Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Software, Cool tools, Internet Tools
Is Google slowly creeping up on .Mac?
Hawk Wings found an interesting post from Nick Starr that briefly outlines how Google is doing a decent job of matching up to the offerings of .Mac. While Nick has a good point with observing that some of Google's key products are similar to .Mac's offerings, such as the Blogger/Pages combo (aka iWeb) and their recently released Browser Sync extension for Firefox (aka Safari syncing), I think what a lot of people either keep missing, don't know or simply don't care about is the application integration that the power of .Mac offers by being baked into Mac OS X. Let's also not forget .Mac's syncing extensibility that lets 3rd parties join .Mac's party; my copies of Yojimbo and Transmit can keep notes and FTP accounts (respectively) synchronized between my Macs via the built-in sync engine. Going further, other 3rd party applications can take advantage of this integration, such as Quicksilver's ability to catalog and keep the same contacts from Address Book on multiple Macs just a shortcut key away; with the flick of my wrist I can find a contact (or multiple) and either copy their information to my clipboard, open their card for editing or fire off an email without even touching a Mail message or a browser window. With iWeb I can drag and drop an iPhoto album of 100 images and have them all optimized and ready to publish to the web, complete with a sexy slideshow - oddly, I don't see a similar extension for Firefox. The list could go on, but I'm sure you're already either nodding your head or typing up a flame comment, so I'll spare you.Taking a step back from all this, it sounds as though services like Google's are simply striking a chord with a few unique killer features that are enough to entice some users (and, obviously, their price tag can't hurt either). But ultimately, I simply think it's too much of a leap to label some loosely entangled 'Web 2.0' services as a complete replacement for the sheer power, ease of use and 'no waiting for a refresh' aspects of desktop applications and operating systems that many users might be missing out on.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Michael Collins said 5:51PM on 6-08-2006
Now if it would all work in Safari...
Reply
Rafael Gaspar said 5:57PM on 6-08-2006
I Don`t think that nowaday this Google Stuffs can take the place of my .Mac...
Reply
Steve Rapport said 6:00PM on 6-08-2006
Now if only .mac and/or sync wouldn't keep going offline... like... ummm... right now, actually.
$99.00 a year, and they can't keep the f****ng thing online for more than a week at a time. I notice that, while .mac is down, there never seems to be a problem with the Apple store. Wonder why that is?
Reply
Marcos Kirsch said 6:01PM on 6-08-2006
not directly related... but what I'd like to see is a .Mac Sync plugin for Camino.
Reply
Steve Rapport said 6:01PM on 6-08-2006
Now if only .mac and/or sync wouldn't keep going offline... like... ummm... right now, actually. Which is why I can't post this message from my .mac account.
$99.00 a year, and they can't keep the f****ng thing online for more than a week at a time. I notice that, while .mac is down, there never seems to be a problem with the Apple store. Wonder why that is?
Reply
LD said 6:14PM on 6-08-2006
It may not currently do as much as .Mac, but it's a lot cheaper.
Google does have Picasa for uploading pics. Googla "syncs" your address book because it's web-based with gmail. Same for your calendar. All for free.
The end of your comments go off on a tangent to the mythical, almighty web-based OS...which has nothing to do with your opening paragraph about .Mac. It sort of came out of left field. Is this about .Mac syncing and features or is this about a web OS?
Reply
Diego said 6:27PM on 6-08-2006
Yeah, .Mac syncs great with the PC at work. [sarcasm]
What's useful to me is the portability of web-based services (ie. Google betaware). I have access to my "stuff" no matter the device... as long as it has a browser.
If Apple wanted to pull a cool trick, how about hosting iLife apps online with a web interface... let their iron to do the lifting and we can all run around with disposable thin-clients.
Just a thought.
Reply
Clark said 6:28PM on 6-08-2006
The amazing thing about .mac is that it is still in business. It's a testament to Apple to be able to release a group of web services far inferior to anything else on the market, keep these in Sync with your desktop with a decent bit of desktop software, overcharge for them, and have people convinced this is great value.
