Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Another Death in the Cloud As Apple Kills Off iWork

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the ways-of-knowing dept.

Chrome 134

Google is retiring the iGoogle page, but on a much shorter time scale, Apple is shutting down an iService of its own: the cloud-storage site iWork.com (linked to Apple's office apps suite iWork) is slated to go offline at the end of this month. Says the article, over at SlashCloud: "As of that date, 'you will no longer be able to access your documents on the iWork.com site or view them on the Web,' reads Apple’s note on the matter, followed by a recommendation that anyone with documents on iWork download them to the desktop." Both of these announcements remind me why I covet local storage for documents and the ability to set my own GUI prefs.

cancel ×

134 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Apple products don't work (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40555897)

Makes sense as they are a consumer brand and not targeting the workplace.

Re:Apple products don't work (4, Insightful)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#40557483)

Makes sense as they are a consumer brand and not targeting the workplace.

I guess the -1 means apple fanboys thought you were trying to slander the company. Funny thing is, Apple will be the first to tell you this. Just as they told me that very thing when we were trying to bring in servers to support ipads and macbooks that some folks in the company had purchased.

Re:Apple products don't work (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#40557759)

Makes sense as they are a consumer brand and not targeting the workplace.

And we all know consumers never work.

Re:Apple products don't work (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#40558517)

Why did this get marked down? Has nobody been watching since Cook took the big chair? Turning FCP into iMovie pro, dragging ass when it comes to updating the pro line (and when they did it was still behind the curve BAD), killing the server line, its pretty damned obvious that while Jobs liked the idea that "The movies are made on Apple products" that Cook? He really don't give a shit.

Mark my words within 2 years the pro line will be quietly canned, probably with some press release stating the iPad is the new Pro tool or some such BS, and the line will be trimmed down to maybe 2 Macbooks and a couple of iMacs and that's it. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Cook exits X86 altogether, its just not nearly as high margin as mobile and its controlled by Intel and NOT Apple which has never set well with Apple.

Frankly when Intel slit Nvidia's throat on the chipset business i figured it was the beginning of the end for Apple X86, Apple and Nvidia had a nice relationship and Intel just killing it like that couldn't have made any friends at Cupertino. Then you look into Cook's past, how he likes to lock parts up with multiyear contracts so they know what is coming when and how much and having their X86 line dictated by Intel must not sit nice with them. They should have went with AMD where they would have had more pull but seeing what Apple has been doing in the pro line I have a feeling Cook will just wash his hands of X86 completely instead.

Is this really a "death"? (3, Informative)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 2 years ago | (#40555931)

Seems like they're just moving their online document storage service from iWork.com to iCloud. It's not like iDrive, where they killed it and offered no replacement.

Re:Is this really a "death"? (4, Informative)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40556105)

Except that they are retiring "real" cloud storage like iDisk and only allowing documents... going in the exact opposite direction of Google which moved from only allowing Google Office documents to allowing real cloud storage of all types of files.

It's a weird direction they are going... by getting rid of iDisk they are doing the exact opposite of Google, dropbox, and everyone else.

Re:Is this really a "death"? (5, Insightful)

egranlund (1827406) | about 2 years ago | (#40556315)

Except that they are retiring "real" cloud storage like iDisk and only allowing documents... going in the exact opposite direction of Google which moved from only allowing Google Office documents to allowing real cloud storage of all types of files.

It's a weird direction they are going... by getting rid of iDisk they are doing the exact opposite of Google, dropbox, and everyone else.

I think their overall strategy is to move away from the filesystem model since the iPad doesn't expose it to you at all for simplicity, etc. Retiring a service like this makes sense if you keep that in mind.

Doesn't make me want to use it, but that's not the only reason :P

Re:Is this really a "death"? (2)

cusco (717999) | about 2 years ago | (#40556745)

move away from the filesystem model

OK, perhaps I'm just ignorant because I don't use any i-stuff, but what the heck are they going to replace it with? Since your post is marked Score: 4, Insightful it's probably correct, but I'm a bit mystified. It makes even less sense to me than MS doing way with the Start button.

Re:Is this really a "death"? (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 2 years ago | (#40556963)

The model they are moving to is one where iCloud contains all your stuff, so local storage needs are negligible. Everything is accessible from everywhere.

What makes less sense is the file system (4, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#40556977)

but what the heck are they going to replace it with?

You go into an app, and see the list of documents that go with that app.

Or you receive a type of document in email (or by a dropbox app) and select an application that can open a document of that type.

The file system is horribly, horribly confusing to non-technical people. If you really want to bring computing to the masses, the file system must go. I'm not sure if what Apple is doing is the best approach but the computer industry HAS to try something else.

Re:What makes less sense is the file system (1)

demachina (71715) | about 2 years ago | (#40557191)

I seriously doubt user confusion with file systems is the reason. Most people who've grown up with computers basically understand files.

