Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #1288 > unrolled thread

OS X and the iToy ecosystem

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  OS X and the iToy ecosystem AES <siegman@stanford.edu> - 2011-04-15 07:03 -0700
    Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2011-04-15 09:58 -0500
      Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-15 16:37 -0400
    Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 08:12 -0700
      Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem AES <siegman@stanford.edu> - 2011-04-15 11:10 -0700
      Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-15 16:38 -0400
        Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-15 17:54 -0400
        Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 14:56 -0700
          Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-15 19:27 -0400
            Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 22:32 -0700
              Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com> - 2011-04-16 10:15 +0000
              Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2011-04-16 10:42 -0500
    Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-15 11:37 -0400
      Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-15 12:51 -0400
        Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2011-04-17 17:10 +0200
          Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2011-04-17 11:29 -0500
            Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> - 2011-04-17 11:16 -0700
              Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2011-04-17 11:48 -0700
                Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2011-04-18 10:22 +0200
                  Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2011-04-18 07:44 -0500
                    Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2011-04-18 08:47 -0400
                      Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com> - 2011-04-18 14:13 +0000
                        Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2011-04-19 13:42 +0200
                        Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2011-04-19 22:12 -0400
                          Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com> - 2011-04-20 11:33 +0000
                    Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Kiraly <ggrandish@gmail.com> - 2011-04-18 15:16 -0700
                      Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-18 19:48 -0400
                        Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2011-04-19 02:58 +0000
                  Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2011-04-18 07:45 -0500
                    Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-18 10:13 -0400
                      Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2011-04-18 14:49 -0500
                    Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2011-04-18 22:53 +0000
            Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2011-04-18 10:20 +0200
          Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-17 12:37 -0400
    Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2011-04-15 17:11 -0500
    Re: OS X and the iToy ecosystem Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com> - 2011-04-16 10:15 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1288 — OS X and the iToy ecosystem

In article <4da7908a$0$25713$c3e8da3$2e0018d8@news.astraweb.com>
(which was part of the "Re: OS X Lion - breakdown of features, changes - 
appleinsider" thread),
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> What it boils down to is that Apple is moving OS-X to the iToys support [role]
> and away from commercial/business use.  They probably see bigger market
> for home entertainment than for office stuff. 
>

God, I hope this is not true!  But it could very possibly be the case -- 
and if it were true, that single step would destroy Steve Jobs' stature 
and reputation for every innovative contribution he's ever made.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1291

In article 
<siegman-7CA871.07032315042011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>,
 AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:

> In article <4da7908a$0$25713$c3e8da3$2e0018d8@news.astraweb.com>
> (which was part of the "Re: OS X Lion - breakdown of features, changes - 
> appleinsider" thread),
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > What it boils down to is that Apple is moving OS-X to the iToys support 
> > [role]
> > and away from commercial/business use.  They probably see bigger market
> > for home entertainment than for office stuff. 
> 
> God, I hope this is not true! 

Please. JF Mezei is notorious around here for his silly Apple 
doom-and-gloom prophecies, which never seem to come true.

> But it could very possibly be the case -- 

It could also very possibly *not* be the case. 

In fact, I'd wager a bet that it's very *probably* not the case. 

You guys seem to think that supporting iOS customers and supporting 
commercial business customers are exclusive things. They never have 
been. Apple has plenty of room to play in that gray area. Just because 
they shift a little bit to one side or the other doesn't mean one side 
or the other won out. If you think that way, you completely 
misunderstand what makes Apple tick.

> and if it were true, that single step would destroy Steve Jobs' stature 
> and reputation for every innovative contribution he's ever made.

I'm curious what makes you think, after Apple's stellar track record 
regarding making the majority of the right moves at the right times, 
they would go and do such a thing...

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1311

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Please. JF Mezei is notorious around here for his silly Apple 
> doom-and-gloom prophecies, which never seem to come true.


You have short term thinking. When you see an interview on youtube where
steve jobs says he is not interested in the business market because it
is hard to break into (aka: their type of hype marketing doesn't work on
business market), followed by wdithdrawal from server market with a push
to convert "mac mini" into HOME servers, and then you look at
Lion-server and the changes that are apparently coming to it, a
path/trend emerges.




>> But it could very possibly be the case -- 
> It could also very possibly *not* be the case. 


Apple is perhaps one of the best companies in the world with regards to
communications. They leak what they want the whole world to know. Apple
is an expert in ensuring the world knows the message.

If I misinterpret that Apple is leaving the business market, it is
because Apple has made a PR mistake. And Apple doesn't make PR mistakes.

Decisions to leave a market are made, but they take years to implement.
Just because you haven't seen enough concrete actions to confirm it, it
doesn't mean that the message isn't clear and the trend already started.

