Apple's foray into the "service/rental economy"

On 2014-06-02 23:21:34 +0000, RichA said:

Following in the footsteps of the odious Adobe, is Apple.
"You won't have to pay a fee until you storage space exceeds 5
gigabytes!" Is that a lot for some??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27664941

So what? For Apple users that is old news. What is new is added third
party app integration and the restoration of a few features that were
lost when me.com & iDisc were dropped almost 3 years ago.

iCloud has always provided 5 GB free and 55GB for $99.99/year. Long
before there was iCloud or Dropbox there was iDisc, and those of us who
subscribed paid $99.99/year for 20 GB we also got mac.com email
addresses. Then the iPhone came along and the iDisc/mac.com service was
made part of the iPhone environment and now renamed me.com. So we had
mac.com & me.com email IDs. Next came the world of iCloud and the
killing off of iDisc. This added an icloud.com email ID and for old
iDisc subscribers we got 18 months of 20 GB free until September last
year when that reverted to the 5GB free model. I currently have 2.8 GB
of my free iCloud space available because I choose to be frugal in its
use. If the pricing model becomes more competitive I might consider
some sort of expansion, but for now I will stick to the way things are
for me.

I have personally chosen to limit my use of iCloud, mainly due to the
loss of features that existed in iDisc & me.com. I have some apps which
use iCloud for storage, but not in an alarming way. The rest of my
Cloud storage is shared out between Dropbox 2.25 GB, Box 50 GB, and
Pogoplug 5 GB free, 1TB personal cloud device & server.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-06-02 23:49:59 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-06-02 23:21:34 +0000, RichA said:

Following in the footsteps of the odious Adobe, is Apple.
"You won't have to pay a fee until you storage space exceeds 5
gigabytes!" Is that a lot for some??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27664941

So what? For Apple users that is old news. What is new is added third
party app integration and the restoration of a few features that were
lost when me.com & iDisc were dropped almost 3 years ago.

iCloud has always provided 5 GB free and 55GB for $99.99/year. Long
before there was iCloud or Dropbox there was iDisc, and those of us who
subscribed paid $99.99/year for 20 GB we also got mac.com email
addresses. Then the iPhone came along and the iDisc/mac.com service was
made part of the iPhone environment and now renamed me.com. So we had
mac.com & me.com email IDs. Next came the world of iCloud and the
killing off of iDisc. This added an icloud.com email ID and for old
iDisc subscribers we got 18 months of 20 GB free until September last
year when that reverted to the 5GB free model. I currently have 2.8 GB
of my free iCloud space available because I choose to be frugal in its
use. If the pricing model becomes more competitive I might consider
some sort of expansion, but for now I will stick to the way things are
for me.

I have personally chosen to limit my use of iCloud, mainly due to the
loss of features that existed in iDisc & me.com. I have some apps which
use iCloud for storage, but not in an alarming way. The rest of my
Cloud storage is shared out between Dropbox 2.25 GB, Box 50 GB, and
Pogoplug 5 GB free, 1TB personal cloud device & server.

I just checked, and it seems that Apple's proposed pricing is going to
be attractive compared to Dropbox's subscription rates. 200GB for
$48/year. That isn't bad at all and is worth iOS and OSX users to
consider.

http://www.zdnet.com/apple-to-challe...ve-7000030118/


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-06-03 04:01:00 +0000, RichA said:

On Monday, June 2, 2014 8:21:20 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-02 23:49:59 +0000, Savageduck said:
On 2014-06-02 23:21:34 +0000, RichA said:
Following in the footsteps of the odious Adobe, is Apple.
"You won't have to pay a fee until you storage space exceeds 5
gigabytes!" Is that a lot for some??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27664941

So what? For Apple users that is old news. What is new is added third
party app integration and the restoration of a few features that were
lost when me.com & iDisc were dropped almost 3 years ago.
iCloud has always provided 5 GB free and 55GB for $99.99/year. Long
before there was iCloud or Dropbox there was iDisc, and those of us who
subscribed paid $99.99/year for 20 GB we also got mac.com email
addresses. Then the iPhone came along and the iDisc/mac.com service was
made part of the iPhone environment and now renamed me.com. So we had
mac.com & me.com email IDs. Next came the world of iCloud and the
killing off of iDisc. This added an icloud.com email ID and for old
iDisc subscribers we got 18 months of 20 GB free until September last
year when that reverted to the 5GB free model. I currently have 2.8 GB
of my free iCloud space available because I choose to be frugal in its
use. If the pricing model becomes more competitive I might consider
some sort of expansion, but for now I will stick to the way things are
for me.

