Was just thinking this the other day! 2TB is just unnecessary and too expensive.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Adds 6TB and 12TB iCloud+ Storage Tiers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would be more expensive, vs the competition plus with no real competition large enough to charge for a la cart Apple will presume the price is high and charge whatever.
I still film videos in 1080p 30fps on my iPhone 13 Pro. But then again I don’t have a family who I’d want to have memories with on video.
Apple really should’ve lowered pricing on the old tiers all are more expensive vs the competition.
Apple knows this, that's why they have it this way. People get the 2TB without needing it.
I was so hacked off when they announced that - happy for those that need the larger tiers but expected them to do the right thing and introduce a 500gb or 1tb tier - the current sizes are just crap. The jump from 200gb to 2tb - Jesus Christ!
I have to really think about how to go about the whole backup by pulling off as much data off iCloud as possible if I'm to go forward with this.
Currently we use iCloud and Google photo (to basically transport the photos). The ones sent to Google photo stays there, we primary uses Google photo because it is easier to share with the rest of the family and it simply provides another backup solution.
The use of the Cloud is to enable the phones (for the family) to be able to push the photos into the iCloud, I then have a Mac connected to photos (the Mac is on and is signed into multiple accounts). The Photo App on the Mac is then setup to continuously download full resolution photos into an external drive (nothing special just a single drive). But the whole setup is connected to Backblze for unlimited backup (Backblaze has versioning, well at least up to 30 days).
I feel like I could technically go with your solution if I can get Google photo software on the Mac that will continuously download photo like that of the Photo app (because I ultimately want the photo to be backed up into the Backblack for offsite). I can then delete all the photos I have on my personal phone which should clean out at elast 1.2TB on iCloud. But then at this point I'm paying for Google photo.
Now I thought about going with Synology and use their photo back up app, but with Synology and Backblaze the storage solution is no longer unlimited. I think it is roughly $5 per month per TB.
I think ultimately this is what I'm trying to achieve. In the most ideal case, I want exactly what I have with iCloud and Google photo (that I can have all the photos on the phone but storage optimized). So maybe I just need an app that can constantly backup photos to an external drive (that works with photo optimization)?
I think first I need to just figure out how to make my iCloud library offline on my Mac and move forward from there.
Note, I emphasize photo optimization because I used to use an app called Resilio and I love it, but unfortunately it doesn't work with photo optimization.
It gets people "in the door" and using iCloud. Once they start using it (initially for free) and assuming it's a good experience, they are more likely to upgrade and pay for more storage.
Synology has its own photo app. You install it on your iPhone and it automatically sends your photos to the nas. Easy to setup and easy to use.
I have been waiting for this but the jump from 2tb to 6tb is huge, but in terms of storage and cost. But I guess the in between of 4tb is covered by stacking apple one. Unfortunately in my country Apple one only goes to max of 200gb so I am stuck with just 2.2tb. Hope the 2tb apple one goes worldwide too.
I love iCloud and while there are many views here that you can possibly use NAS, I explored and decided against it.
1) NAS harddisk can fail so you will need a raid to overlap and prevent data lost from disk failure.
2) Another offsite storage to cater for catastrophic failure like fire, flooding etc
3) Risk of security failure, after all it is unlikely that our own NAS is more secure than a huge company like Apple. That’s why there are many videos about ransomware that effectively lock out every piece of data on your NAS
4) Ease of use. Apple just works, that’s why I buy Apple products. I want to have all my photos and files with me all the time.
I love iCloud and while there are many views here that you can possibly use NAS, I explored and decided against it.
1) NAS harddisk can fail so you will need a raid to overlap and prevent data lost from disk failure.
2) Another offsite storage to cater for catastrophic failure like fire, flooding etc
3) Risk of security failure, after all it is unlikely that our own NAS is more secure than a huge company like Apple. That’s why there are many videos about ransomware that effectively lock out every piece of data on your NAS
4) Ease of use. Apple just works, that’s why I buy Apple products. I want to have all my photos and files with me all the time.
