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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 3, 2014.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jun 3, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Monday, June 2, 2014 8:21:20 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2014-06-02 23:49:59 +0000, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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-challenge-dropbox-and-box-with-icloud-drive-7000030118/
    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck


    Meanwhile, 2, 3 terabyte drives cost about $150 now. Primary, back-up.
     
    RichA, Jun 3, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    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
    >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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-challenge-dropbox-and-box-with-icloud-drive-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
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
    #3
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Jun 3, 2014
    #4
  5. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    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
    >>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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-challenge-dropbox-and-box-with-icloud-drive-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
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
    #5
  6. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    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
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
    #6
  7. RichA

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Jun 3, 2014
    #7
  8. RichA

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Jun 3, 2014
    #8
  9. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    | > Cost difference to what?

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

    I wonder why so many people think they need so much
    remote access. Suddenly people have to have all of their
    files everywhere, as though they're going to edit images
    on their phone while riding a bus to work.

    I also wonder why there's no such thing as a micro-USB
    memory stick that can plug into phones and tablets, with
    an adaptor for PCs. It would be a lot easier to put those
    "must-have" files on a stick than to store them on a
    server -- either local or commercial.
     
    Mayayana, Jun 3, 2014
    #9
  10. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <lml2e5$arl$>, Mayayana
    <> wrote:

    > I wonder why so many people think they need so much
    > remote access. Suddenly people have to have all of their
    > files everywhere, as though they're going to edit images
    > on their phone while riding a bus to work.


    not just images, but just about anything, and not just on the bus, but
    just about anywhere.

    > I also wonder why there's no such thing as a micro-USB
    > memory stick that can plug into phones and tablets, with
    > an adaptor for PCs. It would be a lot easier to put those
    > "must-have" files on a stick than to store them on a
    > server -- either local or commercial.


    no it won't, because those must-have documents are constantly changing,
    which means it would be a *lot* of work to keep them all in sync on all
    devices, and that's assuming you remember to copy the needed files to
    the stick and bring it with you everywhere you go.

    cloud solves all of that.
     
    nospam, Jun 3, 2014
    #10
  11. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/3/2014 1:48 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.

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


    OK you twisted enough for me. EOD

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
    #11
  12. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/3/2014 2:00 PM, Mayayana wrote:
    > | > Cost difference to what?
    >
    > | Between using the cloud for remote access, and setting up a server for
    > | remote access.
    > |
    >
    > I wonder why so many people think they need so much
    > remote access. Suddenly people have to have all of their
    > files everywhere, as though they're going to edit images
    > on their phone while riding a bus to work.
    >
    > I also wonder why there's no such thing as a micro-USB
    > memory stick that can plug into phones and tablets, with
    > an adaptor for PCs. It would be a lot easier to put those
    > "must-have" files on a stick than to store them on a
    > server -- either local or commercial.


    That's why I haven't done a cost analysis. Dropbox, and Smug are working
    fine for me. BTW I do no processing on my iPhone. I use my laptop to
    give me something to do away from home.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
    #12
  13. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/3/2014 8:05 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> 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.
    >>


    Here is the paragraph t which I responded. Somebody changed the
    attribution.

    "> 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."
    >



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 4, 2014
    #13
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> 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?

    >
    > Savageduck.
    >
    > Read the last line of the paragraph you quoted at the head of your
    > article to which I am replying.


    he's talking about cloud storage for documents and/or syncing those
    documents among multiple devices.

    you might consider that to be remote access, but it isn't.

    remote access is a specific term that means remotely controlling
    another machine. it does not mean remotely accessing a document,
    particularly one in the cloud available to multiple devices.

    remote access is usually a separate feature, either configured on the
    other computer (not the cloud) or with remote access services such as
    logmein, gotomypc, etc.
     
    nospam, Jun 4, 2014
    #14
  15. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 12:14:57 AM UTC-4, 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 <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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-challenge-dropbox-and-box-with-icloud-drive-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.


    Are you using all Mac stuff? Because I can transfer any file between windows computers, at least. Smart phones? No, you'd need cloud for that, or the ability to get online to your own network, with some kind of service provided by your ISP. A friend has that, I don't.
     
    RichA, Jun 4, 2014
    #15
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> >> Between using the cloud for remote access, and setting up a server for
    > >> >> remote access.
    > >> >
    > >> >who said anything about remote access?
    > >>
    > >> Savageduck.
    > >>
    > >> Read the last line of the paragraph you quoted at the head of your
    > >> article to which I am replying.

