Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Software
Why Don't Developers Harness .Mac?
I love my .Mac account. Aside from the typical shortcomings some users complain about - zillions of GB of space, iDisk speed boosts, etc. - I truly feel it's an amazing concept with a ton of potential that's been implimented really well so far. But with all this power just lying around, why aren't more software developers leveraging the power of .Mac?Transmit, my favorite FTP app, uses Tiger-specific .Mac capabilities to sync favorite sites. I just downloaded Smultron - an open source text editor that syncs preferences via .Mac - on Jay's recommendation. This kind of stuff is incredibly handy, and if you think about it: if more apps did stuff like this it would propel .Mac's usefulness to new heights. So what's the problem? Are .Mac subscription numbers growing slower than I thought? Are developers having trouble finding the SDK? There's so much potential for .Mac that my iMac and PowerBook are almost dripping with it. So I ask you, TUAW readers: why haven't more developers hopped on the .Mac bandwagon?
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Steven said 1:23PM on 9-01-2005
I want the RSS feeds to update their "read" status between my Mini and my PoweBook. That would help me out a lot :)
Reply
David said 1:24PM on 9-01-2005
For the price i would want atleast 1gb of storage before i will get a .mac account but i really do think it is a brilliant concept but as i am a student cost is the big issue!
Reply
random said 1:28PM on 9-01-2005
I think it's due to the nature of the service. .Mac seems like a service geared towards mostly Joe Schmo computer users who don't need a ton of space, fancy bells & whistles, or ultimate total control of everything
The powerusers who would download developer kits are probably not going to be interested in a simplistic, all-in-one type solution. They'd want more control over publishing their HomePages (server-side access to do PHP, CGI, Perl), automated updating with the iDisk (for relational databases), etc...even if it means using several different services to accomplish this task. Who would develop software for a service they don't use?
Reply
Mitch said 1:29PM on 9-01-2005
This would be such a great thing, i do agree too. I think it's just the chicken and egg syndrome: no one has .mac cause its not that useful so developers don't build to use it...Apple should offer incentives to developers to make their programs .mac compatible so that they can sell more supscriptions. Maybe a section of the website to list/download .mac enabled programs like you can download widgets? What do people think about that idea?
Reply
Uncle Tim said 1:44PM on 9-01-2005
I think .Mac is too expensive and not enough frills for most people, when compared to the cost of setting up a basic web domain.
Reply
alex said 1:54PM on 9-01-2005
This isn't the place to ask this, i know, but my brand new powerbook is beeping three long beeps every time i try to start it up... googling turned up that this means my memory is not being recognized. Does anyone have any ideas about what i can do, or whom i could contact(apple?) about this? my email is adowney@oswego.edu. Any help would be appreciated...
Reply
heipei said 2:28PM on 9-01-2005
the concept is nice, especially for all those joe-average-computer-users, but what really sucks about .mac is that they dont release their server software so that everyone can set up their own .mac server on their very own servers, cutting the cost of almost $100 for a lousy 250mb.
Reply
brian said 2:17PM on 9-01-2005
Apple doesn't always give voice to all the apps that actually support it. For example, Infinite Nexus provides .Mac support in 2 of our 3 applications: dotMac Menu (obviously) and Compare Folders.
Reply
chris ullrich said 2:10PM on 9-01-2005
take your powerbook into a nearby apple store to have it looked at. if its under warranty, they should fix it.
Reply
NovaScotian said 2:47PM on 9-01-2005
What do I get for 100 bucks a year? E-mail? Gmail is free. Sync? Lots of alternatives. Web pages? With Apache built into the system who needs it. IDisk? A firewire drive and thumb drives will do that for me for a one-time cost. Backup? Short term add another hard drive and use Carbon Copy Cloner. Long term burn DVDs. Add to those comments that Sync doesn't seem to work for NetNewsWatcher, that the E-mail can be unreliable, that I can't always reach my son's home page and I don't see the value.
Reply
KBrew said 2:46PM on 9-01-2005
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? People won't pay .Mac when there aren't applications that use it, and developers won't support .Mac if no one has it.