Are you sure the real reason for depracating general purpose file systems is you need to do it to sandbox apps from one another. There is a legitimate security concern in letting apps look at or modify files that don't belong to them.

Re:What makes less sense is the file system (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40558229)

I seriously doubt user confusion with file systems is the reason. Most people who've grown up with computers basically understand files.

Well files, yes. I mean, they understand that Word Document 1 is separate from Document 2, and has a different name, and different contents. That's kind of like understanding files.

But a large percentage of computer users don't understand the filesystem. (And I don't mean that in the volume-format-structure sense.) Most people don't understand how to navigate to Document 1 in Windows Explorer or the Finder (or whatever) unless it's right there on the desktop. (They do understand how to find it in the Open File dialog, though--because they don't understand that the Open File dialog shows them the exact same thing as Explorer, because it looks totally different and starts from a totally different point) They don't know what a directory is (though they're able to recognize a "folder" if you point at its icon and ask them) or why they might make and use them on their own (though they can make one in an instant if you tell them to.) They don't understand the why sometimes files are moved and sometimes they are copied, they don't understand what a path is, and they don't always understand why deleting a file found in a search deletes that file from the filesystem as well.

For most people, the combination of the Desktop and the My Documents folder are the filesystem, because that's the only two nodes in the structure that they can reliably find. (And My Documents only exists in the Open File dialog!)

Re:What makes less sense is the file system (3, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | about 2 years ago | (#40558431)

On Windows those tend to be the only two places most users need to find. Most users can create folders in those places, understand the concept of folders, and of folders within folders. At that point they understand file systems even if they don't understand the arcane specifics of all the other places different OS's keep files.

No doubt Apple did this because it is simpler for users, but its a simple fact they had to do it that way
because the OS and every app is sandboxed, and you don't really want general purpose file browsers or access to the whole file system when everything is sandboxed. It dramatically enhances security and maintainability if no user or app can get to the operating system's files, and apps can't get to each others files unless they go through carefully controlled protocols.

There is nothing stopping apps from having file systems of their own and subjecting users to them, Dropbox certainly does.

Re:What makes less sense is the file system (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40560251)

Most users do not create folders in those places, understand the concept of folders, or of folders within folders. At that point, they MIGHT begin to understand filesystems, but many of them do not ever reach that point.

I can't count the number of times I've sat down to support someone's desktop to find a giant bukkake festival of files literally covering the entire visible desktop, or the "My Documents" folder to be a giant mess of hundreds of raw files with no organization or sense to them.

You're right about sandboxing - that's part of the driving force behind this. But the obfuscation of the file system, even if it didn't confer security benefits, would STILL be a net-good for the average user. They don't keep things organized, they don't keep things filed, and they generally end up with 27 copies of every file they've ever created strewn all over their desktop & my documents folder, because they don't understand how to organize their files well.

Letting the app manage filesystem interactions for you is a good thing, for 95+% of users. Needing direct access to the filesystem is a geek need, and even there, it's not as necessary as we like to think it is, except to satisfy some bizarre feeling that we "need to control" this stuff.

Re:What makes less sense is the file system (1)

schnell (163007) | about 2 years ago | (#40558501)

I seriously doubt user confusion with file systems is the reason.

I know the plural of "anecdote" is not "data," but both my parents and my in-laws have a file system of "about a zillion files on the desktop." Other people in my family can't find files they have downloaded because they have no idea that they should navigate to a User => Downloads folder. I would be willing to wager that a significant (>50%?) of consumer PC users have a similar lack of comfort or familiarity with what the rest of us consider to be a filesystem arrangement.

Re:What makes less sense is the file system (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40557751)

"If you really want to bring computing to the masses"

Ummm, pretty sure the "masses" have had computers with file systems for years now.

Re:What makes less sense is the file system (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40557801)

And it it works, then 5 years from now everyone else will copy the model and Fandroids will talk about how completely obvious it was all along.

Re:What makes less sense is the file system (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#40557941)

If you really want to bring computing to the masses, the file system must go.

I hate to crank out the old meme, but the 1990's called and they want their computer ownership statistics back.

In the UK, 75% of households have a computer. By any definition, the masses do have computers with warts, filesystems and all.

No they do not (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#40560293)

In the UK, 75% of households have a computer. By any definition, the masses do have computers with warts, filesystems and all.

Just because they have them does not mean they use them with great regularity, or without difficulty.

Also I beg to differ on these computers "having filesystems". What MOST of them have is a Desktop, and that is it - because that's where people put EVERY file.

Which means they lose tons of stuff...

This is not giving people access to the powers computers promise. It is tricking them into placing valuable memories where they can be easily destroy and then you laughing at them for being "stupid".

Re:What makes less sense is the file system (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 2 years ago | (#40558351)

If you really want to bring computing to the masses...

Any teen-aged kid on the subway is likely to be carrying more computing power in his hip pocket than NASA had in toto at its disposal for the first Moon landing.

