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 Testing New Time Capsules for Caching Software Updates?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Great. Now iCloud requires Lion and an overpriced buggy piece of hardware?? Why??
do you think before you type? Where exactly does it say that you need a TC or OS X Lion in order to use the new cloud services? Not only does it not say that anywhere but in fact iCloud would run on any OS and probably any modern browser very much like MobileMe ...
Yes, it's definitely an ARM processor but I've no idea about how easy a change to A4/5 would be.
New Time Capsule? In the iCloud era? I wouldn't be surprised if Jobs eliminated the product unless it entirely becomes just a cache for all your iCloud data (not just software updates).
Apple want's all your data in the iCloud so they can index and harvest it, just like Google does.
All your data are belong to us.
Apple want's all your data in the iCloud so they can index and harvest it, just like Google does.
All your data are belong to us.
This sounds more like a software change. Hopefully it is and it can be applied to the current gen timecapsules/extreme stations.
Well, it shouldn't increase the downloads (assuming you install everything anyway), and if you have more than one device, it should reduce the downloads (since it only downloads once).
If, however, you normally like to get your updates elsewhere (not subject to your cap), then, yes, I can see how you'd want to be able to disable it.
D2d2c?
Maybe they are going to allow Time Machine backups to go in to the cloud - Disk to disk to cloud, similar in concept to Jungle Disk, etc?
So your Mac backs up locally to the Time Capsule (as now) and then the TC sends it to iCloud. The local backup is "quick" and then the TC can just send it - it's normally on anyway so why not have it trickle-feed to iCloud.
I guess the only limitation is the cost of all that storage to us users and the time for that "initial" backup to take.
The advantages are that your Mac doesn't have to be on while it's sending everything "upwards".
I do like the idea of TC caching locally accessed files and would love to see it involved in Home Sharing.
I don't see centralised Software Updates as that big a deal to be honest, how many people have multiple Macs, (and I mean realistically, not us!!).
- D
Maybe they are going to allow Time Machine backups to go in to the cloud - Disk to disk to cloud, similar in concept to Jungle Disk, etc?
So your Mac backs up locally to the Time Capsule (as now) and then the TC sends it to iCloud. The local backup is "quick" and then the TC can just send it - it's normally on anyway so why not have it trickle-feed to iCloud.
I guess the only limitation is the cost of all that storage to us users and the time for that "initial" backup to take.
The advantages are that your Mac doesn't have to be on while it's sending everything "upwards".
I do like the idea of TC caching locally accessed files and would love to see it involved in Home Sharing.
I don't see centralised Software Updates as that big a deal to be honest, how many people have multiple Macs, (and I mean realistically, not us!!).
- D
did you guys even read what i wrote. i said in the future. i said in the coming years as more and more technology comes out. we have only had internet for less than 2 decades and there are already movies that are 15 gb per download. now with blu ray 3d. whats going to happen in another 5-10 years. 250 gb wont suffice. and jicon, im sorry, that is hardly anything. and strabes dont act like its not a big deal when there are plenty of other threads about this too. go ahead and hate me but i dont care. its my opinion. yes we get capped and im ok with that buts its also what they charge for it. look att mobility. 45 a month for 4 gb with tethering. they act like tethering is such a huge stress on the network when i am capped anyway. i dont know how much i use a month on uverse because the att data calculator is not online yet. maybe i only use 10 gb. idk. i said i estimated at 15 gb. and i know its in my control but its my opinion that overall in the world communication corporations charge too much for what we get. maybe when the calculator is up i will think different but the way i see it, i feel like 250 gb wouldnt suffice many. maybe i just dont know how much 250 gb is in terms of data usage.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Companies like AT&T are thinking about that... how much more money they can make by putting the squeeze on for pipes controlled by them and just a few other companies. What can consumers do? Some have only 1 choice for broadband. Some- like me- have 2 choices but the other choice also has decided to begin the cap squeeze (also) at 250GB. Both will almost certainly (and independently
) decide to drop that to lower levels over time ("due to some users having unusually high bandwidth demands").Why? Because they don't want to allow companies like Apple or Netflix to eat to much into the cash cow of their cable subscription businesses. Since Apple, Netflix, etc must flow their alternatives through broadband controlled by AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, TimeWarner, etc, the latter gatekeepers have a very easy way to save the cash cow.
At one point, one could fly with 2 checked bags for free. Then, one airline feed for bag #2 and made money. The others followed. Then, one airline feed for bag #1 and made money. The others followed.
In the wireless Internet, AT&T & Verizon have already proved that millions will pay $25 for tiers at only 2GB. That's more than 50% what I pay for a Comcast tier of 250GB. Comcast (and Time Warner, et all) will follow the leaders over time of cutting down the scope of the tiers and/or charging ever-higher fees for broadband.
And in a capitalistic society that allows big competitors to buy up little competitors so that you end up with only 1 or 2 broadband providers, what are you going to do? Switch to save money? Hint: does one save money on 3G Internet by switching from AT&T to Verizon or vice versa?
