Any rumors that Apple will replace the Time Capsule?

[Undecided]

As many know, Apple will end support for Time Machine over AFP (and, therefore, backing up to Time Capsules) with macOS 27 (see, for example, https://sixcolors.com/post/2026/01/apple-is-burying-the-time-capsule-but-how-to-replace-it/). I will need a technophobe-compatible, boomer-compatible solution for easy backups of a MacBook Pro to replace it, and right now there doesn't seem to be anything. Even just periodically plugging in an external drive isn't boomer-compatible. So, are there any rumors about Apple coming out with something to replace the Time Capsule?

 

[MacGizmo]

I highly doubt it. Apple got out of the router/backup game. That being said, you can plug any external USB storage drive into most routers to accomplish the same thing.

 

[BrianBaughn]

That being said, you can plug any external USB storage drive into most routers to accomplish the same thing.

I'm not so sure about that!

 

[Grumpus]

The Synology BeeStation might be a suitable replacement. It's the subject of quite a few YouTube video reviews if you search. Although Synology seems to not mention it in their marketing materials, it can easily be set up as a Time Machine destination. Note that I'm only pointing out the existence of this device, I have no actual hands-on experience with it. EDIT: also note that the BeeStation is ethernet only, no wireless.

 

[Harddrive]

I have been using a Ugreen DXP 2800 backing my computers Mac,Windows and Linux without any issues.
I also use 2 SSD attached drives periodically for safe measures.

 

[AnInanimateCarbonRod]

I think Apple would much prefer you to pay a monthly subscription fee for iCloud storage versus a one-time cost to purchase Time Capsule hardware.

That said, if Apple ever wanted to get back into the home Wi-Fi/router game, I would absolutely throw all my money at them.

Boomer-compatible makes me think that the actual backup needs aren't complex - is there a reason why iCloud wouldn't be good enough? You wouldn't get the identical system restore but as long as messages, documents, photos are synced in the cloud it might be sufficient.

 

[xraydoc]

I'm fortunate in that I have a desktop Mac Studio in addition to my MBP and my wife's MBA. I've ordered a Segate 5TB HDD (old fashioned spinner; I didn't want to spend $600+ on a big SSD) and will attach that to the Studio and set it up as a Time Machine destination for the laptops. I suspect it'll be at least a little faster than the remarkably slow Time Capsule I was previously using to back up the laptops. Should arrive next week.

The Mac Studio has a pair of SSDs that it alternatingly backs itself up to.

 

[xraydoc]

I think Apple would much prefer you to pay a monthly subscription fee for iCloud storage versus a one-time cost to purchase Time Capsule hardware.

That said, if Apple ever wanted to get back into the home Wi-Fi/router game, I would absolutely throw all my money at them.

Boomer-compatible makes me think that the actual backup needs aren't complex - is there a reason why iCloud wouldn't be good enough? You wouldn't get the identical system restore but as long as messages, documents, photos are synced in the cloud it might be sufficient.

iCloud isn't an incremental backup, it's just a current duplicate of what you've got. In other words, if you delete a file, then discover 3 weeks from now that you actually needed it, without Time Machine, it's gone forever. Time Machine would have saved you, however, since it keeps everything.

Another example — you make a whole bunch of edits to a file, but then realize you want to go back to a version that's a month old. Without Time Machine, you're lost.. your only choice to is reproduce your work, if you can. iCloud doesn't keep old versions, but Time Machine does.

iCloud just mirrors your machine (for some things). That's not really a backup.

 

[atlanticza]

OK, now I'm confused: I have Time Capsule with a SSD as a backup (rather than the inbuilt HD.) Am I to assume that the router-capability of the Capsule will be lost with the latest MacOS?

 

[chrfr]

OK, now I'm confused: I have Time Capsule with a SSD as a backup (rather than the inbuilt HD.) Am I to assume that the router-capability of the Capsule will be lost with the latest MacOS?

The router portion will still work but given that they've been out of support for several years, I'd be concerned about security exposure having it connected to the internet.

 

[Arran]

I'm fortunate in that I have a desktop Mac Studio in addition to my MBP and my wife's MBA. I've ordered a Segate 5TB HDD (old fashioned spinner; I didn't want to spend $600+ on a big SSD) and will attach that to the Studio and set it up as a Time Machine destination for the laptops. I suspect it'll be at least a little faster than the remarkably slow Time Capsule I was previously using to back up the laptops. Should arrive next week.

The Mac Studio has a pair of SSDs that it alternatingly backs itself up to.

Similar setup here at home with MacBooks relying on time capsules for years and years.

I wound up replacing my time capsules with a Synology, but on reflection I might have been better just buying a Mac mini and attaching a big hard drive - similar to your setup.

The Synology’s been great, but it has its own full-blown OS (DSM) with lots of features, installable packages and regular updates. Lots to learn to get it working. Still learning. Had to add a bulky UPS for safety too.

