Any rumors that Apple will replace the Time Capsule?

[Happy_John]

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.

Yes, please read my comment again.

 

[josehill]

Nan the Airport Extremes were able to act as TM network destinations from their very first generation.

I basically agree with your entire post, except I'm uncertain of a 4GB AppleTV's ability to tend to its main purpose of streaming video at high resolution (including AirPlay streaming from other devices) without stuttering while handling a concurrent backup operation.

In any case, we both agree that it wouldn't be difficult for Apple to create a dedicated, modern Time Machine server at a consumer price point.

I've also set a few people up with various Time Machine boxes, ranging from repurposed old Macs to old Linux machines. Maybe the most interesting has been repurposing end-of-life routers with OpenWRT. Fun stuff, but a bit of a project.

 

[elvisimprsntr]

Apple learned from their AirPort and TimeCapsule that it is a low margin product that requires too much support overhead. Between novice consumers and WiFi environments they can’t control, just adds to expenses and low consumer satisfaction.

There are plenty of manufacturers who are willing to enter and compete in the market. All consumer NAS offer TimeMachine and there are plenty of open source NAS distributions that do as well.

You are 1000% better off with an enterprise class access point and NAS distribution like TrueNAS. Time to get over it and move on.

 

[xraydoc]

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.

Then regular people can go on losing important sh-t and blaming others for it.

 

[xraydoc]

if, in fact, Time Machine is not being discontinued.

Time Machine is not being discontinued. Support for old Time Capsule hardware is.

 

[Vincent Hanna]

Then regular people can go on losing important sh-t and blaming others for it.

Maybe you’re just not good at providing tech support.

For what it’s worth, I haven’t had a SINGLE lost file issue with any of the non-techy family and friends I support since moving all of them to Desktop and Documents in iCloud Drive years ago. Zero use of Time Machine, hard drives, or third party subscription backup services.

 

[Happy_John]

Apple learned from their AirPort and TimeCapsule that it is a low margin product that requires too much support overhead. Between novice consumers and WiFi environments they can’t control, just adds to expenses and low consumer satisfaction.

There are plenty of manufacturers who are willing to enter and compete in the market. All consumer NAS offer TimeMachine and there are plenty of open source NAS distributions that do as well.

You are 1000% better off with an enterprise class access point and NAS distribution like TrueNAS. Time to get over it and move on.

For an SME, even a professional in a work-from-home situation, yes.

For a household with one or two MacBooks, that’s overkill and far too high an expense to add onto the cost of, say, two Neos or a Neo and a MBA - once you are hitting 400-500 USD for a home backup solution, you’ve lost that market on price alone.

Going over 20% of the total of the sticker prices of the machines being backed-up is a no-go.

The appropriate option is one that is appropriately affordable and will work with the router that was provided by the ISP. Anything beyond that is business / enthusiast territory.

 

[Happy_John]

Maybe you’re just not good at providing tech support.

For what it’s worth, I haven’t had a SINGLE lost file issue with any of the non-techy family and friends I support since moving all of them to Desktop and Documents in iCloud Drive years ago. Zero use of Time Machine, hard drives, or third party subscription backup services.

It can work, and can be a nice “I don’t have to worry about it” solution for the end-user.

The problem is that it’s a subscription, and it’s expensive if there’re multiple devices and large amounts of documents and photos/videos building up. iCloud storage works out far more expensive for the user than a local solution in the long-term.

What you want in a local set-up a is box that plugs directly into the router and can be forgotten about after the initial set-up.

Time-machine is very good at this on the macOS side, but the problem is the lack of a clearly branded, affordable and easy set-up wizard fronted destination box, since AirPort Extreme and TimeCapsule were discontinued.

 

[Siliconguy]

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.

SAMBA already has that capability, at least it's supposed to. I suspect Netatalk will work with 27 after a revision or two and that is the AFP stack for Linux.

 

[josehill]

SAMBA already has that capability, at least it's supposed to. I suspect Netatalk will work with 27 after a revision or two and that is the AFP stack for Linux.

• Samba version 3 has a series of settings that can be enabled to support Time Machine, but they are not enabled by default, at least not on the most common Linux distributions. It's not hard to add them if you have access to the Samba configuration files. Many people have done so on their Linux servers, and some third-party NAS providers (most notably Synology) have done it, too.
• Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but the issue is not that AFP won't work with Linux. The issue is that macOS 27 is dropping support for AFP.

 

[Vincent Hanna]

It can work, and can be a nice “I don’t have to worry about it” solution for the end-user.