All the dreams of iClouding everything is directly in opposition with the pricing trends of broadband and wireless Internet. In an iCloud-intense future, you either will be on the sidelines with money in your pockets or iClouding as many imagine with empty pockets.
Canada is leading the way to our future of broadband tiers. Just watch it unfold as demand goes up and the suppliers decide to try to "solve" the problem by increasing fees instead of expanding capacity for the same fees. Note that the latter involves a lot of cost for the suppliers while the former involves a lot of profit for them. Which do you think the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, et al will choose?
Last edited:
Companies like AT&T are thinking about that... how much more money they can make by putting the squeeze on for pipes controlled by them and just a few other companies. What can consumers do? Some have only 1 choice for broadband. Some- like me- have 2 choices but the other choice also has decided to begin the cap squeeze (also) at 250GB. Both will almost certainly (and independently
Why? Because they don't want to allow companies like Apple or Netflix to eat to much into the cash cow of their cable subscription businesses. Since Apple, Netflix, etc must flow their alternatives through broadband controlled by AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, TimeWarner, etc, the latter gatekeepers have a very easy way to save the cash cow.
At one point, one could fly with 2 checked bags for free. Then, one airline feed for bag #2 and made money. The others followed. Then, one airline feed for bag #1 and made money. The others followed.
In the wireless Internet, AT&T & Verizon have already proved that millions will pay $25 for tiers at only 2GB. That's more than 50% what I pay for a Comcast tier of 250GB. Comcast (and Time Warner, et all) will follow the leaders over time of cutting down the scope of the tiers and/or charging ever-higher fees for broadband.
And in a capitalistic society that allows big competitors to buy up little competitors so that you end up with only 1 or 2 broadband providers, what are you going to do? Switch to save money? Hint: does one save money on 3G Internet by switching from AT&T to Verizon or vice versa?
All the dreams of iClouding everything is directly in opposition with the pricing trends of broadband and wireless Internet. In an iCloud-intense future, you either will be on the sidelines with money in your pockets or iClouding as many imagine with empty pockets.
thanks for the nice response
. i totally agree and believe in the future that caps will decrease and maybe prices . they know people will pay for the service but we dont have much of a choice. i guess what im trying to say is years ago it would have been fine, but with the economy the way it is people cant always afford these high priced plans. im in no way a heavy user (middle at most) however i think it would be better if companies charge by how much you use a month. the gigabyte is set at a certain price and if use 10 gb a month you pay that amount. if you use 750 gb that month, you pay that amount. they dont do that as im sure most dont use a lot and they would lose money so they set a cap at a certain price. however in the future i would like to see it done that way. thats just me though.
Last edited:
This could be accomplished with the current hardware. While it's certainly a possibility, maybe even a probability, there must be something else as well coming.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
thanks for the nice response
I think that is where we're going EXCEPT I think the bulk of the companies in control of the pipes very much like the ambiguous nature of the cell phone billing model. So rather than bill by the MB or GB, I suspect they'll go to contracts with tiers and penalties (as higher fees) when you go over your chosen allocation. That way, they guarantee themselves a certain level of income (the base tier each subscriber chooses) and they exploit their users when they go over their max usage... just like it works now on cell phone contracts.
I see no scenario where this collision of higher broadband & wireless broadband demand is met with pricing that stays about the same or shifts lower than it is now, as measured on an average price-per-user basis. This is very much analogous to getting all us dummies to pay up for big gas guzzling SUVs and then the oil gatekeepers adapting the cost of oil so the gas jumped from < $1/gal to > $4/gal. What was the reason for that again? Oh year, "increasing worldwide demand for oil".
Now the gas is going to be broadband and wireless broadband. The oil barons are going to be AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc and the dummies are going to be those that buy heavily into devices that increasingly require broadband to function to their fullest benefit. It's so obvious and yet most seem to ignore it in posts about how much they want to iCloud everything.
Perhaps the icon for it should be a vacumn cleaner over a wallet?
Last edited:
I think that is where we're going EXCEPT, I think the bulk of the companies in control of the pipes very much like the ambiguous nature of the cell phone billing model. So rather than bill by the MB or GB, I suspect they'll go to contracts with tiers and penalties (as higher fees) when you go over your chosen allocation. That way, they guarantee themselves a certain level of income (the base tier each subscriber chooses) and they exploit their users when they go over their max usage... just like it works now on cell phone contracts.
I see no scenario where this collision of higher broadband & wireless broadband demand is met with pricing that stays about the same or shifts lower than it now, as measured on an average price-per-user basis. This is very much analogous to getting all us dummies to pay up for big gas guzzling SUVs and then the oil gatekeepers adapting the cost of oil so the gas jumped from < $1/gal to > $4/gal.
Now the gas is going to be broadband and wireless broadband. The oil barons are going to be AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc and the dummies are going to be those that buy heavily into devices that increasingly require broadband to function to their fullest benefit. It's so obvious and yet most seem to ignore it in posts about how much they want to iCloud everything.