You were saying...?

Re:What makes less sense is the file system (1)

cusco (717999) | about 2 years ago | (#40558377)

So let's just look at the project that I'm working on right now. It's part of a larger project, so my part is a sub-folder. I have spreadsheets, docs, text files, screen shots, a Visio template, some config files, and a folder with a set of firmware versions for the various pieces of hardware I'm working with. All the pieces that I need are in one spot where I can find them and update if need be. If the PM wants to combine some of my info with my co-irker who's working on another part of the project he can find both sets of project data easily. The main problem that I have seen with file systems is shared files getting out of synch.

Maybe I'm near sighted, but a big honking pile of files without any structure to them looks like a frelling disaster in the making to me. The hiarchical tree structure works and is fairly intuitive, which is why people on their own will create similar structures in their email, documents, paper filing system, and the like.

select an application that can open a document of that type

Having had to reassociate apps with file types numerous times in the past I can only hope that they somehow figure out how to do it right this time. So far no one that I have seen has, and Unix-based OSs with no extensions on their files don't seem to be doing it any better. I'm not looking forward to the day when Acrobat decides that it should be the default app for Word docs.

Re:What makes less sense is the file system (2)

mfnickster (182520) | about 2 years ago | (#40558561)

The interfaces for navigating the file system are horribly, horribly confusing to non-technical people.

There, FTFY.

There's nothing confusing about a hierarchical list of folders. People have no problem intuitively understanding that concept. Where they run into problems is clunky "Explorer" or "Finder" browser windows that show them too many options and too much information.

The classic Mac HFS file system was clunky, but it was dead easy to understand. You could put any file or folder pretty much anywhere you wanted, as long as you left the System Folder alone.

Somewhere along the line, overcomplexity wrecked the simple file system interface and made it "horribly, horribly confusing" in the name of feature-itis.

Really... what are they going to replace it with? (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 2 years ago | (#40558953)

The file system is horribly, horribly confusing to non-technical people

Moving away from the file system is horribly confusing to me. When folks build up a collection of hundreds of documents and want to keep them well-organized, they drag them into folders. What's so confusing about that, especially when done using a pretty GUI? It's a great metaphor for how non-technical people keep real-world paper documents organized. If anyone has implemented a superior organizational concept, I haven't noticed.

You go into an app, and see the list of documents that go with that app.

Terrible! I want to see my collection of folders and documents in the glory of its full entirety, not filtered by whatever app I may in at the time. At the very least, I need to know what volume the documents are stored on, so I know whether they've been backed up. (And so I know which cloud service to blame when they disappear, get corrupted, get compromised, etc.)

How about we educate the masses about the power of the file system, instead of dumbing down the interface and snatching that power away from techies and non-techies alike. That's a huge step backwards.

Re:Really... what are they going to replace it wit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40560287)

*sigh* Do you understand that the "actual implementation into files, folders, and hierarchy" need not be an ACTUAL HIERARCHY OF ACTUAL DIRECTORY ENTRIES on disk, but could instead be stored in a more secure, more easily indexed, and more flexible fashion (such as a db filesystem), but present to the user as a sequence of folders, or other similar "organizational" metaphor?

This allows for things like multiple paths to the same file, based on metadata about the file, instead of a situation where you end up with about 70 copies of the same file strewn all over your "nice neat" metaphor like filesystem bukkake.

It's like you've never heard of the motherfucking MVC pattern. Jesus christ.

Re:Is this really a "death"? (1)

ajo_arctus (1215290) | about 2 years ago | (#40557271)

It's pretty simple really: You open an app, you get a list of your documents that have been created in or imported in to that app. If you get an attachment you want to open, it offers apps that are registered for that file type. There's no browsing of disks or folders. It's up to the individual apps to let you group and sort documents by metadata (which will be tailored to the type of data the app deals in, of course). It works pretty well, even if there are some frustrating limitations.

The cloud part is (or should be) transparent -- you open Pages on one device and create a document. Next time you open Pages on another device, it should be there as if by magic. It's still early days, and they haven't got it right yet, but they're working pretty hard on this stuff.

You can very easily see what they're doing. As geeks, we probably won't like it as much as the way things currently work, but it makes sense for an awful lot of use-cases, and it'll probably help them earn boatloads more money in the next decade or so. It'll also create a good deal of vendor lock-in, if they're successful.

Re:Is this really a "death"? (1)

cusco (717999) | about 2 years ago | (#40558451)

No, I won't like it at all. In my work I need to look at a whole variety of different types of data, sometimes multiple revisions of the same data, for multiple projects and/or customers. I can't see any way that a non-structured storage system is going to allow me to do that. Sometimes I need to open the same data set with multiple apps, and I don't want my computer deciding for me that since this is a .CSV file that it's going to only open in Excel and never in PFE. I'm still not seeing any advantages to the end user whose computer usage is more complex than sending a funny cat picture to their Facebok page.

