's all integrated and I can share everything on the web with a couple of clicks?!?! Awsome!!
Oh, wait. What was that? Only at a price? But the computer+monitor+printer+airport+iPod is already so much?!? And I already have to pay for my DSL, cell phone,etc. Hmmmmm...This is just adding to the cost. do I really need such an expensive machine just to share this stuff?? That Dell I saw was much cheaper and Windows has all the stuff I need....
Oh....well, nevermind (can you hear the excitement fading?). I'll think about it. (walks out)

[ 07-12-2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Brazuca ]

Ken_F2 · Jul 12, 2002, 02:45 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Some of us are saying that not only is the iTools/.Mac system already being paid for out of current revenue sources (where else do you think they get the money from?), charging for .Mac access takes away a significant selling point for the Mac. This is what goes against what you call the OSX cause. <hr /></blockquote>Yes, and suppose Apple looks at the balance sheet, and the cost of supporting and maintaining iTools (.Mac) has become significant. Suppose iTools is now eating away a good percentage of their margin. What would you rather have Apple do, increase the cost of their systems even more, or start charging for some .Mac service?

The era of free, ad-supported services on the Internet is coming to an end. It is only a matter of time before the last few free services come to an end. It's been reported in the press that Hotmail loses tens of millions of dollars each year for Microsoft, even with their new pay scheme (you may for more disk space), and even with all those ads on the site. Apple can't afford those kind of losses.

[ 07-12-2002, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Ken_F2 ]

kcmac · Jul 12, 2002, 03:11 PM

I don't really have a strong need for iTools and most likely would not pay for it. If Apple was my IP then it would seem to make more sense. Maybe if they did a deal with with Time Warner/AOL/Earthlink where your email address could be .mac etc, then it would be worth it to me. I can't fathom paying for my cable access (Roadrunner) and then on top of that iTools/.mac access.

macaddled · Jul 12, 2002, 03:21 PM

Expensive to maintain or not, they'll have to add some significant service to it to get me to pay for it. Right now it's next to useless for me.

schwa · Jul 12, 2002, 03:42 PM

Well, personally iTools doesn't do a whole lot for me. My @mac.com is "just another" free email address I keep around. I have my own domain, so my email and disk space are covered there.

But, yeah, Apple clearly has to start charging for this stuff. I've worked at a software company that hosts the app, and it's EXPENSIVE. Keeping your servers up 99.9% is more difficult than you think, and your costs increase exponentially beyond that (moving to 99.99% is not just another .01% increase in cost). Yahoo's going to start charging for mail, btw.

The pertinent question is- beyond "more space", what *would* you pay for? Me, I'd like the ability to sync my personal data to a central server, so that my home computer, work computer, and PDA would all "just sync".

Millennium · Jul 12, 2002, 04:09 PM

The only thing I use iTools for at the moment is the @mac.com address. However, as that's my primary address, it's very valuable to me.

But what would I pay for such a service? Whatever it takes to keep POP access (or IMAP access, if I can get a PowerMail ruleset going which gets all my mail downloaded and then deletes it from the server, similar to POP).

As for what it would take for me to start using the other services? Well, let's see. iDisk would be a lot more useful if it had more space, and I'd pay for that if the price was reasonable. Though I hardly expect anything from Apple to be priced reasonably anymore; I pay it grudgingly because they really do make better products, but they can and should be pricing their stuff competitively.

HomePage... well, I require PHP. I can get by without a database if need be, but PHP is a must. And I pay my current Web host precisely because they offer that sort of thing. If Apple can offer similar levels of service at the same price -and I doubt they can- then more power to them.

I've always found it very uncool to take something you've offered free for years and then start charging for it, particularly when it's a continuing service rather than something you buy once. It's like ripping off the people who made it popular in the first place (note Gracenote's CDDB). I wouldn't mind a tiered system, where the most basic level is free and then you pay for premiums (even if a couple of those premiums, for example POP access, were formerly free).

Brazuca · Jul 12, 2002, 04:21 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
I've always found it very uncool to take something you've offered free for years and then start charging for it, particularly when it's a continuing service rather than something you buy once. It's like ripping off the people who made it popular in the first place (note Gracenote's CDDB). I wouldn't mind a tiered system, where the most basic level is free and then you pay for premiums (even if a couple of those premiums, for example POP access, were formerly free).<hr /></blockquote>I agree completely. I feel ripped off.

And it's ok for Apple to lose money on iTools/.Mac if it means a more attractive platform for new users.