    > >
    > >he's talking about cloud storage for documents and/or syncing those
    > >documents among multiple devices.
    > >
    > >you might consider that to be remote access, but it isn't.
    > >
    > >remote access is a specific term that means remotely controlling
    > >another machine. it does not mean remotely accessing a document,
    > >particularly one in the cloud available to multiple devices.
    > >
    > >remote access is usually a separate feature, either configured on the
    > >other computer (not the cloud) or with remote access services such as
    > >logmein, gotomypc, etc.

    >
    > Do a Google search on 'remote access files' and you will come up with
    > a zillion products which allow you to remotely access your computer so
    > as to access your files.
    >
    > I accept there are occasions when remote access to computers is used
    > for trouble-shooting but the vast majority of instances of remote
    > accessing are for the purpose of file access in one form or another.


    except this isn't about accessing your computer *at all*.

    the documents are in the cloud so that multiple devices can access
    them, whether it's a computer at home or one in your pocket while
    thousands of miles from home.

    the computer at home can be off for all that matters.
     
    nospam, Jun 4, 2014
    #16
  17. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <2014060321021339296-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > It was PeterN who picked up that ball and turned it into "remote
    > access". As a Mac user I have always thought of "remote access" as a
    > way of remotely accessing my Mac (or any other Mac) to control it
    > and/or access files and software available on that computer from a
    > different computer. In that sense iCloud and none of the cloud storage
    > services provide "remote access" to control the parent computer.


    it's not just macs. remote access means remotely accessing a computer,
    whether it's mac, windows, linux or whatever else. it's definitely
    useful for a lot of things.

    putting stuff in the cloud is not remote access.
     
    nospam, Jun 4, 2014
    #17
  18. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 09:53:40 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 00:42:11 -0400, nospam <>
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >In article <2014060321021339296-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

    >
    > >Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > >> It was PeterN who picked up that ball and turned it into "remote

    >
    > >> access". As a Mac user I have always thought of "remote access" as a

    >
    > >> way of remotely accessing my Mac (or any other Mac) to control it

    >
    > >> and/or access files and software available on that computer from a

    >
    > >> different computer. In that sense iCloud and none of the cloud storage

    >
    > >> services provide "remote access" to control the parent computer.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >it's not just macs. remote access means remotely accessing a computer,

    >
    > >whether it's mac, windows, linux or whatever else. it's definitely

    >
    > >useful for a lot of things.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >putting stuff in the cloud is not remote access.

    >
    >
    >
    > I understand it's intended to provide remote access to files.


    It's the problem with the terminology, there's no such thing as a local cloud mainly because the human understanbding of local is somewhere close by that can be got to easily.
    I can more quickly and easily get a file from my 'cloud' (probbaly on servers in the USA) than I can a beer out of my fridge. But my fridge is local but it takes longer to get the beer than a file.

    What we really need is someone like Jonas to explain what we mean by remote and then what we mean by access ;-)
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 4, 2014
    #18
  19. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/4/2014 12:02 AM, Savageduck wrote:

    <snip>
    >
    > It was PeterN who picked up that ball and turned it into "remote
    > access". As a Mac user I have always thought of "remote access" as a way
    > of remotely accessing my Mac (or any other Mac) to control it and/or
    > access files and software available on that computer from a different
    > computer. In that sense iCloud and none of the cloud storage services
    > provide "remote access" to control the parent computer.
    >


    In the context of setting up a server for file sharing from remote
    locations, as an alternative to using the cloud for that purpose.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 4, 2014
    #19
  20. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >That said I never actually used the words "remote access".

    >
    > I never claimed that you did. Nevertheless that is the conclusion to
    > be drawn from your statement " 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".
    > " ... access to a file ... at a remote location" certainly sounds like
    > 'remote access' to me..


    it's not remote access. it's cloud storage.

    they are two very different things although may be offered by the same
    service.

    > >>>>>> 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.

    > >
    > >...and here *nospam* is correct.

    >
    > Only in the relatively restricted world of the Mac. But not in the
    > wider world. See my reply to nospam.


    it's not just mac.

    it's for *any* system, whether it's mac, windows, linux, ios, android,
    windows phone or something else.
     
    nospam, Jun 4, 2014
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ted Rogers

    First foray into 10D high ISO setting

    Ted Rogers, Sep 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    497
    MarkH
    Sep 24, 2003
  2. cg
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,145
    Matthew L. Martin
    Sep 21, 2004
  3. Rich
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,133
  4. Telephoneman

    First Foray into Trixbox

    Telephoneman, Aug 1, 2006, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    3,369
  5. Robert R Kircher, Jr.

    First Foray into Photoshop

    Robert R Kircher, Jr., Oct 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,028
    DD (Rox)
    Oct 14, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page