Re:Is this really a "death"? (1)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about 2 years ago | (#40557275)

Since your post is marked Score: 4, Insightful it's probably correct

I wouldn't bank on that if I were you. I just had a particularly raucous joke of mine modded +3 Insightful in the last couple of days.

Re:Is this really a "death"? (2)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#40557837)

Probably they are moving towards a database structure like you have on minis and mainframes. The always on and save state features of Lion are steps in that direction. The sandboxing so that applications have to be granted specific access: i.e. App X has the right to do Y to Z, is a step in that direction. A system wide OS notification system is a step in that direction. Those types of systems are incredibly powerful. They are the reason why in mainframes you can see 75 COBOL programs acting in sequence with chains a dozen programs long, dating forking between these programs and coming back together, all automated. While on a PC you are lucky to pass data through 3 programs without something breaking.

From a user land perspective you wouldn't have application files as anything more than ways of viewing a dataset.

Re:Is this really a "death"? (1)

rockout (1039072) | about 2 years ago | (#40558131)

Since your post is marked Score: 4, Insightful it's probably correct,

You must be new here

Google revolving door (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40557359)

Google UK's privacy policy manager held a senior role at the UK's data privacy watchdog during the time of its original probe into Street View.

A freedom of information request revealed that Steven McCartney left the Information Commissioner's Office to join Google in November 2011.

The ICO had been criticised for its initial investigation - which has since reopened - into data privacy breaches.

The ICO said Mr McCartney "played no part" in the investigations.

In its own statement, Google said: "We don't comment on individual employees."

Rob Halfon, Tory MP for Harlow, told the Guardian that the news was a "shocking revelation".

"Now it seems they [the ICO] have had a cosy relationship with the company they have been investigating," he told the newspaper.

Mr McCartney was head of data protection promotion at the ICO where he had worked, according to his LinkedIn profile, since 2004.

During this time, the ICO conducted an investigation into allegations that Google had knowingly gathered personal data while collecting photographs as part of its Street View mapping project.

The ICO ruled that there had been a "significant breach" of the Data Protection Act, but opted not to fine the company, a decision heavily criticised by campaign group Privacy International and others.

Of the 2010 investigation, deputy information commissioner David Smith told the BBC: "We spent less time searching than others did. If we had searched for days and days we would have found more."

It later emerged that several Google staff had been told that data was being collected, prompting the ICO to reopen its inquiries.

After joining Google, Mr McCartney shared email correspondence with ICO officials discussing issues relating to the ongoing probe.

The documents, obtained by campaigner Peter John, showed Mr McCartney had outlined what he had said were "significant errors" in the media's reporting of the issue in an email dated 4 May 2012.

Christopher Graham, the information commissioner, responded to the email with "thanks for this, Stephen".

In a statement released today, the ICO said: "The published correspondence between Google and the ICO clearly shows that Stephen McCartney was treated like any other organisation's representative, with his emails receiving nothing more than a polite acknowledgement.

The spokesman added: "ICO employees continue to be legally bound by a confidentiality agreement after they leave the organisation, as part of the Data Protection Act.

"Stephen Eckersley, the ICO's Head of Enforcement, continues to investigate Google's actions with regard to the Street View project."

Mr Eckersley is currently considering a response to Google's most recent letter on the matter which was received by the ICO last month

Re:Is this really a "death"? (1)

DdJ (10790) | about 2 years ago | (#40557771)

Except that they are retiring "real" cloud storage like iDisk and only allowing documents...

But iWork was already "only allowing documents".

What we're giving up here isn't general-purpose-ness, but sharing-and-conversion features. Today, you can publish an iWork document via this site, send around the URL, and have people download it in iWork, Office, or PDF formats. I don't see a replacement for that yet.

(But I didn't see a replacement for MobileMe Galleries either, and there are at least two half-assed replacements for that in iCloud. So, we'll see, maybe it'll come.)

(If you have two different half-assed ways to do something, does that result in a complete ass? Hm.)

iWork migrated to iCloud (3, Informative)

enterix (5252) | about 2 years ago | (#40555937)

iWork.com was always in Beta. Documents sharing services were incorporated into iCloud thus making iWorks.com redundant.

Re:iWork migrated to iCloud (1)

DdJ (10790) | about 2 years ago | (#40557829)

Documents sharing services were incorporated into iCloud thus making iWorks.com redundant.

I cannot find the sharing services. Got a pointer?

If I sync a Pages document up to iCloud, I see how I can download it in Word, Pages, or PDF formats. But I cannot see a mechanism that lets me allow you to do so.

NOPE (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 years ago | (#40555989)

Says the article, over at SlashBI

And that's when I stopped reading.

Re:NOPE (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 years ago | (#40556143)

Ah, they amended it to SlashCloud.

Nope. Still not clicking any of those links.

