Any rumors that Apple will replace the Time Capsule?

[Vincent Hanna]

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.

This is not true. Deleted iCloud Drive files are recoverable for 30 days. I have found this threshold to be more than sufficient for all the normal people, Boomers included, that I provide support for.

Anything hardware based, Time Capsules included, is a non-starter for normal people.

 

[xraydoc]

This is not true. Deleted iCloud Drive files are recoverable for 30 days. I have found this threshold to be more than sufficient for all the normal people, Boomers included, that I provide support for.

Anything hardware based, Time Capsules included, is a non-starter for normal people.

Technically true, you are correct. Deleted files, yes. Overwritten files, no. Corrupted files, no. Files not saved to iCloud, no -- and these are the same people who don't know where they're saving things to, so who has confidence that they're actually getting saved to iCloud to begin with? They may all be sitting in the local Downloads folder for all anyone knows, which doesn't get synced to iCloud, I believe.

Time Machine: Plug in external drive... Mac asks if you want to use it for Time Machine... Click Yes.

People need to be taught. They need to be told that iCloud is not a sufficient backup for important items. Boomers especially. Can't tell you how many times I've been shopping at an Apple Store and overheard the genius bar people trying to help someone recover something deleted/lost/not backed up or otherwise synced anywhere.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Even just periodically plugging in an external drive isn't boomer-compatible.

If attaching an external drive is really too much for you, you should probably look into cloud backup. I agree with others that iCloud isn't really a "backup", ditto for Box, OneDrive, Google Drive, and similar cloud-based file sharing services, although they're pretty cheap and you could try them to see if they meet your needs.

I use Backblaze as part of my backup strategy. It's $99/year for one computer, including as many drives as you have attached, no capacity limit, and it's encrypted. Like iCloud, the base plan only keeps files for 30 days, but you can upgrade to one year if you need. Once you set it up, it runs in the background without any babysitting.

 

[ignatius345]

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.

Let’s also remember the more insidious “bit rot” issue. File gets corrupted or an editing mistake is made and saved to the file. Maybe the corruption goes unnoticed for a couple months, or more. Relying only on iCloud Drive (or Dropbox, Google Drive, etc) you are probably ****ed. If you’re maintaining actual versioned backups, you can go back to an uncorrupted version of the file.

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.

Honestly, I don’t know how much easier it could be than “plug in this cord at least once a week/month” -- but if that’s too much then just look at non- Time Machine options for local network backup.

 

[Vincent Hanna]

People need to be taught.

This has been tech world mantra for 30 years. Didn't work then, won't work now.

Regular people want to get on with their lives, not be lectured by nerds about how they are "doing it wrong." Desktop and Documents folder synching in iCloud is not perfect, but it's invisible to the user and provides them with sufficient recourse. Anything "better" than that will simply not be used on a regular enough basis to have any benefit.

 

[Undecided]

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.

My title was a bit misleading because the issue is really the discontinuation of Time Machine (software) over AFP.

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 really a backup though. It's a mirror that can be a backup in case a total restore is necessary (e.g., computer is lost, stolen, destroyed) but there is no incremental backup. And there are certain things that don't go in iCloud, like Books, Stickies (though I'm not sure she uses that), anything in Movies, Pictures or other folders that iCloud ignores. That said, I might be able to get her comfortable with it. I personally like iCloud a lot, and in fact I use it as my backup and I wrote a script to periodically make incremental backups of key folders to iCloud.

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.

This is the kind of person who was shrieking from across the house because a window scroll bar was off screen and she panicked. I happened to be there and she was literally shrieking. Setting up a second computer (which she does not have anyway) or plugging in external drives isn't going to do it. (Although she has a MacBook Pro, as far as I know she doesn't really use it portably, so just leaving an external drive plugged in, and remembering to plug it back in should she move her Mac, might be workable - if, in fact, Time Machine is not being discontinued. ) Hence the desire for Apple to come out with a replacement solution. Really what I would like to see is the ability to backup the Mac to iCloud (smartly, like on iOS, so it doesn't backup the OS, App Store apps, etc.). Although, to be fair, iOS "backups" to iCloud aren't incremental either.