I have personally chosen to limit my use of iCloud, mainly due to the
loss of features that existed in iDisc & me.com. I have some apps which
use iCloud for storage, but not in an alarming way. The rest of my
Cloud storage is shared out between Dropbox 2.25 GB, Box 50 GB, and
Pogoplug 5 GB free, 1TB personal cloud device & server.

I just checked, and it seems that Apple's proposed pricing is going to
be attractive compared to Dropbox's subscription rates. 200GB for
$48/year. That isn't bad at all and is worth iOS and OSX users to
consider.

http://www.zdnet.com/apple-to-challe...ve-7000030118/


Meanwhile,

2, 3 terabyte drives cost about $150 now. Primary, back-up.

However those 2 & 3 TB drives, which are suitable for on site backup
and other uses do not provide the type of file distribution between
desktop, laptop on the road and devices such as smart phones & tablets.
I can have all by work on a 3TB drive at home, but it does nothing to
give me access to a file, be it a PDF draft, or a graphics file in
progress at a remote location.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 6/3/2014 12:14 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-03 04:01:00 +0000, RichA said:

On Monday, June 2, 2014 8:21:20 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-02 23:49:59 +0000, Savageduck
said:
On 2014-06-02 23:21:34 +0000, RichA said:
Following in the footsteps of the odious Adobe, is Apple.
"You won't have to pay a fee until you storage space exceeds 5
gigabytes!" Is that a lot for some??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27664941

So what? For Apple users that is old news. What is new is added third
party app integration and the restoration of a few features that were
lost when me.com & iDisc were dropped almost 3 years ago.
iCloud has always provided 5 GB free and 55GB for $99.99/year. Long
before there was iCloud or Dropbox there was iDisc, and those of us who
subscribed paid $99.99/year for 20 GB we also got mac.com email
addresses. Then the iPhone came along and the iDisc/mac.com service was
made part of the iPhone environment and now renamed me.com. So we had
mac.com & me.com email IDs. Next came the world of iCloud and the
killing off of iDisc. This added an icloud.com email ID and for old
iDisc subscribers we got 18 months of 20 GB free until September last
year when that reverted to the 5GB free model. I currently have 2.8 GB
of my free iCloud space available because I choose to be frugal in its
use. If the pricing model becomes more competitive I might consider
some sort of expansion, but for now I will stick to the way things are
for me.

I have personally chosen to limit my use of iCloud, mainly due to the
loss of features that existed in iDisc & me.com. I have some apps which
use iCloud for storage, but not in an alarming way. The rest of my
Cloud storage is shared out between Dropbox 2.25 GB, Box 50 GB, and
Pogoplug 5 GB free, 1TB personal cloud device & server.

I just checked, and it seems that Apple's proposed pricing is going to
be attractive compared to Dropbox's subscription rates. 200GB for
$48/year. That isn't bad at all and is worth iOS and OSX users to
consider.

http://www.zdnet.com/apple-to-challe...ve-7000030118/



Meanwhile,

2, 3 terabyte drives cost about $150 now. Primary, back-up.
that
However those 2 & 3 TB drives, which are suitable for on site backup and
other uses do not provide the type of file distribution between desktop,
laptop on the road and devices such as smart phones & tablets. I can
have all by work on a 3TB drive at home, but it does nothing to give me
access to a file, be it a PDF draft, or a graphics file in progress at a
remote location.


You could set it up as a server. But, by the time you either pay for a
remote access program, ro a static IP address, my uneducated guess is
there will probably not be a significant cost difference. (I have not
priced it out.)