OTOH, A dedicated mini would have been easier for less $$$. Nothing to learn. Maybe a Neo would be an even better backup server solution since it comes with a built-in screen, keyboard and UPS (battery). You could just stick it and the external hard drives in a closet and forget it.

 

[AnInanimateCarbonRod]

iCloud isn't an incremental backup, it's just a current duplicate of what you've got. In other words, if you delete a file, then discover 3 weeks from now that you actually needed it, without Time Machine, it's gone forever. Time Machine would have saved you, however, since it keeps everything.

Another example — you make a whole bunch of edits to a file, but then realize you want to go back to a version that's a month old. Without Time Machine, you're lost.. your only choice to is reproduce your work, if you can. iCloud doesn't keep old versions, but Time Machine does.

iCloud just mirrors your machine (for some things). That's not really a backup.

I think you're honestly splitting hairs about the definition of a backup. OP didn't mention incremental backups specifically, and we don't know what their requirements or needs really are.

If they just want a non-local copy of photos, documents, messages, etc. then iCloud could be a plenty sufficient backup for them. Given the emphasis on technophobe and boomer-friendly, I'm guessing their needs lean towards this more basic case rather than deep incremental backups.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

I think Apple would much prefer you to pay a monthly subscription fee for iCloud storage versus a one-time cost to purchase Time Capsule hardware.

Apple doesn't even support backing up a Mac to iCloud. Frankly, I wish they would - it'd eliminate my iDrive subscription.

Fortunately my Time Machine backups go to a local drive, since I have a Mac mini with iCloud optimization turned off for my backups (Time Machine and iDrive). But if you only had a laptop, yeah, you'd need something on the network.

 

[xraydoc]

OK, now I'm confused: I have Time Capsule with a SSD as a backup (rather than the inbuilt HD.) Am I to assume that the router-capability of the Capsule will be lost with the latest MacOS?

It'll continue to work as a wifi access point, but it's been reported that it will no longer be supported as a Time Machine target disk.

 

[xraydoc]

I think you're honestly splitting hairs about the definition of a backup. OP didn't mention incremental backups specifically, and we don't know what their requirements or needs really are.

If they just want a non-local copy of photos, documents, messages, etc. then iCloud could be a plenty sufficient backup for them. Given the emphasis on technophobe and boomer-friendly, I'm guessing their needs lean towards this more basic case rather than deep incremental backups.

Incremental backup or not, iCloud is not a backup. Delete something from your machine and it's instantly deleted from your iCloud "backup". Corrupt a file on your machine, and the corruption is mirrored to iCloud. That's not a backup.

Incremental backups, yes are an extension and not necessary for everyone. But a non-incremental backup is a safely stored current version.

If this is what you have, and your Mac physically breaks (or gets stolen), then yes, your main files are safe. If an app goes rogue and deletes everything (either malicious or just accidental), or you accidentally move a big folder to the trash and hit "empty", your files are gone — including those on iCloud.

Let's be very clear on what it's doing. And if we're not all using the same definition for the term "backup", then we need to specify what we think "backup" means.

 

[Arran]

I think you're honestly splitting hairs about the definition of a backup. OP didn't mention incremental backups specifically, and we don't know what their requirements or needs really are.

If they just want a non-local copy of photos, documents, messages, etc. then iCloud could be a plenty sufficient backup for them. Given the emphasis on technophobe and boomer-friendly, I'm guessing their needs lean towards this more basic case rather than deep incremental backups.

Disagree. The whole selling point of Time Capsule/Time Machine is in the name: Incremental snapshots over Time. You can go back in time and retrieve old versions of files you intentionally changed or even deliberately deleted.

iCloud gives you none of that. It's not a robust backup. It's mirroring.

Admittedly, some regard iCloud as a backup, because if your iPhone, iPad or Mac dies irretrievably, or it's stolen, then at least the latest copy of your data is still in the cloud and you can still access it over the web. However, if you change or delete anything on your device and iCloud is all you've got, then there's no going back: Your data is changed or gone for good.

Edit: I see xraydoc and I are on the same page, lol. Understanding what iCloud is and isn't can save a lot of bother.

 

[cateye]

Prioritizing "easy" over "data security" means you give up the latter. Data-duplication is a solved problem, but like all complex systems that require a multi-layered approach, "easy" solutions do not satisfy the brief.

Either your data is important or it isn't. Proceed accordingly.

 

[Genelec8341]

If relying on iCloud, get into the habit of using "Save As" often.
Of course this will bloat your allocation of storage space rapidly. +1 for Apple.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I'm fortunate in that I have a desktop Mac Studio in addition to my MBP and my wife's MBA. I've ordered a Segate 5TB HDD (old fashioned spinner; I didn't want to spend $600+ on a big SSD) and will attach that to the Studio and set it up as a Time Machine destination for the laptops. I suspect it'll be at least a little faster than the remarkably slow Time Capsule I was previously using to back up the laptops. Should arrive next week.

The Mac Studio has a pair of SSDs that it alternatingly backs itself up to.