If attaching an external drive is really too much for you, you should probably look into cloud backup. I agree with others that iCloud isn't really a "backup", ditto for Box, OneDrive, Google Drive, and similar cloud-based file sharing services, although they're pretty cheap and you could try them to see if they meet your needs.

I use Backblaze as part of my backup strategy. It's $99/year for one computer, including as many drives as you have attached, no capacity limit, and it's encrypted. Like iCloud, the base plan only keeps files for 30 days, but you can upgrade to one year if you need. Once you set it up, it runs in the background without any babysitting.

This is for a technophobe boomer I have to support. So I want to minimize the "family tech support" burden...

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Thank you for providing a little more clarity regarding your original question.

My title was a bit misleading because the issue is really the discontinuation of Time Machine (software).

I think you misunderstood the article that you linked to in your original post. It doesn't say Apple is discontinuing Time Machine, it says Apple is ending macOS support for the long-discontinued Time Capsule hardware.

That article links to https://sixcolors.com/link/2025/05/end-of-time-for-afp-and-time-capsule/ which further elaborates that AFP is being eliminated, not SMB.

Time Machine has been around for a long time, and I'd venture that many people rely on it. I doubt Apple would simply drop it without having something to replace it. But either way, there are third party alternatives; SuperDuper and Carbon Copy Cloner are two that come to mind.

This is the kind of person who was shrieking from across the house because a window scroll bar was off screen and she panicked. I happened to be there and she was literally shrieking...

This is for a technophobe boomer I have to support. So I want to minimize the "family tech support" burden...

Gotcha. So you're able to do a one-time setup for someone else. That gives you some options, many of which have already been stated in this thread.

A near direct replacement for a Time Capsule would be a WiFi router with Time Machine support. You would need to connect the backup drive to the router's USB port, then go into the router's setup with a web browser and enable Time Machine support. Then you set up Time Machine on her MBP, and it just runs in the background as long as she's on her WiFi.

Another alternative is a cloud service like Backblaze, which I mentioned earlier. This is a true backup-first service, not a file sharing service like iCloud. Also, in terms of minimizing "family tech support", you set it up once and it just runs.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

In the words of Steve Jobs, "One more thing..."

This is for a technophobe boomer I have to support.

Don't conflate "technophobe" with "boomer". I'm not a boomer (Gen X), but I know many who are very tech savvy.

 

[Arran]

Timely discussion.

Has anyone here used a low-end 2-bay NAS as a Time Capsule replacement? Maybe even with just one bay populated?

Lately, I’ve replaced my aging time capsules with a Synology DS923+ with three 12TB drives (~ $1.5K). My home Wi-Fi has also been replaced by Ubiquity gear (~1K). I now want to stand-up a secondary Time Machine destination for “every-other-hour” backups from all Macs. The only reason I want a secondary destination is because, over the years, I’ve had occasional Time Capsule corruption and until it’s fixed (usually a 24-hour task) I’m flying without a backup for at least one Mac.

I’m in no hurry since the Synology DS923+ has been solid the past 6 months, but I’ve been researching some “cheap” 2-bay NASs and would welcome comments from anyone with hard experience of these as dedicated Time Machine destination. I don’t care about their other features - like media serving - since the DS923+ is more than capable.

(1) Ubiquiti UNAS2: https://www.microcenter.com/product/702101/ubiquiti-unas-2-2-bay-desktop-nas-enclosure-black
(2) Synology DS-223: https://www.microcenter.com/product/668510/synology-ds-223j-diskless-2-bay-nas
(3) Ugreen DH2300: https://www.microcenter.com/product/703359/ugreen-dh2300-nasync-2-bay-diskless-nas

They’re all around $200 and I’d initially populate them with some spare (uncertified) 8TB drives I have lying around since they’re only a secondary backup.