Reply
SB said 6:49PM on 6-08-2006
#7, you mean like the unbelievably overpriced 12 inch Powerbook (that used to sell for $1800 with a SuperDrive)?
It's Apple's ability to cultivate and feed their customers' insatiable need to be "better than others" that keeps them in business. "Think different", indeed. They've mastered customer/product differentiation like no other company I've seen (except Gucci, Prada, D & G, and other high-end clothing retailers).
Reply
Ralph said 7:52PM on 6-08-2006
What Steve Rapport said. I need to get my Google account active again.
Reply
ChrisM70 said 8:25PM on 6-08-2006
I like my .Mac account, but transferring files back and forth is SLOW SLOW SLOW.
Also, if Apple wants to entice people, how about putting free iTunes songs (or song credit codes) into .Mac's Member's Only area?
If it's going to be slow and cost me $100 a year, at least throw me some more cheap freebies!
Reply
Farhan said 9:36PM on 6-08-2006
I think this Google Sync extension for FF is pretty cool. The comparisons of Google's services, in addition to syncing, to .Mac are inevitable.
The .Mac service is created for "mere mortals" (or in Apple Talk, 'for the rest of us.'). Case in point my sister:
She's a teacher (3rd and 4th grade) and has absolutely no knowledge of how to "code" a web site let alone install 3rd party geekware to enable all sorts of things that are encapsulated in the .Mac. Being a teacher she goes on quite a few field trips and takes tons of photos and does a lot of cool project with her class (they use Macs in school). So for her the integration of .Mac and the bundled iLife suite with the OS is priceless. Simply because creating a web site, uploading photos and adding all the wiz-bang for her class' web site is a simple matter of point and click.
So .Mac is not all negative, pricey for some, yes; but definitely not useless. I truly don't know of any other bundle of software that offers this ease of use and functionality (not pro functionality; but useful functionality) from anyone other than Apple. If any of you nay-sayers know of one please do let me know.
Cheers.
Reply
robert said 10:26PM on 6-08-2006
The biggest loser is Apple. I bet Mac users will have a decent way to handle this stuff, Google will likely keep up support.
The revenue Apple sees from .Mac most likely is a drop in the bucket and it's not like they are taking that development cost and monetizing it elsewhere, say by saling it to .edu or companies as a workgroup solution.
Tsk, tsk... they can't see the way.
Reply
rick said 10:35PM on 6-08-2006
Farhan, do you have a link for Google Sync?
Reply
David Owens said 10:36PM on 6-08-2006
I decided I won't pay $100 a year anymore for .Mac. Just not worth it.
Reply
hampope said 10:45PM on 6-08-2006
I won't be renewing my .Mac account this year. I'm very, very happy with GMail and how much customization I can do with Greasemonkey, etc.
Plus, GMail has never let me down when it comes to *not* losing the 8-9 paragraph e-mail you're writing to a close friend who you need to catch up with...
Unfortunately, .Mac has done that to me a couple of times, and it's twice too many.
Reply
rick said 10:45PM on 6-08-2006
I plan on moving to osx as soon as apple switches their tower G5 to intel. I simply cannot wait.
That being said, does osx allow you to use other online storage such as your own web server or ftp site with their built-in iSync for sycronization of files, address books, emails etc.?
Reply
David Chartier said 10:54PM on 6-08-2006
#13: I linked Google's Browser Sync extension IN the post
Reply
rick said 10:59PM on 6-08-2006
Ah, thanx David.
Reply
Todd Dominey said 12:53AM on 6-09-2006
When Apple announced that developers would be able to use .Mac syncing in their applications in Tiger, I had assumed there would be plenty of support in the development community. But for whatever reason, it has totally failed to take off. Bare Bones and Panic are the only two developers I know of that tap into this, when there are plenty of OS X apps that would greatly benefit from its use. Perhaps .Mac just isn't as popular as I had assumed.
Safari bookmark syncing is the only reason I subscribe to .Mac. That's how much I appreciate bookmark syncing. I simply can't operate without it. But now thanks to Google, I'll likely ditch Safari once Bon Echo becomes a reality.
Reply