The problem is that it’s a subscription, and it’s expensive if there’s multiple devices and large amounts of documents and photos/videos building up. iCloud storage works out far more expensive for the user than a local solution in the long-term.

It's $2.99 a month for 200GB. Might as well be free. Plus it synchronizes all iCloud data between devices in real time, even off WiFi. Try that with your NAS.

And have you seen the prices of external drives lately? Not that a normal person would ever use one, even if gifted to them.

What you want in a local set-up a box that plugs directly into the router and can be forgotten about after the initial set-up.

No you do not. Anything that "plugs into a router" might was well be an alien artifact to a normal person. They can't and won't set it up or maintain it themselves, and they will be unable to interact with it in the event of the data loss it is intended to address. That leaves you getting in your car and driving to their house to be the hardware admin.

 

[Happy_John]

It's $2.99 a month for 200GB. Might as well be free. Plus it synchronizes all iCloud data between devices in real time, even off WiFi. Try that with your NAS.

what if 200 GB is not enough. 1 TB a month, every month? 2 Tb a month, every month. This well could be what is needed if we’re talking amount multiple Mac’s, iPads and iPhones on the same iCloud family account.

That’s the cost of the drive long before the first year is over.

And have you seen the prices of external drives lately? Not that a normal person would ever use one, even if gifted to them.


No you do not. Anything that "plugs into a router" might was well be an alien artifact to a normal person. They can't and won't set it up or maintain it themselves, and they will be unable to interact with it in the event of the data loss it is intended to address. That leaves you getting in your car and driving to their house to be the hardware admin.

So someone else connects the box to the router. Once. Sets up TM on each Mac. Once.

I feel you may be deliberately looking for ways to say “We must be right, because I’m right”, rather than actually discussing the pros and cons of the various options available.

iCloud documents and desktop syncing is a good solution for a smaller amount of data, but it doesn’t scale well.

 

[Vincent Hanna]

Of course it scales well. It's $9.99 a month for 2TB, enough for the vast majorities of families. And this is a family that already spent $5K+ on Apple hardware. They can afford it.

What they CAN'T afford is needing someone like you to drive to their house when the "hard drive thing" doesn't work. You are accusing me of arguing in bad faith, but you keep insisting on hardware-based solutions that are non-starters for normal people. They simply won't do it.

And how do you advise that this Apple-using family synch their photos and text messages and contacts and calendars and notes and reminders? iCloud is too expense in your world, so they just go without those core Apple ecosystem features so that they can apply the $9.99 a month savings toward the upfront cost their $250 hardware backup system that doesn't do synching?

Or is it that you concede they will end up paying the money for those iCloud features, but then should ALSO pay for your externally administered hardware backup system on top if it?

 

[Undecided]

Guys, I was using "technophobe" as an adjective to modify "boomers" - it was not intended to imply that all boomers are technophobes. And it was only an attempt to indicate that any solution has to be simple.

And, OK I get it - Time Machine will still exist, and even over networks, just not with AFP.

Thanks for the feedback, have a great day.

 

[BradMacPro]

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?

A NAS connected to an Ethernet port on your wireless router, one labeled as supporting Time Machine would be your best bet. It's now using the SMB protocol, and no longer the AFP protocol. And Time Machine backups nowadays are APFS volumes. If your router has a USB port, a plain USB hard drive could be used to backup to. Time Machine could use a sparse bundle.

 

[rhodopsin]

With regards to the original post, I would like to know whether the issue is that Time Capsule hardware compatibility is being dropped in MacOS27, or whether Time Machine functionality is being dropped - the latter being the most important for me personally, as I use time machine to incrementally back up/restore to/from an iMac. The referenced article talks about Time Capsule (RIP). Loss of Time Machine is much more of a problem. I acknowledge the differences between iCloud backup and Time Machine as mentioned. Thanks.

 

[Soondae]

Time Machine is not going away. AFP support for the Time Capsule actually went away with MacOS 26 Tahoe, so I had to purchase a new 2TB drive that I formatted APFS and leave connected to my Mac Mini M4 in order to use Time Machine backups. Attached is a photo of my setup. I still use my Time Capsule as an internet repeater in my office, it works great but I no longer use the 2TB drive in the Time Capsule. I also have a Synology NAS that I could have set up a time machine backup to but Synology doesn't support APFS which is the format I want to use. The research I did couldn't find any NAS or Router with USB support that will work with APFS so I have opted to leave the Time Capsule drive connected 24/7 to my Mini. Probably an issue for notebook users. So my recommendation for you would be to go with a Synology NAS or an ASUS router with USB support as the ASUS routers support Time Machine back up that your MacBook can connect to at night for backups. Just remember that you cannot use AFP or APFS file systems. Synology uses a proprietary format and the ASUS USB suggests HFS+ for Time Machine back up.