Thoughts?

 

[Pezimak]

Well I just grabbed a U Green NAS as they have 20% off currently, but only for a few more hours! Grabbed the NVME one which is expensive, but with over 200 off I thought get it at that price. I think a NAS is the best way to go for Time Machine. I did get a 1TB external SSD and it was fine till Time Machine stated it had run out of space and I needed double the capacity.. hence I thought may as well get a NAS then I can expand the storage in.

 

[Arran]

Well I just grabbed a U Green NAS as they have 20% off currently, but only for a few more hours! Grabbed the NVME one which is expensive, but with over 200 off I thought get it at that price. I think a NAS is the best way to go for Time Machine. I did get a 1TB external SSD and it was fine till Time Machine stated it had run out of space and I needed double the capacity.. hence I thought may as well get a NAS then I can expand the storage in.

Any comments on how easy the Ugreen is to setup and maintain? What’s the OS like?

I’m kind-of leaning towards the Ugreen as I like being able to swap out drives easily. I also like that it supports JBOD. For Time Machine, I like to give each Mac its own HDD to keep them isolated. If anything corrupts, I can just pull or reformat the drive and only one Mac is hit. Ugreen’s downside is I’ll need to learn another OS.

OTOH, the Ubiquiti UNAS2 looks clean and simple (and I’m already in the Ubiquiti/UniFi ecosystem with my WiFi) but it only does raid mirroring (no JBOD). Maybe they’ll update it over time since it’s a fairly new product? Not sure I want to make that bet. The display on the front is nice and clear. “All storage operational” - Easy-peasy to keep an eye on.

The 2-bay Synology DS-223 uses the same OS as my 4-bay synology- so nothing new to learn. Drives aren’t so easy to swap as the Ugreen however.

 

[Pezimak]

Any comments on how easy the Ugreen is to setup and maintain? What’s the OS like?

I’m kind-of leaning towards the Ugreen as I like being able to swap out drives easily. I also like that it supports JBOD. For Time Machine, I like to give each Mac its own HDD to keep them isolated. If anything corrupts, I can just pull or reformat the drive and only one Mac is hit. Ugreen’s downside is I’ll need to learn another OS.

OTOH, the Ubiquiti UNAS2 looks clean and simple (and I’m already in the Ubiquiti/UniFi ecosystem with my WiFi) but it only does raid mirroring (no JBOD). Maybe they’ll update it over time since it’s a fairly new product? Not sure I want to make that bet. The display on the front is nice and clear. “All storage operational” - Easy-peasy to keep an eye on.

The 2-bay Synology DS-223 uses the same OS as my 4-bay synology- so nothing new to learn. Drives aren’t so easy to swap as the Ugreen however.

I only ordered it today lol, because its 20% offer runs out later today. As I understand you can just use an app to set it up and use it, sounds good to me. I have seen a review of the small Ubiquiti NAS and they said it wasn’t very good, think maybe it’s bigger systems are better if you need that much storage? But like Apple if you are in an ecosystem already then maybe it could be better to stick with it?

 

[Arran]

I only ordered it today lol, because its 20% offer runs out later today. As I understand you can just use an app to set it up and use it, sounds good to me. I have seen a review of the small Ubiquiti NAS and they said it wasn’t very good, think maybe it’s bigger systems are better if you need that much storage? But like Apple if you are in an ecosystem already then maybe it could be better to stick with it?

Yeah, If I go with Ubiquiti then it would have two old 8TB drives mirrored (or maybe just one?). That should be enough for all Macs to use as a secondary TM backup destination. I also really like the Ubiquiti/UniFi OS on my wifi. It's given me so much control over my home wifi environment. Unbelievable, TBH. Admittedly it's overkill for home wifi for most users, but I have a lot of different smart home devices and it's made them so much easier to troubleshoot and fix.