Similar here. Whenever I get a new MBP (every 5-6 years), my old one becomes a Time Machine backup server with a shared HDD attached.

I also have the old one running Network Logger Pro, so I can keep tabs on my ISP.

 

[josehill]

As many know, Apple will end support for Time Machine with macOS 27

That statement is not correct.

Apple is ending support for networked Time Machine using Apple Filing Protocol with macOS 27.

Apple will continue to support networked Time Machine using the SMB version 3 network protocol with Time Machine extensions.

Apple's Time Capsule products use Apple Filing Protocol for Time Machine, so they will not work with macOS 27 clients.

I expect that around the time macOS 27 is released, there will be third-party routers and network attached storage devices that support SMB3 plus the necessary Time Machine extensions. I'd also expect that some current third-party devices will receive updates that will enable Time Machine over SMB.

Recent Macs with sufficient storage also will be able to act as Time Machine servers for macOS 27 clients. If you're adventurous, you can also configure macOS 27-compatible Time Machine servers using Linux, including using OpenWRT or similar with compatible routers.

Of course, there also is the option of using directly attached drives as Time Machine targets for macOS 27 computers.

On another note, no matter how beloved our old Time Capsules are (and I have had a few), at this point, it's hard not to see them as a bit of a security risk.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I expect that around the time macOS 27 is released, there will be third-party routers and network attached storage devices that support SMB3 plus the necessary Time Machine extensions. I'd also expect that some current third-party devices will receive updates that will enable Time Machine over SMB.

I’m wondering, since you seem to have a lot of knowledge about this…

Time Machine has been out there since 2007. Apple’s own Time Capsules have been off the market since 2018. So the market has been wide open for eight years, but third-party router support is few and far between at best.

Considering all that, what makes you think 2027 will suddenly be the year of third-party Time Machine support?

 

[josehill]

the market has been wide open for eight years, but third-party router support is few and far between at best.

Considering all that, what makes you think 2027 will suddenly be the year of third-party Time Machine support?

Third-party router support for Time Machine is not universal, but it hasn't been uncommon, either.

While some manufacturers (most notably Netgear) apparently have dropped Time Machine support in recent years, others support it on multiple models (TP Link, ASUS, others). In the latter cases, you need to attach a USB drive to the router and use the router's software to configure the drive. Most routers supplied by Internet service providers do not support Time Machine.

As I mentioned, there also are open-source alternatives to vendor-supplied router software that can be configured to use Time Machine, though that approach can be too technical for many people to set up, and not all routers will work with these alternatives.

Another alternative is to get a network-attached storage (NAS) device. Most will support Time Machine out of the box. I've used a Western Digital My Cloud EX2 Ultra without trouble for a few years as a Time Capsule replacement.

The main caveat, and it is a big one, is that most of the routers and NAS devices I mentioned currently support only the older variety of Time Machine over the Apple Filing Protocol. As a result, they will not work with macOS 27 unless they receive software updates from their manufacturers to use the newer SMB3 method. You also can't set them up for new Time Machine backups from macOS 26 Tahoe, but they generally work fine with older versions of macOS.

All of that said, if I absolutely needed a Time Capsule replacement today that could support Time Machine backups from macOS 27 clients with a minimum of fuss, I'd look for a cheap Mac (used or new) with a few more years of support ahead of it, connect a suitable USB drive to it, and set it up as a shared Time Machine server. A mini or maybe even a Neo would be particularly interesting for that purpose.

 

[BrianBaughn]

The OP hasn't returned to comment and I guess that's because no one provided a "technophobe-compatible, boomer-compatible solution for easy backups of a MacBook Pro to replace" his Time Capsule. Plug and play I suppose.

Time Capsules could be finicky at times but you have to admit they were pretty easy to set up and maintain.

 

[Fishrrman]

I doubt Apple will release another "Time Capsule".

Consider the storage issue.
How much storage capacity is a new time capsule going to require?
8tb?
16tb?
More?

Would Apple still resort to building a device with a platter-based drive to provide enough storage? (considering SSD size is still limited)
My guess is that they wouldn't.

What would a time capsule with an 8tb SSD cost?
Would it be within reason for the average user?

 

[josehill]

What would a time capsule with an 8tb SSD cost?
Would it be within reason for the average user?

Considering the price of an 8TB SSD these days, the answer is "not really". For backups, though, a less expensive spinning hard drive certainly would be adequate.

FWIW, the last Apple Time Capsule sold for $399 with 3 TB of storage. Factoring in inflation, that would be around $580 today. Going back a little further, the previous 3 TB model sold for $499 in 2011, which would be around $740 today.

For a similar amount of money now, you could get a MacBook Neo with a 5-6 TB portable USB drive and set that up as a Time Machine server. For around $750, you also could get an entry level Synology NAS with two 6 TB drives in a RAID configuration that should handle Time Machine nicely.

Put another way, I don't see a reason why someone couldn't make a dedicated device with an 8TB or larger single spinning drive comparable to an original Time Capsule for under $500. The margins wouldn't be large, but it definitely would be doable.