Talk:MobileMe

Create new article?

iCloud is the next iteration of Apple's online tools, intended to replace MobileMe. MobileMe replaced .Mac which replaced iTools. Why should there be two separate articles about the same general concept? Suggest creating a new article about Apple Online Productivity Tools (or some such), and fold the iCloud and MobileMe articles into it. 24.214.238.86 (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible redirect?

I think this article should be a redirect to iCloud. Why? Because MobileMe has officially been superseded by iCloud, and there's no need for those two products to have separate articles. Also, it's just the same for iTools and .Mac: iTools has been superseded by .Mac, .Mac has been superseded by MobileMe, and MobileMe has been superseded by iCloud. Interlude65 (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No. The iCloud service is significantly different to the what precedes it in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways. For the record the other pre-MobileMe services had very bad WP pages, hence why they ended-up here in the first place. Jimthing (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect complete

Just to let you guys know, I redirected the article to iCloud because of the very reason listed in the section above. Interlude65 (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Because the name is still out there and it is regularly referred to as an Apple failure which iCloud was supposed to fix, I think this should be kept and written to show the differences between the two. Simply blanking the page and redirecting to iCloud makes as much sense as blanking and re-directing the Apple II to Macintosh. It doesn't. Lexlex (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Lexlex. Let's leave it for now ... if a lot of interest in seen in moving it after a year or something, then maybe this could be reevaluated. Just for record, I also left a message on Interlude65's talk page regarding this. Theopolisme _TALK 16:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

NO no no. We certainly don't just "leave it for now". If something has existed then it gets it's own page on WP accordingly, period. So no we don't see what happens, but leave the thing exactly where it is! Jeez there are some uneducated editors: go read the guidelines before spouting ill-informed suggestions around. Jimthing (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we please just keep this article the way it is?

Even though MobileMe is discontinued, I think that this page should still exists since some people might still want to know about MobileMe. If this would be OK, then please do not redirect to iCloud or blank and put "MobileMe is discontinued."

Thank you, –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Blanking the article and putting "MobileMe is discontinued." is pure vandalism. If you see someone doing that, please undo it. --Webclient101 (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and it has been blanked 3 times in the last 2 days. I will keep this page on my watchlist for sure. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree three. Unless people are ADDING something, just leave it alone. I've just had to re-copy/edit it for the umpteenth time, re-adding wrongly removed info done over the last 50 or so edits, as some users seem to think either 'it's irrelevant to me' or 'it's old info', 'so I'll remove it', not realising it's relevant for historical reasons! Jimthing (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Prices - why are these relevant when we have a policy like WP:NOPRICES. It is sufficient to say that the service was charged for and not list every price in every market. URLs - this is excessive detail. Wikipedia is not a directory, it is not an indiscriminate collection of info, it is not a how-to guide. How does this list add any value or understanding of the service? --Biker Biker (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Access points are of interest to people, as it's interesting as to how access was/is provided, via a mixture of subdirectory (for private) and subdomain (for public) access, in comparison to how other sites handle(d) this. For example, as a comparison, I note the newer iCloud has NO public access at all currently. These types of thing are noteworthy to those seeking to understand how URLs can/cannot be used to access account functionalities. Jimthing (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MobileMe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/669eMDg03?url=http://support.apple.com/kb/DL769 to http://support.apple.com/kb/DL769

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)