1TB of .Mac Bandwidth

[MacRumors]

MacDailyNews points out that Apple's .Mac accounts now allow up to 1TB ( terabyte ) of monthly bandwidth allocation.

Speculation points that this may corroborate a previous report that Apple is working on a new media content delivery system including feature length content and using users .Mac iDisk storage for content delivery.

 

[iHateWindows]

heeecccccckkkkk yeah!

 

[mad jew]

It's true.

 

[iMeowbot]

Well. It was true, but it appears that they changed things already. The account page for .Mac has been changed, and today a maximum bandwidth cap is no longer displayed.

At the same time, http://www.apple.com/dotmac/features.html has been revised to show that the data transfer limit advertised as 10 GB per month (it used to be 3).

It may be that someone at Apple simply mistyped a decimal point or pulled down the wrong thingy from a menu or something

Attached is the current display without bandwidth allocation listed.

 

[maya]

Maybe its removed as it will be announced at MWSF.

A pre-expo mistake, that is all.

 

[billiam0878]

Maybe they're prepping for future developments

http://thinksecret.com/news/0511contentdist.html

Cheers,
Bill

 

[asif786]

I think World Of Apple was actually the first place to break this story..

Anyway, My bet's on a garageband-like podcasting app with .mac integration

 

[eSnow]

********?

1TB is a silly amount for on-demand video. This would equal 250 DVD images or 1000 full-length feature films per month. Not even the heavies video addicts would pull that much traffic.

Therefore I call this bogus.

 

[p0intblank]

I can feel the excitement of Macworld already! Seriously, this is going to be one kick ass expo.

 

[narco]

I don't need that much. Increase the speed of the iDisk, or create a separate client so I can upload my stuff without it taking three years and freezing up my Finder.

I love you .Mac, but fix that one thing and you'll be the best.

Fishes,
narco.

 

[Norse Son]

Maybe a typo... maybe a "pre-leak"... Maybe a few .Mac accounts 'til MWSF

I don't know if this is fortells anything major or not, but I came across the same story over on MacDaily News, and they linked to a December 2nd story on Think Secret, where they "speculate" (for what that's worth) that Apple has both an UBER-mini and a .Mac-crowd on-demand service ready for MWSF. (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0511contentdist.html)

Now, because of the cost of Yonah, and even the initial Viiv platform (http://digitimes.com/systems/a20060102A6031.html), which is projected at $15-1800 for a system, I seriously doubt we'll see a Viiv-mini at MWSF.

Still, the .Mac story at Think Secret "could" make some sense of it all...

If... "IF"... it does, I hope Apple doesn't stop there. I really think they should have a .Mac Premium level ($150 a year) that allows you to preview & buy/download content from any of the International versions of the iTMS - Apple would handle the currency exchange as a "courtesy" to their .Mac Premium members.
_________________________________________________

By the way; I just checked my .Mac account and it didn't even list bandwidth/Transfer, only the Mail & iDisk allocations... Is it because I don't have a "home page" set up?

 

[hob]

I don't need that much. Increase the speed of the iDisk, or create a separate client so I can upload my stuff without it taking three years and freezing up my Finder.

I love you .Mac, but fix that one thing and you'll be the best.

Fishes,
narco.

Amen to that!

 

[Counterfit]

If... "IF"... it does, I hope Apple doesn't stop there. I really think they should have a .Mac Premium level ($150 a year) that allows you to preview & buy/download content from any of the International versions of the iTMS - Apple would handle the currency exchange as a "courtesy" to their .Mac Premium members.

Licenses would prevent them from doing that.

 

[elmerfudd]

.mac speed

I don't need that much. Increase the speed of the iDisk, or create a separate client so I can upload my stuff without it taking three years and freezing up my Finder.

I love you .Mac, but fix that one thing and you'll be the best.

Fishes,
narco.

if you don't mind purchasing shareware, you can always use Transmit from Panic Software. It's mainly an ftp tool but works very well with Apple's network stuff including Bonjour and iDisk...it's certainly faster than Mac OS X 10.3 when dealing with .Mac

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

How can anyone vote negative for this? Its positive in every single way, granted that it is real of course, but hey, its a rumorsite.

 

[LimeiBook86]

This would be nice if it was true but, I don't think I could ever use up that much bandwidth...but, hey I don't care. Just gives me more bragging rights, hahaha.

I did check my account settings but, I didn't see anything about bandwidth like there was before. Maybe this is just another tease before Macworld...haha

 

[narco]

if you don't mind purchasing shareware, you can always use Transmit from Panic Software. It's mainly an ftp tool but works very well with Apple's network stuff including Bonjour and iDisk...it's certainly faster than Mac OS X 10.3 when dealing with .Mac

Actually, Transmit is the only Shareware I have ever purchase. I usually do access my iDisk through Transmit, but I would prefer something that was integrated with the Finder. That's just how I roll.

Fishes,
narco.

 

[illegalprelude]

I don't need that much. Increase the speed of the iDisk, or create a separate client so I can upload my stuff without it taking three years and freezing up my Finder.

I love you .Mac, but fix that one thing and you'll be the best.

Fishes,
narco.

'ok. thank god. im not the only one. Lord putting a 10MB video into my .Mac account can sometime take forever. come the hell on. Most of these services should be free anyways

 

[Will_reed]

.mac accounts for podcasts maybe??? that would be awsome

 

[aspro]

1TB is a silly amount for on-demand video. This would equal 250 DVD images or 1000 full-length feature films per month. Not even the heavies video addicts would pull that much traffic.

Therefore I call this bogus.

Well, having more than neccesary is what they would want. I mean I would be mighty pissed if my service died only because they went stingy on the bandwidth.