Welcome to the cloud.... (5, Funny)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 2 years ago | (#40555993)

...where your important business data is as misty amd vaporous as its namesake. very eponymous if you ask me, and just as likely to evaporate.

Re:Welcome to the cloud.... (4, Funny)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#40556407)

Well, not all clouds evaporate. Sometimes, rather than evaporating, they dump their contents all over, at inconvenient times and locations.

Re:Welcome to the cloud.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40556747)

Maybe that is where those MyCleanPC ads came from. Just random dumping of people's stories with the nouns in the last few paragraphs replaced with MyCleanPC. And, just like precipitation, that cloud seems to have poured itself out, or /. deployed a better umbrella.

Re:Welcome to the cloud.... (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 years ago | (#40557065)

...and it feels like a cold shower.

Re:Welcome to the cloud.... (2)

Pausanias (681077) | about 2 years ago | (#40557159)

Joking aside, this is a big misconception many people have about cloud storage: that cloud storage is at the whim of the provider and if the provider goes poof then your data goes poof.

That is a gross misrepresentation of services like dropbox. These services mirror locally stored files on your own hard drive.

Therefore, you retain the local storage that you always wanted, but at the same time get syncing to all your devices without having to write a separate sync client for each device.

Now if you'd like to argue against cloud storage based on security, that is fine. But if high-level security is not an issue, cloud storage provides an added benefit to, rather than a replacement of, local storage.

Why it's always wise to have multiple copies (5, Informative)

JonathanCombe (642832) | about 2 years ago | (#40555995)

Just as it's not a good idea to have a single copy of your files on a single disk it's not a good idea to have a single copy of your data in "the cloud" either. Cloud storage is useful, especially when using multiple computers but it's not a substitute for local storage and backups (but does make a good off-site backup). But you have to be prepared to switch storage providers and go through all the hassle of uploading your data again if you rely on someone else to store it. If it comes to that at least having a local copy of your files means you don't have to download them first before you can upload them again.

Re:Why it's always wise to have multiple copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40560013)

Well, except that redundancy, fault tolerance, etc are all the reasons that vendors give in terms of why "cloud" is better. You're not supposed to have to worry about backups and all that because the cloud has built-in redundancy.

Reality is that redundancy is not the problem with cloud storage. The issue is that one is now at the mercy of the vendor. This is not the first time that we've seen stories of a cloud storage service/company going offline and causing havoc for the people who used it. And one has to worry about files leaking out in various ways. Yes, many vendors claim encryption, but one has to implement things such as chain-of-custody for the keys correctly or the encryption is pointless (Google, for example, wanted to single-instance storage of objects that were stored by many different users - that required that the encrypted form of an object has to be identical regardless of who stored the object - so the key for an object is derived from the content of the object - I am not 100% sure of how they associated your account with this database of keys, but it seems ripe for leaking a key somewhere).

If I have to make my own personal backups of cloud-storage on my own local storage, it greatly diminishes the utility of cloud storage.

Breaking news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40556021)

SlashBI still exists, apparently.

What? (2)

imagined.by (2589739) | about 2 years ago | (#40556031)

Both of these announcements remind me why I covet local storage for documents and the ability to set my own GUI prefs.

So using online storage negates the use of local storage? What?

Re:What? (4, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40556121)

Give all your data to them! You can *always* trust a multinational corporation to do the right thing!

Re:What? (-1, Flamebait)

gorzek (647352) | about 2 years ago | (#40556245)

Are you mentally challenged?

Re:What? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40556383)

Are you mentally challenged?

I try to be. I can see why you might prefer to avoid anything mentally challenging though. To each their own.

Re:What? (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | about 2 years ago | (#40556399)

No concept of sarcasm, eh?

Re:What? (1)

gorzek (647352) | about 2 years ago | (#40556427)

Around here, it can be difficult to tell.

Re:What? (1)

CptNerd (455084) | about 2 years ago | (#40556805)

No! Really?

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40557107)

Good god, this calls for the biggest WHOOSH I've ever seen.

Re:What? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 years ago | (#40556597)

Man, I can't even trust multinational corporations to do the right things from their own selfish profit-oriented perspective, never mind doing the right thing ethically.

Re:What? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#40556773)

I wrap all my files in tinfoil before uploading to the cloud.

Re:What? (2)

value_added (719364) | about 2 years ago | (#40556897)

Shiny side in or out?

Re:What? (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#40556943)

If you aren't polishing your tinfoil on BOTH SIDES you might as well just throw your files at the terrorists.

Good Riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40556145)

Glad to see this stupid product die. The name alone would make me suicidal if I ever had to use it.

Nothing like a blatant reminder, first thing in the morning, that you have no choice but to slave over your daily toil, when you've got a subliminal reminder found in a name like "iWork".

Icon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40556185)

Why is the chrome icon used for this story? Editors can't differentiate between Google and Apple anymore?