--
PeterN

On 2014-06-03 13:45:58 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/3/2014 12:14 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-03 04:01:00 +0000, RichA said:

On Monday, June 2, 2014 8:21:20 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-02 23:49:59 +0000, Savageduck
said:
On 2014-06-02 23:21:34 +0000, RichA said:
Following in the footsteps of the odious Adobe, is Apple.
"You won't have to pay a fee until you storage space exceeds 5
gigabytes!" Is that a lot for some??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27664941

So what? For Apple users that is old news. What is new is added third
party app integration and the restoration of a few features that were
lost when me.com & iDisc were dropped almost 3 years ago.
iCloud has always provided 5 GB free and 55GB for $99.99/year. Long
before there was iCloud or Dropbox there was iDisc, and those of us who
subscribed paid $99.99/year for 20 GB we also got mac.com email
addresses. Then the iPhone came along and the iDisc/mac.com service was
made part of the iPhone environment and now renamed me.com. So we had
mac.com & me.com email IDs. Next came the world of iCloud and the
killing off of iDisc. This added an icloud.com email ID and for old
iDisc subscribers we got 18 months of 20 GB free until September last
year when that reverted to the 5GB free model. I currently have 2.8 GB
of my free iCloud space available because I choose to be frugal in its
use. If the pricing model becomes more competitive I might consider
some sort of expansion, but for now I will stick to the way things are
for me.

I have personally chosen to limit my use of iCloud, mainly due to the
loss of features that existed in iDisc & me.com. I have some apps which
use iCloud for storage, but not in an alarming way. The rest of my
Cloud storage is shared out between Dropbox 2.25 GB, Box 50 GB, and
Pogoplug 5 GB free, 1TB personal cloud device & server.

I just checked, and it seems that Apple's proposed pricing is going to
be attractive compared to Dropbox's subscription rates. 200GB for
$48/year. That isn't bad at all and is worth iOS and OSX users to
consider.

http://www.zdnet.com/apple-to-challe...ve-7000030118/



Meanwhile,

2,

3 terabyte drives cost about $150 now. Primary, back-up.
that
However those 2 & 3 TB drives, which are suitable for on site backup and
other uses do not provide the type of file distribution between desktop,
laptop on the road and devices such as smart phones & tablets. I can
have all by work on a 3TB drive at home, but it does nothing to give me
access to a file, be it a PDF draft, or a graphics file in progress at a
remote location.


You could set it up as a server. But, by the time you either pay for a
remote access program, ro a static IP address, my uneducated guess is
there will probably not be a significant cost difference. (I have not
priced it out.)

Cost difference to what?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , PeterN
wrote:

2, 3 terabyte drives cost about $150 now. Primary, back-up.
that
However those 2 & 3 TB drives, which are suitable for on site backup and
other uses do not provide the type of file distribution between desktop,
laptop on the road and devices such as smart phones & tablets. I can
have all by work on a 3TB drive at home, but it does nothing to give me
access to a file, be it a PDF draft, or a graphics file in progress at a
remote location.

You could set it up as a server. But, by the time you either pay for a
remote access program, ro a static IP address, my uneducated guess is
there will probably not be a significant cost difference. (I have not
priced it out.)

there's a lot more to it than simply setting up a server with a remote
access program and a static ip address isn't needed anyway.

On 6/3/2014 10:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-03 13:45:58 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/3/2014 12:14 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-03 04:01:00 +0000, RichA said:

On Monday, June 2, 2014 8:21:20 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-02 23:49:59 +0000, Savageduck
said:
On 2014-06-02 23:21:34 +0000, RichA said:
Following in the footsteps of the odious Adobe, is Apple.
"You won't have to pay a fee until you storage space exceeds 5
gigabytes!" Is that a lot for some??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27664941

So what? For Apple users that is old news. What is new is added third
party app integration and the restoration of a few features that were
lost when me.com & iDisc were dropped almost 3 years ago.
iCloud has always provided 5 GB free and 55GB for $99.99/year. Long
before there was iCloud or Dropbox there was iDisc, and those of
us who
subscribed paid $99.99/year for 20 GB we also got mac.com email
addresses. Then the iPhone came along and the iDisc/mac.com
service was
made part of the iPhone environment and now renamed me.com. So we had
mac.com & me.com email IDs. Next came the world of iCloud and the
killing off of iDisc. This added an icloud.com email ID and for old
iDisc subscribers we got 18 months of 20 GB free until September last
year when that reverted to the 5GB free model. I currently have
2.8 GB
of my free iCloud space available because I choose to be frugal in
its
use. If the pricing model becomes more competitive I might consider
some sort of expansion, but for now I will stick to the way things
are
for me.