I'm starting to rule out the 2-bay Synology option since my main NAS is Synology - and I love it - but I don't want all my eggs in one basket. One bad OS update and both would be hit (although I do have to update the Synology manually so it's not like both could be bricked overnight)

I dunno. Decisions, decisions. Ugh.

 

[Happy_John]

The annoying thing at the moment is that the Apple TC already has all the hardware b built in to be a Time Capsule, as well as being an Apple TV - all Apple would have tp do would be to allow an ex5ranal drive to be connected via ISB-C.

Until that happens, I'll stick to my current solution - using a Mac mini 2012 or 2014, populating the two drives with the largest 2,5" SSDs or HDDS I have (or in the case of the 2015. one NVMe and on 2.5" SATA SSD or HDD) and connecting it directly to my router via internet, and using that as a TimeCapsule.

The 2012 and 2014 Mac minis are very cheap now, it's easy to open them ( you can buy a kit with extra cable and tools for a few bucks on AMAzon), they have low peer consumption, so the only issue these days is getting the drives.

 

[josehill]

Don't conflate "technophobe" with "boomer". I'm not a boomer (Gen X), but I know many who are very tech savvy.

Totally agree. Boomers are responsible for a lot of today's tech (for better or worse), and many of them are still at it. There are technophiles, tech users, technophobes, and people who really don't care about tech at all in all generations. Ageism is every bit as inappropriate as other sorts of -isms, and I've been saying that long before my first gray hair.

 

[Happy_John]

In the words of Steve Jobs, "One more thing..."



Don't conflate "technophobe" with "boomer". I'm not a boomer (Gen X), but I know many who are very tech savvy.

Absolutely. The people who founded Apple and the people who developed the Mac were/are boomers, ffs.

It was "boomers" but mostly „GenX" aged people who built the internet, or rather, what people think of when they think of the internet. For that, I apologize, it didn't work out the way we planned. :-(

I'm in my fifties, and I despair of a lot of the comments on a lot of these forums. Buying a high-end mac doesn't automatically make people knowledgeable about how tech actually works.

 

[DottySr]

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.

I’m with you on the boomer-compatible solution. Frankly, I found Time Machine setup tedious back in the Apple Time Machine + Airport day and, after two tries over several years, found the effort not worth it.

I’ve given up on the NAS idea to store all my music. Apple music does just fine. I’m not an audiophile (thank goodness or that would be another way to spend money on upgrades over decades.) I’ve never been big on storing videos. At this age, it has to be something really good for me to lose 2 hours to re-watch (or, in the case of books, more hours to re-read.)

When I get a new mac, I migrate the old mac. I’m now 6 generations of macs from the early iMac I purchased. That does great in getting all the settings and preferences in place. I use iCloud to sync all the stuff I care about. If one of my day to day Macs perish, I can migrate from the survivor to a new Mac.

This might not work for everyone (especially those who are professionals or serious hobbyists in music and video production and other data heavy uses,) but it works great for me for the past 15 years or so.

 

[josehill]

My title was a bit misleading because the issue is really the discontinuation of Time Machine (software).

Time Machine software is not being discontinued.

What is happening is that Time Machine *over a network using the Apple Filing Protocol* will not be supported for Macs running macOS 27 and later. This is because Apple is dropping support for the Apple Filing Protocol (AFP) for networking as of MacOS 27.

Since Time Capsule hardware and AirPort Extreme/Express devices use AFP for Time Machine and almost certainly will never see a software upgrade, Macs running OS 27 will not be able to use them for Time Machine backups.

If you want to use Time Machine over a network with a macOS 27 computer, you will need to use devices that support Time Machine using version 3 of the SMB network protocol. That means you need to back up to another Mac or to a third-party device that explicitly supports Time Machine using SMB 3. Right now, there are not many third-party devices that meet that criteria, but hopefully more will appear.