Perhaps the icon for it should be a vacumn cleaner over a wallet?
hahaha yes that should very much be the icon. im just upset because i was so excited when tethering came out for iphone. it was one of the features i really really wanted. then att put in their charges. i cant afford $45 a month for my data. and to tell you the truth i love storing things locally. i have 5 tb of storage for music, movies and pictures. my parents like it because we have an apple tv that they can stream their stuff to as well. the icloud i would only use to store music if i lose it so i dont have to rebuy it and maybe some files to act as an idisk. its good when i need to give my family something that cant go in an email when im at college. the cloud is nice but i wouldnt rely on it to hold my life. the new icon is nice though
Dude, you aren't a light user if you are streaming netflix almost every night. My mom who checks her email a few times a week and only uses the web about once a month is a light user. We are all lucky that there are lots of folks doing not too much with their internet access and still paying $50 a month.
Now the gas is going to be broadband and wireless broadband. The oil barons are going to be AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc and the dummies are going to be those that buy heavily into devices that increasingly require broadband to function to their fullest benefit. It's so obvious and yet most seem to ignore it in posts about how much they want to iCloud everything.
Perhaps the icon for it should be a vacumn cleaner over a wallet?
Love it and some truth to your worries. I'm in a monopoly location with only one cable company offering internet. I use the internet all the time and need it to work from home which I have to do. I argue and try to keep the cost down, but if my provider increased the cost by 10X I'd still have to pay it every month. Though I'd find a way to split the cost with neighbors and wi-fi extenders I suppose.
RETURN IT ASAP... It will only be worth 80 bucks on Craigslist once the new one comes out.
Its the other way around, the ISPs should be providing people with a lower cap for lower prices. Dont blame the heavy users, ISPs intentionally said unlimited internet for a specific price and thats what the heavy users are paying for.
If you only use 1GB, pay 10$ a month instead of paying 60$ a month as everybody else. If you went over the limit, you should pay 10$ extra for another 1GB and if you went into a higher tier like 250GB for 40$ a month, you shouldnt be charged for any more than 40$ a month if youre on 1GB plan (unless you go over 250GB).
The ISPs for years advertise unlimited internet. If they dont like it, they should not have done it in the first place. People are used to not worrying about the limits.
Also, the plans have to follow the data inflation as well. The average may be 30-50GB for each Internet user in US, itll double by next year and again in following years.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You're far from the only one in that situation. Worse, the bandwidth gatekeepers know it. Still worse, just about all of the companies in the business of selling broadband are also in the business of selling video subscriptions. So the much dreamed about Apple cable TV cord cutting service is just as limited for the very same reasons. Should any such service really start biting into the cable TV cash cow, the company who's pipe the replacement must flow through will simply raise the price of broadband to make their cable offering the better deal.
And if you are like me- with 2 choices for broadband- the alternative will be in the exact same boat with the exact same (Apple replacement) threat and thus take the exact same action with their broadband pricing.
Until iClouds come with solid rumors of Apple having a way to bypass the broadband and wireless internet pipes, this is where the cost of access is going.
Why are you pissed about something that doesnt exist yet. Nobody knows anything about this.
The new router is likely to have a major overhaul of hardware that the new firmware can only work in and thus, they cant put it on the old hardware.
You do not buy hardware for future software features, you buy hardware for the software at that time.
Nobody is entitled to future software upgrades (major version update, 1.x>2.x).
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Great concept but it will never happen. The gatekeepers have no real competition to make them fight it out on price. There is no reason at all to make less on the basis of average revenue-per-broadband-subscriber. They would basically just be throwing corporate profits out the window. It would even be illegal per their most fundamental responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profits.
The best we can hope for is something to hold things "as is". But the reality is that all signs (all actions) point toward increasing revenue-per-subscriber averages due to "increased average broadband demand."
As far as I know, "Because they should" has never resulted in lowering prices or profits from monopolistic & duopolistic players.
But even if it would happen somehow, the drive to use less broadband flies directly in the face of all these dreams to store and stream everything in/from the iCloud. Those dreams are about using more (much more) bandwidth, not less.
You should consider Apple, Microsoft, Google, Netflix, et. al. in all this. Those are true juggernauts, and I really doubt they will sit back and let the broadband providers cramp on their style.
Yes, it happened in Canada. But 1) Netflix is a new face there, they've *just* gotten into the market when Rogers and Bell sprung their crap - and they're already trying to fight it, even though they don't have much clout there. And you know how much Apple cares about Canada - they're second-class citizens.
So we'll have to see what happens in the future. If America follows Canada down the broadband-cramping road, I have a feeling that they won't face almost no resistance like the Canadian companies have.
And no, Comcast's 250 GB limit does not count - it's a reasonable limit for now. AT&T's 150 GB limit slightly less so, but not too bad. Once it gets under 100 GB per month, that's when **** will hit the fan.