> You guys seem to think that supporting iOS customers and supporting 
> commercial business customers are exclusive things.


There comes a point where GUI decisions may be good for home use but not
for business use. (for instance, automatically opening a document when
you start an application, thsi is terrible for business because it may
cause the docuument's dates to be "touched" especial;ly if you
mistakently type into the window.

If you've emailed the contract to customers, and yoru copy has since
changed because of that "auto open" thing, then this is very bad for
business.

But this "auto open" is great for marketing when targetting homes or
aunts/grand mothers who don't know about documents, computers.

Removing NFS/FTP doesn't really affect homes, but it affects business.


So while it is true that one can get a machine that ahs both business
and home uses, and OS-X has, until now, been most excellent at doing
both, the emphasis seems to have sifted towards the home market and
dropping business aspects.



> or the other won out. If you think that way, you completely 
> misunderstand what makes Apple tick.

If I misunderstand what makes Apple tick, it is Apple's fault.  Its
message to me has been very very clear: they are not interested in the
business market. I really wish I could find Steve's Jobs youtube
interview on the matter.  And recent decisions echo perfectly what Jobs
has said.


> I'm curious what makes you think, after Apple's stellar track record 
> regarding making the majority of the right moves at the right times, 
> they would go and do such a thing...

If the "back to mac" policy and policy to focus on homes at expense of
business ends up with terrible upgrade stats for Lion, then it will be
because someone at Apple misread the market (or it was a premature
decision).

Hopefully for Apple, you are right and I am the only one in the world to
 have misread Apple's message and Lion will be a roaring success.

And if few businesses who do use MACs upgrade, it will only re-enforce
Jobs' argument that it isn't worth being in the business market.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1293

AES <siegman@stanford.edu> writes:

> In article <4da7908a$0$25713$c3e8da3$2e0018d8@news.astraweb.com>
> (which was part of the "Re: OS X Lion - breakdown of features, changes - 
> appleinsider" thread),
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > What it boils down to is that Apple is moving OS-X to the iToys support [role]
> > and away from commercial/business use.  They probably see bigger market
> > for home entertainment than for office stuff. 
> >
> 
> God, I hope this is not true!  But it could very possibly be the
> case -- 

Anything _could_ be the case, I suppose.  Apple _could_ be dropping OS X
entirely, with the intention of shipping with Windows instead starting
next week.  But they aren't.

As far as this particular thing - there is zero evidence for it at 
this time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1308

> > > What it boils down to is that Apple is moving OS-X to the iToys support 
> > > and away from commercial/business use.  They probably see bigger market
> > > for home entertainment than for office stuff. 

> > God, I hope this is not true!  But it could very possibly be the
> > case -- 

> Anything _could_ be the case, I suppose.  Apple _could_ be dropping OS X
> entirely, with the intention of shipping with Windows instead starting
> next week.  But they aren't.
> As far as this particular thing - there is zero evidence for it at 
> this time.

I certainly hope that you, as the first responder to this posted 
concern, are correct (the 2nd and 3rd responders are not nearly as 
sanguine about the future).  

And in any case, Apple is clearly building an ever increasing and 
tightening network of interconnections to the iToy devices into its 
entire repertoire of apps for OS X.

Even if this isn't a precursor of worse things to come, it still, in and 
of itself, makes those apps more complex and their interfaces more 
cluttered and difficult to learn for those of us who just want to 
continue to enjoy "insanely great" Mac and OS X hardware and software, 
totally independent of any of the iOS devices.

And the fact that Apple has obviously already begun using its power to 
block access to that garden to censor things it doesn't want in there, 
despite the resulting embarrassment, is evidence at least of how serious 
they are about this control, and about their commercial investment in 
the iToys world.

If Apple's primary corporate focus becomes -- or has already become -- 
the cultivation and extensive commercial exploitation of that iOS walled 
garden, that just can't be good news for those of us who will want to 
remain in the original, open OS X world that Jobs built.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1312

Doug Anderson wrote:

> Anything _could_ be the case, I suppose.  Apple _could_ be dropping OS X
> entirely, with the intention of shipping with Windows instead starting
> next week.  But they aren't.

Apple isn't dropping OS-X. Remember that IOS is also OS-X.  What is
changing is the merging of IOS into OS-X to make the two more alike.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1315

On 2011-04-15 4:38 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> Doug Anderson wrote:
>
>> Anything _could_ be the case, I suppose.  Apple _could_ be dropping OS X
>> entirely, with the intention of shipping with Windows instead starting
>> next week.  But they aren't.
>
> Apple isn't dropping OS-X. Remember that IOS is also OS-X.  What is
> changing is the merging of IOS into OS-X to make the two more alike.


