I may not be with it, or hip, or up-to-date on the current feelings compelled by the zeitgeist, but I'm not at <i>all</i> interested in the Cloud features of this release. At all. In fact, its a reason for me to forget about the product - because if I know one thing, if an Apple product has cloud support, its going to be everywhere, and unavoidable. They'll be compelling me to use it at every step of the way - heck, probably its all enabled by default.<p>So what I wish I was seeing, instead, was a way for me to leave my computer online at home, and <i>still have access to my media library</i>, seamlessly, from anywhere in the world. Why is it easier for Apple to move all these features into their data center, and not just fix their operating system at the user level to make it safe, secure - and Apple-easy - to share content directly from the machine itself?<p>I've got an rPi at home, doing the job that Apple wishes I would do with its cloud. My rPi is available and accessible from anywhere on the Internet, with ease. Its got all my media that I want access to on the road .. and it works seamlessly with little fuss. If a $35 device can do that - admittedly with a modicum of tinkering on my (not in-experienced) part - then why can't a $99 'bleeding edge' operating system do it, without requiring that I just give all my content to a third party?<p>Because from where I see it, Apple, you're not competing very well with m $35 media-sharing device that just plain works.