What will Apple use instead, iDontWork (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40556281)

Oh wait, that's a Microsoft Product.

Re: iDontWork (prior art) (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 2 years ago | (#40556995)

Oh wait, that's a Microsoft Product.

Actually, NT sounds just like "en tee" = "I don't work" or "I won't do it" in Finnish.
BTW, this is not a joke, either.

Re: iDontWork (prior art) (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 2 years ago | (#40557431)

this is not a joke, either.

well it sure wasn't funny.

Re: iDontWork (prior art) (2)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#40560071)

Actually, NT sounds just like "en tee" = "I don't work" or "I won't do it" in Finnish.

Believe it or not, Finnish sounds just like the English word for, "I'm done with this." And Nokia is starting to sound like the English word for, "I'm SO done with this." Those crazy Finns...

Well, (1, Flamebait)

Cosgrach (1737088) | about 2 years ago | (#40556319)

I for one am not surprised about this. Personally, if you are fucking stupid enough to use the 'Cloud', you deserve what you get. Someone will either steal it, or it will be deleted without authorization. Yeah, like I am going to let someone else manage my private data and documents.

Re:Well, (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#40556621)

easy access? cheaper maintenance? synced devices? continuous access?

the Cloud is fine, They're killing a redundant system, not 'getting off the cloud'.

Re:Well, (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#40556817)

I agree! Also, some idiots don't bolt their computers in fireproof boxes in their safe room with keypad access and bank vault security. Really, people need to be more careful with their data!

Re:Well, (1)

tgibbs (83782) | about 2 years ago | (#40557931)

Am I unusual in that most of my documents do not require particularly high security? Or do other people like to imagine that everybody wants to steal their stuff because it makes them feel important? And as far as deleting it, who cares? Anything of value is multiply backed up. The Cloud is just one more backup.

Summary makes it sound like less than a month (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40556335)

But Apple actually announced this back in early March [macrumors.com] , and as others have pointed out at least have a path to iCloud in place.

local storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40556363)

I believe the next wave of successful internet startups will be based on ... local storage.

What the?! (-1)

Blymie (231220) | about 2 years ago | (#40556403)

A months notice?

Bizarre. Apple usually isn't this silly.

Any quality company should give months and months notice for something like this. A year would be good.

Hell, some people's summer vacation will last longer than the whole warning period!

Burned people will remember this!

Re:What the?! (0)

tooyoung (853621) | about 2 years ago | (#40556637)

Except that this was announced 4 months ago and documents can be migrated to iCloud. But, yeah, besides that, your post is totally on the mark.

iDon'tGiveAShit (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 2 years ago | (#40556457)

The new service from AppleGoogleMicrosoft. Put your files there. Store them. Depend on them. PAY for their storage. And we'll just say bye to the whole thing when some MBA-asshole (but I repeat myself) wants to make his bonus by "saving" money this quarter.

WOULD be better if you paid (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#40557055)

The new service from AppleGoogleMicrosoft. Put your files there. Store them. Depend on them. PAY for their storage.

The reason they keep shutting down is that in fact you DON'T pay for them.

Something that exists as a loss leader is way more likely to vanish than something that makes it's own way.

That even includes something like dropbox...

It doesn't mean you shouldn't store things there though, just that you shouldn't rely on it always being there...

iCloud is a little more stable than most contenders though if only because it is the easiest way by far for people to backup iOS devices.

The Cloud and streaming (4, Interesting)

bryan1945 (301828) | about 2 years ago | (#40556477)

I got in an argument with essentially my whole class by saying that we never going to fully get rid of system in the home and probably at work. Everyone was "Keep the data in the cloud, we can stream anything all the time, all I need is my smartphone." They brushed off my security arguments, the fact that communications can go down, and you're really going to compose spreadsheets and reports on your smartphone? It was an MBA class, by the way.

Re:The Cloud and streaming (2)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 2 years ago | (#40556607)

It was an MBA class, by the way.
Why am I not surprised?

Re:The Cloud and streaming (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#40556643)

replace smartphone with 'Any god damn devices.'

The cloud doesn't have to be only one access point, it doesn't even need to be a separate company.

Re:The Cloud and streaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40556979)

the fact that communications can go down,

One amazing result of this is that even though I do not -- and never will -- use Apple's cloud storage, since file access has become cloud-aware TextEdit regularly tells me it's unable to access my files that it is currently displaying and that are on my local disk. This happens even though the text files are brief and entirely in memory, and I am not attempting to save them. I then have to duplicate the file -- which is a command in TextEdit, most likely due to them seeing this failure mode so often -- close the original file that is open and has no reason not to be editable in TextEdit, rename the duplicate file to the name I want (after moving the original) and open that file. Then, hooray, it works again until the next time TextEdit's file access fails.

Apple's move to cloud storage manages to fuck with me even though I never use it. I couldn't ask for a better warning away from relying on any of their actual cloud services.