 

[tallPete]

I haven't read thsi whole thread as folk have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. What a bunch of unskilled nobodies. They are speaking crap. I run a business and this is essential functionality.

iCloud is a sync service. If you delete a file accidentally on your machine and think, oh I'm so lucky that I have a backup on iCloud you are completely wrong. As soon as you delete the file off your machine it is also deleted from iCloud. The delete is synced. iCloud is NOT NOT NOT a backup service.

I have a Time capsule circa 2011. It will stop working soon with MacOS 27. it IS IS IS a backup. The Time Machine app auto backs up to it. If you delete a file accidentally on your machine it will still be on the time capsule if it has auto run a backup since you last updated it etc. This has saved my business in the past, I had a Mac stolen from an apartment and I was able to go out a buy a new Mac, 3 years younger and Apple restored faultlessly, right down to the desktop wallpaper. I got an exact copy of my machine back - that was only 12 hours old - even on a completely different model mac. Excellent software.

Time Machine is excellent with time capsule. It auto backs up every hour, day etc. you down't request it, you just keep working and it does it in the background.

I also run backblaze. It is backing up all my documents. I have no idea about what it is really backing up or the frequency but it is cheap and a backup of my backups are important. As I said, a backup saved my business.

I too am looking for a solution to replace time capsule. Synology seem to be it at the moment. Apple are not being proactive enough in recommending replacements.

STOP SAYING ICLOUD IS A BACKUP. Go and visit the Apple Photos subreddit, and look at the endless folk who see their disk is full of photos, so they delete them all from the disk as they think they can as they are stored online in iCloud. Imagine their surprise when they lose a lifetime of photos. iCloud is a sync service.

 

[Happy_John]

With regards to the original post, I would like to know whether the issue is that Time Capsule hardware compatibility is being dropped in MacOS27, or whether Time Machine functionality is being dropped - the latter being the most important for me personally, as I use time machine to incrementally back up/restore to/from an iMac. The referenced article talks about Time Capsule (RIP). Loss of Time Machine is much more of a problem. I acknowledge the differences between iCloud backup and Time Machine as mentioned. Thanks.

Time Capsule ( and AirPort Extreme with an external drive ) compatibility is being dropped because Time Machine will no longer use AFP. Time Machine will still work on MacOS if it the backup disk is connected directly on a Mac, or if you use a NAS or another Mac as a destination.

The issue here is that people still using Time Capsules or Airport Extremes as backup destinations will have to replace their destination hardware once they install MacOS 27.

 

[Happy_John]

I haven't read thsi whole thread as folk have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. What a bunch of unskilled nobodies. They are speaking crap. I run a business and this is essential functionality.

iCloud is a sync service. If you delete a file accidentally on your machine and think, oh I'm so lucky that I have a backup on iCloud you are completely wrong. As soon as you delete the file off your machine it is also deleted from iCloud. The delete is synced. iCloud is NOT NOT NOT a backup service.

I have a Time capsule circa 2011. It will stop working soon with MacOS 27. it IS IS IS a backup. The Time Machine app auto backs up to it. If you delete a file accidentally on your machine it will still be on the time capsule if it has auto run a backup since you last updated it etc. This has saved my business in the past, I had a Mac stolen from an apartment and I was able to go out a buy a new Mac, 3 years younger and Apple restored faultlessly, right down to the desktop wallpaper. I got an exact copy of my machine back - that was only 12 hours old - even on a completely different model mac. Excellent software.

Time Machine is excellent with time capsule. It auto backs up every hour, day etc. you down't request it, you just keep working and it does it in the background.

I also run backblaze. It is backing up all my documents. I have no idea about what it is really backing up or the frequency but it is cheap and a backup of my backups are important. As I said, a backup saved my business.

I too am looking for a solution to replace time capsule. Synology seem to be it at the moment. Apple are not being proactive enough in recommending replacements.

STOP SAYING ICLOUD IS A BACKUP. Go and visit the Apple Photos subreddit, and look at the endless folk who see their disk is full of photos, so they delete them all from the disk as they think they can as they are stored online in iCloud. Imagine their surprise when they lose a lifetime of photos. iCloud is a sync service.

Yes. It only works as a "quick and dirty" backup if you NEVER delete files from your Mac, and increase your storage capacity on the iCloud servers. So it doesn't scale well.