Local Time Machine backups, i.e., backups to a directly connected drive instead of a network, will continue to work fine, even with macOS 27.

Minor note: I don't know if it is a bug or if it was planned, but macOS 26 clients are not able to create new backups using Time Capsules or other devices running Time Machine over AFP. However, macOS 26 clients can backup to pre-existing Time Machine backups created under Sequoia or earlier.

 

[jaytv111]

Buy a NAS, set it up with SMB, there, there’s a Time Capsule that will work in MacOS 27 and beyond (since Time Machine will still exist, it’s AFP being discontinued so that’s what Time Capsule uses and thus Time Capsule will be unusable).

Bonus, most NAS devices have multiple drives and can be setup with redundant RAID so it can withstand a drive failure, Time Capsule was single drive and would not withstand a drive failure.

 

[Happy_John]

Buy a NAS, set it up with SMB, there, there’s a Time Capsule that will work in MacOS 27 and beyond (since Time Machine will still exist, it’s AFP being discontinued so that’s what Time Capsule uses and thus Time Capsule will be unusable).

Bonus, most NAS devices have multiple drives and can be setup with redundant RAID so it can withstand a drive failure, Time Capsule was single drive and would not withstand a drive failure.

It’s a clear omission to Apple’s product ranges that to run Apple’s own baked-in incremental backup solution over a network, you have to buy either another mac or a third-party solution.

Yes, your advice is the most obvious thing to do, but once support for AFP is dropped, the TimeCapsule becomes obsolete and Apple are not offering anything to replace it.

As an alternative, as I keep banging on like a broken record, the most obvious thing would be to offer this functionality on an AppleTV, as it’s being positioned as a „home hub” / threads manager, and it already has the hardware capability, just plug in an external drive to it. TB backup is in the same „home network” wheelhouse.

 

[Happy_John]

Timely discussion.

Has anyone here used a low-end 2-bay NAS as a Time Capsule replacement? Maybe even with just one bay populated?

Lately, I’ve replaced my aging time capsules with a Synology DS923+ with three 12TB drives (~ $1.5K). My home Wi-Fi has also been replaced by Ubiquity gear (~1K). I now want to stand-up a secondary Time Machine destination for “every-other-hour” backups from all Macs. The only reason I want a secondary destination is because, over the years, I’ve had occasional Time Capsule corruption and until it’s fixed (usually a 24-hour task) I’m flying without a backup for at least one Mac.

I’m in no hurry since the Synology DS923+ has been solid the past 6 months, but I’ve been researching some “cheap” 2-bay NASs and would welcome comments from anyone with hard experience of these as dedicated Time Machine destination. I don’t care about their other features - like media serving - since the DS923+ is more than capable.

(1) Ubiquiti UNAS2: https://www.microcenter.com/product/702101/ubiquiti-unas-2-2-bay-desktop-nas-enclosure-black
(2) Synology DS-223: https://www.microcenter.com/product/668510/synology-ds-223j-diskless-2-bay-nas
(3) Ugreen DH2300: https://www.microcenter.com/product/703359/ugreen-dh2300-nasync-2-bay-diskless-nas

They’re all around $200 and I’d initially populate them with some spare (uncertified) 8TB drives I have lying around since they’re only a secondary backup.

Thoughts?

I’ve got the UGREEN DH2300 - I’d strongly recommend it. It’s cheap, quiet and, most importantly for me, low power consumption. It obviously handles TimeMachine backup, but for me, it’s a second tier storage / backup for my small home-Officer servers ( 2 MAC minis with external drives) - it also allows extra external drives to be plugged in in case you need some extra (quick and dirty) network storage.

The other dvantage is that I have a photo library that’s 220 GB, and I’ve had enough of paying Apple for increased file storage, as I have multiple iOS / iOS devices backing up to an iCloud family storage plan.

A NAS probably does saves you money in the long run.