I have personally chosen to limit my use of iCloud, mainly due to the
loss of features that existed in iDisc & me.com. I have some apps
which
use iCloud for storage, but not in an alarming way. The rest of my
Cloud storage is shared out between Dropbox 2.25 GB, Box 50 GB, and
Pogoplug 5 GB free, 1TB personal cloud device & server.

I just checked, and it seems that Apple's proposed pricing is going to
be attractive compared to Dropbox's subscription rates. 200GB for
$48/year. That isn't bad at all and is worth iOS and OSX users to
consider.

http://www.zdnet.com/apple-to-challe...ve-7000030118/




Meanwhile,

2,

3 terabyte drives cost about $150 now. Primary, back-up.
that
However those 2 & 3 TB drives, which are suitable for on site backup and
other uses do not provide the type of file distribution between desktop,
laptop on the road and devices such as smart phones & tablets. I can
have all by work on a 3TB drive at home, but it does nothing to give me
access to a file, be it a PDF draft, or a graphics file in progress at a
remote location.


You could set it up as a server. But, by the time you either pay for a
remote access program, ro a static IP address, my uneducated guess is
there will probably not be a significant cost difference. (I have not
priced it out.)

Cost difference to what?


Between using the cloud for remote access, and setting up a server for
remote access.

--
PeterN

On 6/3/2014 12:16 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

2, 3 terabyte drives cost about $150 now. Primary, back-up.
that
However those 2 & 3 TB drives, which are suitable for on site backup and
other uses do not provide the type of file distribution between desktop,
laptop on the road and devices such as smart phones & tablets. I can
have all by work on a 3TB drive at home, but it does nothing to give me
access to a file, be it a PDF draft, or a graphics file in progress at a
remote location.

You could set it up as a server. But, by the time you either pay for a
remote access program, ro a static IP address, my uneducated guess is
there will probably not be a significant cost difference. (I have not
priced it out.)

there's a lot more to it than simply setting up a server with a remote
access program and a static ip address isn't needed anyway.


So. I said what could be done, not how. When talking about washing your
socks, assuming you do, nobody cares how, just whether.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

2, 3 terabyte drives cost about $150 now. Primary, back-up.
that
However those 2 & 3 TB drives, which are suitable for on site backup and
other uses do not provide the type of file distribution between desktop,
laptop on the road and devices such as smart phones & tablets. I can
have all by work on a 3TB drive at home, but it does nothing to give me
access to a file, be it a PDF draft, or a graphics file in progress at a
remote location.

You could set it up as a server. But, by the time you either pay for a
remote access program, ro a static IP address, my uneducated guess is
there will probably not be a significant cost difference. (I have not
priced it out.)

there's a lot more to it than simply setting up a server with a remote
access program and a static ip address isn't needed anyway.


So. I said what could be done, not how. When talking about washing your
socks, assuming you do, nobody cares how, just whether.

what you said could be done is not a replacement for what's being
discussed and worse, you don't even know the difference.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

3 terabyte drives cost about $150 now. Primary, back-up.
that
However those 2 & 3 TB drives, which are suitable for on site backup and
other uses do not provide the type of file distribution between desktop,
laptop on the road and devices such as smart phones & tablets. I can
have all by work on a 3TB drive at home, but it does nothing to give me
access to a file, be it a PDF draft, or a graphics file in progress at a
remote location.


You could set it up as a server. But, by the time you either pay for a
remote access program, ro a static IP address, my uneducated guess is
there will probably not be a significant cost difference. (I have not
priced it out.)

Cost difference to what?

Between using the cloud for remote access, and setting up a server for
remote access.

who said anything about remote access?

the cloud is mainly for a central repository for documents that are
kept in sync across multiple devices.

remote access is rarely, if ever part of it.