I have a Synology NAS 916+ with mirrored 6TB RAID drive to allow for a failing disk. The whole setup cost me about 1100 euros at the time. It was a hobby project so I don’t mind spending time to set it up but there is a lot of time needed initially and some for maintenance. I had a hard disk failure so I had to spend a lot of time to get it back up again. Don’t forget about the running costs of energy consumption also for the sync. I am not using the full 6TB, only half of it. I decided that iCloud+ is relatively fair priced and saves me a lot of work in maintaining a NAS. Plus I can’t handle a fire or flood. I am now on the 2TB plan, and will move everything now that 4TB is available.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
1. Synology NAS- unlike single drive NAS- has either traditional or their own (expandable) RAID system built in. If a drive fails, it alerts you. You replace the drive and all is fine and backed up again by the RAID. While it incorporates the new drive, you can still use it, so no interruptions of service. I've been using one for 10 years and had one drive fail in 10 years. I chose to replace it with a larger drive to expand the capacity at the same time as re-securing the RAID backup. Easy. Cheap. "Just works."
2. I can't believe there is any push back to the offsite storage option such as the one I offered, as if it is some great burden. It is so easy to take a TM drive and put it somewhere other than home: safe deposit box (like me) at the bank, office desk, gym locker, family members house, school locker, friends house, etc. TM backup to another drive for a few weeks, then swap them out (regularly) at the offsite location. Cost in the offsite storage? Free to maybe $50 max.
3. Ransomware is like exploding phones, sharks biting people at the beach and crashing planes: lots of press about it when it occasionally hits but very rarely about individuals who can't pay substantial ransoms, almost always corporations or government-level players where the ransom can be interesting. Nevertheless, if one executes #2, that backup option is detached from the internet, so there is no way hackers can penetrate the impenetrable wall of disconnected storage. Worse, worse case: one retrieves their data from the #2 backup. Realty case: individuals will very rarely- if ever- encounter ransomware (or plane crash, shark bite or exploding phone) in their lifetime... unless they do dumb things like downloading questionable stuff from questionable places to up their risk of viruses, trojans, etc.
4. Ease of use for the winner. No question at all that iCloud is easier to use than running your own Cloud with something like Synology. However, 12TB of that ease of use will cost about 2 iPhones and a pretty good Mac over just a few years... with a continuing expectation to keep paying in more iDevice + Mac equivalents forever. In over-simplified terms: one is paying a LOT to forever rent a hard drive "in the sky." 12TB of cloud storage in your own Synology costs about $100... ONE TIME vs. $60/month for up to forever.
Do the math. $100 for 12TB of your own cloud for upwards of about 10 years vs. $7,200 for 12TB in the sky over the same time span. What could you do with the extra $7,100? That's the point in all of this. It is not "I hate iCloud," it is "I don't like iCloud high pricing. How can I get the bulk of the benefits for less?" 12TB of storage is 12TB of storage. Your data or your friends will never know- or care- if your cloud is branded Apple or not.
Anyone good with spending several thousand more for iCloud, good for you: there are certainly tangible benefits to iCloud, especially since it is deeply integrated into all Apple operating systems. Those who might rather save those thousands and/or create spare cash to buy their next iDevices and Mac, rolling your own cloud can deliver the bulk of the benefits at far less cost. Choose what best fits you and your budget.
2. I can't believe there is any push back to the offsite storage option such as the one I offered, as if it is some great burden. It is so easy to take a TM drive and put it somewhere other than home: safe deposit box (like me) at the bank, office desk, gym locker, family members house, school locker, friends house, etc. TM backup to another drive for a few weeks, then swap them out (regularly) at the offsite location. Cost in the offsite storage? Free to maybe $50 max.
3. Ransomware is like exploding phones, sharks biting people at the beach and crashing planes: lots of press about it when it occasionally hits but very rarely about individuals who can't pay substantial ransoms, almost always corporations or government-level players where the ransom can be interesting. Nevertheless, if one executes #2, that backup option is detached from the internet, so there is no way hackers can penetrate the impenetrable wall of disconnected storage. Worse, worse case: one retrieves their data from the #2 backup. Realty case: individuals will very rarely- if ever- encounter ransomware (or plane crash, shark bite or exploding phone) in their lifetime... unless they do dumb things like downloading questionable stuff from questionable places to up their risk of viruses, trojans, etc.