Re:The Cloud and streaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40556989)

Well, no surprise -- it's unlikely any of them have had secure home storage. They've had Win boxes all their lives. All the security failures, all the hardware failures of their bargain boxes. So the Cloud's not perfect, but home never was either.

For them this looks no different than running their own mail server, or web server. It makes sense to offload it to a utility company.

Re:The Cloud and streaming (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 2 years ago | (#40557023)

It was an MBA class, by the way.

I don't know whether to be appalled that most of the MBA class didn't get it, or delighted that one student in the MBA class did.

How big is your class? :-P

Re:The Cloud and streaming (1)

cusco (717999) | about 2 years ago | (#40557087)

You teach MBAs? I understand the reason for your signature line, then.

Re:The Cloud and streaming (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#40557507)

So what? Anyone who says anything against web apps gets shouted down right here on Slashdot.

Re:The Cloud and streaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40557863)

Thanks to your English mistakes and missing conjunctions, I read your post aloud in a Russian accent. Accurate?

igoogle (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | about 2 years ago | (#40556655)

Feels great being one of the few who actually used igoogle. occasionally.

iDiots rejoice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40556679)

now uCan slack

No more iWork (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40556779)

Great then I'll have more time for my iHobby.

Don't sign up for iCloud (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#40556859)

Don't sign up for iCloud. They'll probably drop that, too.

"Cloud" services have short lifespans. About two to four years from startup to shutdown seems typical. Google and Microsoft have both dumped many of their online services already. Telco "cloud" services, like Sprint's PictureMail, have been dumped. Many online music services from PlaysForSure to WalMart Music collapsed. Cloud APIs don't last too long, either; Yahoo Search, Yahoo Boss, Google SOAP search, and Hoover's business search are all gone or on the way out.

The shutdowns are getting faster, too. Now, 30 days from announcement to "all your data is gone" is apparently acceptable. Don't put something in the "cloud" and go on a long trip.

Re:Don't sign up for iCloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40556915)

Except it wasn't a month (it was over four), and this was a clearly labeled beta site that they've now rolled into iCloud. iCloud is the successor to MobileMe which is the successor to .Mac which is the successor to iTools which was launched in January 2000. Apple's been at this a while.

Re:Don't sign up for iCloud (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#40557495)

The shutdowns are getting faster, too. Now, 30 days from announcement to "all your data is gone" is apparently acceptable. Don't put something in the "cloud" and go on a long trip.

A long sabattical, more likely. MobileMe's shutdown was announced over a year ago (when iCloud was announced). iWork was always a beta thing with "final pricing to come later". And I think iWork.com has been around a heck of a long time - at least a couple of years (a Google-like beta). But since it was beta, you shouldn't rely on it since it can be shut down, metamorphosed or change. After all, relying on it is akin to using the Windows 8 previews as if it was final - it's going ot shut down soon enough. Heck, wasn't there a Windows 7 open beta that managed to wipe all your media files when you run it?

Interestingly, MobileMe's sync is down (the shutdown having happened), but users can still get at their files and stuff for another month or so in case they really missed every possible announcement of its shutdown.

So iWork being shut down - not a big deal (it's really migrating to iCloud so I'd be surprised if things really changed). MobileMe was a bigger deal since people paid for it, but you had over a year, and Apple did give a couple of extensions and refused to take money for expanded MobileMe services...

Re:Don't sign up for iCloud (1)

acoustix (123925) | about 2 years ago | (#40557593)

But since it was beta, you shouldn't rely on it since it can be shut down, metamorphosed or change.

Are you implying that nonbeta cloud services will not shut down or change? That seems like a stretch.

Re:Don't sign up for iCloud (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#40557679)

4 months, actually not 30 days. And there are older cloud services.

this is like pre-cloud document folders... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40556923)

...where if you accidentally forgot to move some piece of paper from one drawer to another within some arbitrarily-announced amount of time, a guy would come into your home/office and shred it.

The success of cloud services is testament to one thing: just how unimportant most data is. The first world is a circle-jerk of pointless "service economy".

Is this really an issue? (4, Interesting)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about 2 years ago | (#40556939)

Seriously, Apple abandoning iWork is the fundamental equivalent of dropping floppy drives.

If new computers are not going to use floppy drives then you will have to transfer them to a different storage medium if you want to access the content after the fact.

Dropping an iService is equivalent to moving your content to another form of storage, whether its physical or virtual.

What would be "nice" is for Apple to provide some kind of utility or tool to make conversion easier. iWork.com should now have a button on it to zip up and download one large file of all your content rather then having to manually move individual files to your desktop. Of, zip it up and move it to Apple's new cloud storage, or convert to new Numbers/Pages/Keynote files stored in the cloud, etc. There are about a dozen ways Apple could make this easier for people rather then just cutting the power a month from now.