Reply
icerabbit said 2:49PM on 9-01-2005
iblog from lilfi really uses .mac
I think one has to look at subscriber base. How many pay for .mac? And how many of those find it a good value? Long outstanding requests & comments hardly get any attention, except perhaps now again - when most users are up for renewal - with a possible upcoming .mac update.
For those who might be interested in iBlog: latest info & user forum at http://www.ibloggers.net
Reply
Nuno Sousa said 3:13PM on 9-01-2005
WAYYY too expensive.
Reply
ToeKnee said 2:58PM on 9-01-2005
I might let mine expire next month-- no more Virex, which I like for some reason, the storage is too stingy, Gmail is better than .Mac mail in terms of spam filtering and capacity, I have several websites already, so my only real use for it would be iPhoto integration for quick web galleries, but I will soon run out of space on that, and iSync has not worked between my Powerbook and my wife's iBook since I upgraded her to Tiger. Panther works so PERFECTLY on this Powerbook, I will not change it yet and risk screwing up my workflow.
So, all in all, I don't see the value of .Mac. I just see Apple letting it flounder until they eventually kill it.
Reply
Dan Ridley said 3:10PM on 9-01-2005
Sync is awesome, and I'd like to see more widespread support. .Mac syncing in NetNewsWire was a dream come true, and it works superbly well. I would prefer that I could configure sync services to use my own WebDAV server, but so be it. It's *so* worth the $100/year.
Reply
Jeff said 3:45PM on 9-01-2005
I've had it for 3 years and I'm not renewing. There is nothing in .mac that I can't get for free elsewhere. Mail? I've switched to gmail. Pictures? Shutterfly for printing and flickr for storage. And forget the web stuff. I can get services for less than the cost of .mac which allow give me database access, real programming capabilities, subversion access for version control and backup. Apple should just drop it. Concentrate on the desktop.
Reply
George said 4:07PM on 9-01-2005
Apple's does have a list of applications that take advantage of .mac services:
http://www.mac.com/1/sdknewfeatures.html
Reply
Brady J. Frey said 4:21PM on 9-01-2005
I'll echo the sentiment in many posts, it's the space -- too little. Most of us power users need a little more breathing room -- I can pay 100 dollars a year for Lunarpage hosting at 1gig, and many other hosts offer the same. You could publish your ical, sync your NetNewsWire feeds -- host your own site+email and have space to grow.
Hell, I can't even backup my user folder on that thing -- how is my sister, who I'm switching to mac, going to backup with all those photos of her kid when I know it's going to be over a gig of stuff?
If google can give 2gigs of email, Apple can give atleast 1gig of space. Even then, I'd debate going with places that'd offer the full 2gigs for me.
Reply
Dave Parks said 3:59AM on 9-02-2005
I think Apple shot themselves in the foot when they decided to turn a great idea for expanding your computer beyond it's physical case and the software stored on it (for free originally remember!) into a ~$100 a year money suck that leaves a bitter taste in early adopter's mouths.
The fact that they whore it out now, tossing it in your face when you first fire up a new mac, almost making it seems like that machine you have is somehow *emasculated* unless it has a .mac account associated with it, really turns me off.
They've incorporated .mac into the core functionality of the OS and then insist that you pay for the privilege of using it in addition to shelling out +$100 a year for a 'new' OS.
Thanks but no thanks.
I'll skip .mac, and I'll be staying with a nice *stable* Panther for my 1GHz Powerbook.
Reply
Oyvind said 5:34PM on 9-01-2005
Safari bookmark syncinc alone is worth the price. RSS feeds syncing in NetNewsWire alone is worth the price. I have my own server with lots of space but still would use .mac for these features. BurnoutMenu also has .mac syncing. And the excellent StickyBrain.
I hope more apps make .mac syncinc a standard feature. I wouldn't mind if they made an option to sync to your own server. This is done in Apple's own iCal where you can publish calenders to .mac or your own WebDAV folder somewhere.
Reply