4. Ease of use for the winner. No question at all that iCloud is easier to use than running your own Cloud with something like Synology. However, 12TB of that ease of use will cost about 2 iPhones and a pretty good Mac over just a few years... with a continuing expectation to keep paying in more iDevice + Mac equivalents forever. In over-simplified terms: one is paying a LOT to forever rent a hard drive "in the sky." 12TB of cloud storage in your own Synology costs about $100... ONE TIME vs. $60/month for up to forever.
Do the math. $100 for 12TB of your own cloud for upwards of about 10 years vs. $7,200 for 12TB in the sky over the same time span. What could you do with the extra $7,100? That's the point in all of this. It is not "I hate iCloud," it is "I don't like iCloud high pricing. How can I get the bulk of the benefits for less?" 12TB of storage is 12TB of storage. Your data or your friends will never know- or care- if your cloud is branded Apple or not.
Anyone good with spending several thousand more for iCloud, good for you: there are certainly tangible benefits to iCloud, especially since it is deeply integrated into all Apple operating systems. Those who might rather save those thousands and/or create spare cash to buy their next iDevices and Mac, rolling your own cloud can deliver the bulk of the benefits at far less cost. Choose what best fits you and your budget.
Last edited:
It really comes down to how much you value your data. Hoping someone else does a good job with it indefinitely is a big ask. And I’m not talking about just losing it. I have had family photos on my iCloud account corrupt. I’m talking colorful streaks of corrupt pixels. So while I didn’t lose the photos, it detracts from the quality.
iCloud is not a backup in most cases, and definitely not for your photos. If someone gains access to your account or a device with it and deletes photos then goes into the trash and deletes them from there, good luck getting them back.
Agreed but the same can be said about NAS. Not sure why you said iCloud is not a backup. To me it is.
I don’t have to worry about hacking, ramsomware, fire etc
That's asking a lot. But minimum free storage should be at least 10gb I feel. The other tiers should also grow to even the balance.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You should try some searches for topics like iCloud Ransomware, iCloud account hacks, etc and recalibrate the worry. iCloud is a much more desirable target for hackers to try to hack than average Joe's own cloud on something like a Synology. iCloud ransoms might net millions. Average Joe probably just refuses to pay a nickel and reboots/reformats/rebuilds if his is hacked/ransomed.
Where the prize is great, there are many bandits attempting to steal the prize. Where the prize is near worthless (to the bandits), there's little point in trying.
Fire is a legit concern. And add theft & flood too. But if you roll your own cloud, take a tiny fraction of the monetary savings vs. paying $60/month for a hard drive in the sky to buy (which means OWN) one extra hard drive for backups, use "for dummies" Time Machine to back everything up to it, and store it offsite. Then you are ready for fire, flood or theft... and have all that money you didn't burn at $60/month to replace the Apple hardware lost in the fire, flood or theft.
Last edited:
So before all this conversation I was on the camp of using iCloud (because of the rest of apple integration) and google photo (for family sharing since half of family is on android and honestly sharing with google photo is just easier). But I did the math that as soon as I break 2TB I’ll be paying combined $610 total for Apple and Google. ($360 a year for 6TB and $250 for 5TB for Apple and Google respectively). And that’s just too much for my overall purpose even $360 a year alone is too much.
I have started the firs step to phase out iCloud photo, I’m going to keep iCloud but drop it to the 200GB range once I’m done with my migration.
Eventually I’ll be using Synology Photo to replaced Google Photo. And backblaze as the offsite that acts as catch all for everything else.
I have started the firs step to phase out iCloud photo, I’m going to keep iCloud but drop it to the 200GB range once I’m done with my migration.
Eventually I’ll be using Synology Photo to replaced Google Photo. And backblaze as the offsite that acts as catch all for everything else.
If they do this, they should allow syncing more folders than just «Documents» and «Desktop». Especially syncing external Disks would be helpful. Also, when you go into these tiers of TB, you really need a kind of monitoring what is synced and what not, à la Dropbox.