Its good for old services that are not used to die and allow companies to focus on providing better services people actually use. The opposite is Windows which supports every freaking hardware and software standard on the planet even if only .1% of the people use any of it. I am sure there is still code buried deep in the Windows kernel to support 8" floppy drives.

In the long run, everybody hates change, but they always seem to love the results.

Re:Is this really an issue? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#40558107)

Seriously, Apple abandoning iWork is the fundamental equivalent of dropping floppy drives.

And you know what? It was a right bloody pain that they dropped floppy drives as early as they did, because there was no credible alternative way of reliably exchanging files with people.

Re:Is this really an issue? (2)

c1t1z3nk41n3 (1112059) | about 2 years ago | (#40558549)

Yep. I remember the end of the floppy. They announced it and 30 days later removed all access to them. Your analogy sucks.

Not really a death, not really 'cloud storage'... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40557729)

It was purely a 'document sharing' service. It is BECOMING a cloud storage service via iCloud.

WTH? (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#40557731)

So apple give notice the iWork is going away, moving actually, but they mention igoogle service which wasn't even the same type of thing?

Another examples of Timothy's shining idiocy.

Who cares? (1)

detain (687995) | about 2 years ago | (#40557775)

Company drops support for old product rarely used anymore. A few people are upset. News at 11! In Google's case it seemed more that they are just still trying out different user interfaces more than dropping a product.

iCloud doesn't reduce need for local storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40557841)

Unfortunately, iCloud is simply keeping your devices in sync. All the data is stored locally on your devices and not streamed on demand. Thus you must pay the Apple tax for flash storage on all your devices.

Maybe life in the cloud is not that fluffy (3, Insightful)

dinther (738910) | about 2 years ago | (#40557929)

I have taken to cloud storage in a big way and mostly quite like the convenience of it. But increasingly I am now forced to react whenever someone sneezes in Mountain View and decides to shut down something. I was affected by Google Pages to which I had links from all over the internet. I had some software downloads on that and the new Google sites is terrible. It is not so much having to move your files. The problem is that other things depend on your process and those all are affected. In the case of my free software, I could not be bothered to move the web-pages over to my server so I just deleted the whole lot.

So, I you needed normal map correction software, Lightning fast image sharing through IM you are now missing out on my free software.

I used Buzz a little, got shutdown too. Not too much of an issue but I was considering to put effort in creating a decent following on it. Glad I didn't. Also gral I never jumped on the Google Wave bandwagon either.

However, I have used iGoogle from the moment is became available and right until today that is my control center. The default home page on all my computers.
In one view I can see my appointments, emails, slashdot, bookmarks and recent google documents. Where else can I have that?

So, now the shut that down, I am forced to change the way I do things. And this is really the tip of the iceberg. On Google+ I have a personal and business page. Growing a following takes effort and time but what if they shut that down? In a smaller sense the cloud is also starting to prove downsides.

They are forever "improving" the user interface experience. This means that from one month to the next I am never quite sure how to access my Adsense control panel or other account details. Stuff changes constantly, layouts and styles change and it affects my productivity.

There are real benefits to local software. Although unused, my old Office XP will still run on my windows 7 machine without me having to re-learn how to use the software all the time and forever hunting through menus to find back a feature that I am sure is there somewhere.

I used to blame Microsoft for never sticking to anything (Enter Silverlight) but in all honesty, their OS is remarkable. It will still run very old windows code and I think they do deserve to be recognized for that. In contrast, my new Galaxy S3 android phone will no longer run a $6 racing game I purchased for my Google Nexus One two years ago.

In short: The big providers are their own worst cloud enemy because they keep changing the platform and rules of engagement. And don't give me the "But it is free what do you expect" argument. It is not free at all. I pay for it with information about me and exposure to adverts.

Amazingly lazy post, even by Internet standards (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40558149)

Apple did NOT "kill off iWork". (The title's only 100% wrong; hey, that's not so bad, right?)

iWork is a software suite that's cruising along just fine. iWork.com – hey, a different name! – is closing down. What the post forgets (?) to add is that its functions are not going away; they're simply moving to Apple's new shared home for cloudy things, iCloud.com.

In a separate news item, Apple's MobileMe service is also closing down – but again, that's because much of it is moving to iCloud.com. (Not all of it; as others note, components like iDisk are just disappearing. They could theoretically re-emerge on iCloud, though, if Apple can finally figure out how to do all of its online services well.)

oh no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40558181)

Where am I going to store all of my bank statements and customer data? I can't store it locally on my own database that wouldn't be as secure as turning it over to Big Corp.

1993 (1)

farble1670 (803356) | about 2 years ago | (#40558277)

Both of these announcements remind me why I covet local storage for documents and the ability to set my own GUI prefs.

great, enjoy your 1993 desktop computer experience. basically, since there are a few examples of cloud services not lasting until the end of the universe, you won't use them. you did read where YOU wrote that the files can be downloaded to your desktop, right?

i'd get it if they went offline without warning, but that's not what's happening.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>