Much as HHDs are at silly prices at the moment, I would recommend population both drives and running RAID 1, rather than just populating a single drive. The extra cost does sting, but it doesgive you some fair-over.

As an aside, UGREEN released a small external USP (basically a battery pack) for their budget NAS, including the DH2300, which at about the price of a decent USB charger, might be worth it (but I haven’t bothered getting one just yet).

 

[Jumpthesnark]

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

You may want to correct this. Apple has not said they are ending support for Time Machine.

Time Machine is software, and a method for backing up data. Time Capsule is a device. Huge difference.

 

[josehill]

the most obvious thing would be to offer this functionality on an AppleTV

That's a pretty interesting idea, though I think running Time Machine on a <$200 device primarily intended for streaming video content would be tough.

An AppleTV's hardware probably would be adequate for Time Machine as a dedicated device, but the CPU and the 4 GB RAM in the current box would be a little light to support simultaneous backups and streaming. With similar hardware, a little more RAM, and an internal spinning drive, though, you easily could get a fully modernized, large capacity Time Capsule for under $500.

 

[Happy_John]

That's a pretty interesting idea, though I think running Time Machine on a <$200 device primarily intended for streaming video content would be tough.

Nah, the Airport Extremes were able to act as TM network destinations from their very first generation. Compared to the hardware in an AppleTV, this is very little extra processing work.

Looking at the MacBook Neo, the hardware of the current Apple TV is lower spec, the next iteration of the Apple TV will be lower spec than the Neo, but not by much, so hardware-wise, the new Apple TV could be seen as a “Mac mini Neo” that’s locked into TVOS.

No version of the AirPort Extreme could be described as being loaded with ram and processing power.

Handling TM backups would be a strain on the hardware - the heavy lifting , such as it is (really not very heavy) in TM is client-side.

An AppleTV's hardware probably would be adequate for Time Machine as a dedicated device, but the CPU and the 4 GB RAM in the current box would be a little light to support simultaneous backups and streaming. With similar hardware, a little more RAM, and an internal spinning drive, though, you easily could get a fully modernized, large capacity Time Capsule for under $500.

I just think having to buy either a Mac mini or a NAS purely for TM for one or two Mac’s is overkill, yet incremental backups are essential and Apple don’t offer a more appropriately small option (constantly having to put in an external drive to a MacBook is a bad solution - people want automation and “it does it on it’s own”.

Relying on the router provided by your Internet provider to have a USB plotting and reliably handle TM backups is very hit and miss, some do, some don’t some seem to work it crash out after the backup transfer starts.

The solution you’re talking about makes sense, but it should be cheaper.

I’ve made a load of “Time Machine” boxes for friends and family as gifts when they get a newMac (usually coincides with birthdays / Christmas ) buy a cheap Mac mini 2011 / 2012 / 2014 off the internet, put in a small SSD for the OS, a 2.5” tb in te second internal bay as the TM destination - put latest version of MacOscit can manage natively, set up file sharing for TM, turn off anything else that will eat power and performance, and get them to put it via Ethernet to their router or run it off so-fi. Slow, but TM doesn’t need to be fast.

Building this shouldn’t go over the equivalent of 200USD, so Apple should be able to sell a box that does the same for 250 -300 and still make a healthy profit.

 

[Pezimak]

Absolutely. The people who founded Apple and the people who developed the Mac were/are boomers, ffs.

It was "boomers" but mostly „GenX" aged people who built the internet, or rather, what people think of when they think of the internet. For that, I apologize, it didn't work out the way we planned. :-(

I'm in my fifties, and I despair of a lot of the comments on a lot of these forums. Buying a high-end mac doesn't automatically make people knowledgeable about how tech actually works.

The ‘internet’ was actually invented over decades by several ‘boomers’, the World Wide Web was invented by Tim Bwerners-Lee a British chap who was born in the ‘boomer’ generation.