You're getting more and more pathetic by the post...



-- 
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1316

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:

> Doug Anderson wrote:
> 
> > Anything _could_ be the case, I suppose.  Apple _could_ be dropping OS X
> > entirely, with the intention of shipping with Windows instead starting
> > next week.  But they aren't.
> 
> Apple isn't dropping OS-X.

I agree.  Just like they aren't changing Os X to iOS.

> Remember that IOS is also OS-X. 

There is no sensible way to interpret that statement that is true.

> What is
> changing is the merging of IOS into OS-X to make the two more alike.

There is no sign of this.  There is a sign that they are taking tools
that users have found useful in iOS and making them available on the
Desktop.  

So what?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1320

Doug Anderson wrote:

>> Remember that IOS is also OS-X. 
> 
> There is no sensible way to interpret that statement that is true.

Then you have no knowledge of IOS. IOS is OS-X at its core. It has a
different GUI interface and processes. But the core is OS-X.  If you
have a jailbroken iphone, you can ssh to it and see for yourself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1327

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:

> Doug Anderson wrote:
> 
> >> Remember that IOS is also OS-X. 
> > 
> > There is no sensible way to interpret that statement that is true.
> 
> Then you have no knowledge of IOS. IOS is OS-X at its core. It has a
> different GUI interface and processes. But the core is OS-X.  If you
> have a jailbroken iphone, you can ssh to it and see for yourself.

I think what you mean is that both are GUIs built on top of unix.

But they are still different GUIs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1333

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:
> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> 
>> Doug Anderson wrote:
>> 
>>>> Remember that IOS is also OS-X. 
>>> 
>>> There is no sensible way to interpret that statement that is true.
>> 
>> Then you have no knowledge of IOS. IOS is OS-X at its core. It has a
>> different GUI interface and processes. But the core is OS-X.  If you
>> have a jailbroken iphone, you can ssh to it and see for yourself.
> 
> I think what you mean is that both are GUIs built on top of unix.

That too. But iOS IS OS X.

> But they are still different GUIs.

And?

-- 
this is not a signture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1345

In article <82d3kmn4lr.fsf@ethel.the.log>,
 Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:

> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> 
> > Doug Anderson wrote:
> > 
> > >> Remember that IOS is also OS-X. 
> > > 
> > > There is no sensible way to interpret that statement that is true.
> > 
> > Then you have no knowledge of IOS. IOS is OS-X at its core. It has a
> > different GUI interface and processes. But the core is OS-X.  If you
> > have a jailbroken iphone, you can ssh to it and see for yourself.
> 
> I think what you mean is that both are GUIs built on top of unix.
> 
> But they are still different GUIs.

Not just the UI - much of the same APIs and frameworks are there. iOS is 
based on Mac OS X.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1295

In article 
<siegman-7CA871.07032315042011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>,
 AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:

> In article <4da7908a$0$25713$c3e8da3$2e0018d8@news.astraweb.com>
> (which was part of the "Re: OS X Lion - breakdown of features, changes - 
> appleinsider" thread),
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > What it boils down to is that Apple is moving OS-X to the iToys support 
> > [role]
> > and away from commercial/business use.  They probably see bigger market
> > for home entertainment than for office stuff. 
> 
> God, I hope this is not true!  But it could very possibly be the case -- 
> and if it were true, that single step would destroy Steve Jobs' stature 
> and reputation for every innovative contribution he's ever made.

And he'll be crying big crocodile tears all the way to the bank over his 
loss of 'stature and reputation'.

- Desktops are dead. (That's not just _my_ conclusion.)
- Laptops are dying.
- All hail the iThingy! The next 'Computer For The Rest of Us'.  :\

Apple will keep the Mac on life support only as long as it is necessary 
to support iOS and iThingies. Dropping corporate server hardware was 
just the first step in pulling the plug. The Mac Pro is next.

(And PLEASE, iToys run Android or Windows. Real, functioning, useful 
mobile devices, aka iThingies, run iOS.  ;)  )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1299

On 2011-04-15 11:37 AM, Fred Moore wrote:

> - Desktops are dead. (That's not just _my_ conclusion.)
> - Laptops are dying.

from 2009 to 2010:

Mac desktops: 43% increase in $ sales.
Mac laptops : 18% increase in $ sales.

> - All hail the iThingy! The next 'Computer For The Rest of Us'.  :\
>
> Apple will keep the Mac on life support only as long as it is necessary
> to support iOS and iThingies. Dropping corporate server hardware was
> just the first step in pulling the plug. The Mac Pro is next.