Why do you think that Gillette gives its razors away? Why do you thing MS, Sony, etc sell their consoles at a (significant) discount? Why do you think cell phone makers also sell their phones at a big discount?

The loss Apple has on iTools/.Mac, as far as I see it, has unique benefits to the Mac, making our platform that much more attractive. This is even more important as other services move away from the free model. Imagine how nice it would be to tell your friends that are considering buying a Mac that they get all this stuff for free!! The only ones to do that!

[ 07-12-2002, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Brazuca ]

KidRed · Jul 12, 2002, 04:43 PM

I'd only pay if it were free.

The Evener · Jul 12, 2002, 06:14 PM

Ken_F2,

I'm impressed with your fervor that Apple has to start charging for something in addition to the money I already paid to use iTools by first upgrading to OS 9 (remember, you needed OS 9 to even use iTools) and most recently with OS X. If Apple wants to begin to separate the cost of iTools from OS upgrades or hardware purchases, all the more power to them. But your assertion that Apple is providing iTools for free simply isn't true. Once again, I refer to OS 9 & OS X upgrade campaigns. Besides, I have never found any information anywhere, either from Fred Anderson or Steve Jobs, that breaks down the cost of iTools. In short, claiming that iTools is wreaking havoc either margins or expenses is untenable. With the lack of information, it's just as plausible (if not more plausible) that Apple is looking for new revenue streams like .NET, especially considering Apple is always being hammered by financial advisers for its dependence on consumers, a market group that generates lower margins than enterprise.

The bottom line is I already have to pay a hefty monthly fee to my ISP for e-mail and web space. I use iTools because of Apple's promotion of it, and my desire to support the Mac (ie. PC friends visit my page, and get a "mac promo" so to speak). If they want to start charging for the range of services I have already, then I'll have to revert back to my ISP services which would be a shame.

[ 07-12-2002, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: The Evener ]

cpac · Jul 12, 2002, 06:41 PM

what's with this "all or nothing" style thinking?

.mac email addresses should remain free (and free to access via the web). [EDIT - Also, as pretty much any ISP that allows you to access your iTools is going to give you an email address anyway (granted, not IMAP), this would be a foolish thing to try to get people to pay for)]

iChat abilities should likewise remain free.

iDisk - I hardly use mine, but it was nice when I had to put up a wedding site or share some pictures with my fiance. I could see a small charge for iDisk space, but really, having a small amount of space for people to experience the ease of say, making a web page out of an iPhoto album, is well worth Apple's keeping it free.

More likely I think we'll see "iTools" and "iTools Pro" the more advanced pay-version having more space/bandwidth/etc.

[ 07-12-2002, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: cpac ]

Brazuca · Jul 12, 2002, 06:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cpac:
what's with this "all or nothing" style thinking?

.mac email addresses should remain free (and free to access via the web).

iChat abilities should likewise remain free.

iDisk - I hardly use mine, but it was nice when I had to put up a wedding site or share some pictures with my fiance. I could see a small charge for iDisk space, but really, having a small amount of space for people to experience the ease of say, making a web page out of an iPhoto album, is well worth Apple's keeping it free.

More likely I think we'll see "iTools" and "iTools Pro" the more advanced pay-version having more space/bandwidth/etc.<hr /></blockquote>This sounds reasonable. I would have no problem with a free and a Pro version of iTools/.Mac. The current scheme is already somewhat akin to that, with larger iDisks costig more.

Apple could come up with innovative iTools that would add value, and thus justify a real Pro version.

Maybe we are all jumping the gun here. We don't even know what Apple will do. But if Apple wants to go against its consumer base, why not increase its profit margins by putting CD-ROMs across the entire line again...

asxless · Jul 12, 2002, 11:29 PM

Apple should keep the basic iTools services 'free' and charge for add ons, as they do now

When I buy a premium product, I expect that I will not be nickeled and dimed for the 'extras' that make that product unique because they were included in the premium price I have already paid. OTOH when I shop in the bargain basement I expect to have to pay for any 'extras'. For example, when I take the BMW in for service the latte & muffins at the coffee bar are 'free' but when I'm buying tires at NTB, the coffee and snaks are in vending machines that require exact change.

If Apple decides it must charge for the current iTools services, I hope Apple allows Mac users to only pay for the services they want/use. For example, I would pay a modest fee to keep my mac.com email service but would drop the iDisk, web hosting etc. services in a heart beat. If I'm required to pay for a 'package deal', the total had better be close to what I would pay for Email alone or I'll drop the iTools service entirely. I like having an email address which ends in @mac.com but it probably benefits Apple more than it does me.

asxless in iLand