As for deleting files, iCloud does "hold onto" deleted files in it's equivalent of the "recycle bin" for 30 days, but this really isn't meant to be thought of as an incremental backup, it's just a "are you sure you should have deleted that file" safety-net in the short term.

The annoyance here, as it has been pointed out by many above, is that Apple are not offering any clear small scale solution for a detention or Time Machine. I have a NAS, because I have a lot of data on various machine. If the nonyl other options is a cloud-base subscription service ( I DON'T mean icloud here, I mean renting capacity on someone else's NAS to upload regular incremental backups, effectively) that's another bloody monthly subscription.

But for someone with a single Macbook, or a household with two MacBooks, the expense of buying even a 2 bay NAS with 2x 6 or 8 TB is a hard to swallow, when really they want a more affordable option for automated, hands-off TM backups.

 

[tallPete]

Yes. It only works as a "quick and dirty" backup is you NEVER delete files from your Mac, and increase your storage capacity on the iCloud servers. So it doesn't scale well.

As for deleting files, iCloud does "hold onto" deleted files in it's equivalent of the "recycle bin" for 30 days, but this really isn't meant to be thought of as an incremental backup, it's just a "are you sure you should have deleted that file" safety-net in the short term.

You have used iCloud and backup in the same sentence. You should not do that. Because it implies that there is some backup capability in iCloud. There is not.

The folk who delete their photos off their disk also go and empty the 30 day buffer because they are reckon they are technically knowledgable. They lose everything. I had a friend who deleted permanently all their baby photos because they read these stupid forums.

Don't use iCloud and backup in the same sentence.

 

[Happy_John]

You have used iCloud and backup in the same sentence. You should not do that. Because it implies that there is some backup capability in iCloud. There is not.

The folk who delete their photos off their disk also go and empty the 30 day buffer because they are reckon they are technically knowledgable. They lose everything. I had a friend who deleted permanently all their baby photos because they read these stupid forums.

Don't use iCloud and backup in the same sentence.

I know. But people do and are using them in the same sentence, so it's impossible to address the issue without doing so.

The "real" issue is that Apple is offering a small scale alternative once AFP is gone. Personally, I think the easiest solution would be to allow an external drive to be plugged into an Apple TV to be used fro TM backups for Mac. The Apple TV has the hardware capability to do this already.

Even a 2 Bay NAS with decent sized drives is a large investment for someone with only one or two machines to back up.

 

[tallPete]

But for someone with a single Macbook, or a household with two MacBooks, the expense of buying even a 2 bay NAS with 2x 6 or 8 TB is a hard to swallow, when really they want a more affordable option for automated, hands-off TM backups.

I consider that I purchased a Time Capsule for a ridiculous amount of money circa 2011, I had to open it up and replace the had disk once since then. and it has saved my business completely. My business has paid for very fine life since. It could all have disappeared back in 2015-2016 ish. As I look at my Time Machine menu in my MacOS menu bar it has backed up to my 2011 device just over one hour ago.

I think that it is probably worth spending more than a Mac to get a perfect backup device that will work into the future. The backup device is worth more than any Mac. I understand that Time Capsule will be able to back up to another Mac, so maybe I will jsut go and buy a Mac Mini as a dedicated backup device. I understand that Synology doesn't advertise Time Machine compatibility as a feature, and they have had a reputation recently of removing features, so maybe another mac it is.

 

[Vincent Hanna]

You are the one that has no idea what you are talking about.

iCloud *IS* a backup. It’s not incremental, it’s not system wide, and deleted files and photos only last 30 days, but such trade offs are more than acceptable for a system that is invisible to the user, requires no hardware setups or technical knowledge, and only costs an average of $3 per month.

The entire problem with this forum is you nerds keep projecting your values and tolerance (fondness?) for complexity onto normal people who have ZERO interest in such nonsense. They aren’t going to buy Mac minis as dedicated backup devices as you gleefully advertise.

 

[tallPete]

iCloud *IS* a backup. It’s not incremental, it’s not system wide, and deleted files and photos only last 30 days, but such trade offs are more than acceptable for a system that is invisible to the user, requires no hardware setups or technical knowledge, and only costs an average of $3 per month.

The entire problem with this forum is you nerds keep projecting your values and tolerance (fondness?) for complexity onto normal people who have ZERO interest in such nonsense.

NO. IT IS A SYNC SERVICE. IF YOU DELETE SOMETHING, IT IS PERMANENTLY DELETED. YOU CANNOT GET IT BACK. THE 30 DAY BUFFER IS FALLBACK FOR IDIOTS. I look forward to you getting data from this backup that someone deleted 6 weeks ago.