Sure.  A business worth over $17B in 2010 that grew 26% from 2009 and is 
26% of the total Apple business.  Maybe that's why they keep introducing 
new lap/desktops...

As to the Mac Pro, if they drop it it will be because laptops and iMac's 
have become so powerful in real terms that the appetite for the Pro will 
be limited to a very few specialized needs.  The iMac i7 Quad core, with 
up to 16 GB memory packs a lot of punch.  More than a Mac Pro of just a 
few years ago.

So if they drop the Mac Pro, they will likely issue an iMac or Mac Mini 
with a lot more punch but a smaller, less growth oriented "PC box".

As to servers, it's a commodity market where there is competition 
outside the Apple walls that businesses can't ignore on an immediate 
capital outlay basis.

-- 
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1382

In article <2JednZAWHdE26jXQnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> As to servers, it's a commodity market where there is competition 
> outside the Apple walls that businesses can't ignore on an immediate 
> capital outlay basis.

The server market is not just a commodity market, though that does make 
up a significant chunk of it.

Oracle and Cisco are now making moves into the server market, and then 
there are all the cloud offerings from Amazon, Google, VMware, 
Microsoft, none of whom have been hardware suppliers in the past (OK 
VMware belongs to EMC now).

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1383

In article <paul.nospam-2DF221.17102417042011@pbook.sture.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> In article <2JednZAWHdE26jXQnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> 
> > As to servers, it's a commodity market where there is competition 
> > outside the Apple walls that businesses can't ignore on an 
> > immediate capital outlay basis.
> 
> The server market is not just a commodity market, though that does 
> make up a significant chunk of it.
> 
> Oracle and Cisco are now making moves into the server market, and 
> then there are all the cloud offerings from Amazon, Google, VMware, 
> Microsoft, none of whom have been hardware suppliers in the past (OK 
> VMware belongs to EMC now).

And some kind of cloud service probably pending from Apple, given that 
they have built a new giant data center in the past year and may be 
building another one, IIRC.  Whether they are positioning themselves to 
do some kind of enterprise cloud service remains to be seen.

Funny that the PC revolution has come full circle and is now looking 
more and more like the old IBM model of terminals on a mainframe.  If 
you keep thinking different long enough, I guess you end up back where 
you started...

-- 
"It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may
judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their 
own liberty ‹ to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who 
are poorer or weaker than themselves."  Samuel Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1391

In article <timmcn-0F3A78.11294117042011@news.iphouse.com>, Tim
McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> In article <paul.nospam-2DF221.17102417042011@pbook.sture.ch>,
>  Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> 
> > In article <2JednZAWHdE26jXQnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > As to servers, it's a commodity market where there is competition 
> > > outside the Apple walls that businesses can't ignore on an 
> > > immediate capital outlay basis.
> > 
> > The server market is not just a commodity market, though that does 
> > make up a significant chunk of it.
> > 
> > Oracle and Cisco are now making moves into the server market, and 
> > then there are all the cloud offerings from Amazon, Google, VMware, 
> > Microsoft, none of whom have been hardware suppliers in the past (OK 
> > VMware belongs to EMC now).
> 
> And some kind of cloud service probably pending from Apple, given that 
> they have built a new giant data center in the past year and may be 
> building another one, IIRC.  Whether they are positioning themselves to 
> do some kind of enterprise cloud service remains to be seen.
> 
> Funny that the PC revolution has come full circle and is now looking 
> more and more like the old IBM model of terminals on a mainframe.  If 
> you keep thinking different long enough, I guess you end up back where 
> you started...

MobileMe already provides the "cloud service", but it is probably going
to be expanded.

-- 
Spenser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1395

In article <170420111116276655%dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid>,
 sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:

> MobileMe already provides the "cloud service", but it is probably going 
> to be expanded.

Or maybe replaced.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1421

In article <michelle-6CB5B0.11485817042011@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <170420111116276655%dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid>,
>  sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > MobileMe already provides the "cloud service", but it is probably going 
> > to be expanded.
> 
> Or maybe replaced.

The name MobileMe doesn't convey the cloud image to me.  I'd expect at 
least a rebranding exercise.

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1429

On 11-04-18 3:22 AM, Paul Sture wrote:

> The name MobileMe doesn't convey the cloud image to me.  I'd expect at 
> least a rebranding exercise.

How about calling it .Mac?

(Yes, I know that would be stupid considering how many non-Mac users are
potential customers).

Cheers,

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps

csiph-web