New Time Capsules Rather Than Apple's Servers to Act as Hub for iCloud Data Syncing?


Bonte

macrumors 6502a
Jul 1, 2002
926
139
Bruges, Belgium
I hope it will also work as a server in the existing network, i already have a wireless router from my provider and i don't want to add another wireless network in the mix.

The idea is very promising, the Time Capsule could download Mac and iOS updates in advance and distribute them to all the Apple devices in the network. It would speed up the updates, lower the burden on Apple's servers and remove the need for a PC/Mac with iOS devices, this could be huge in country's where small devices are everywhere but not much room for real computers.
 

Moccasin

macrumors 6502a
Mar 21, 2011
930
165
Newcastle, UK
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

andythursby said:
To use iCloud i have to buy a time capsule? No thanks.

if this is a necessity then it's gonna fail.

most people are on windows and have no need for a time capsule, so that will alienate most iOS users off the bat.

The more i hear stuff like this, the more i think that i'll stick with dropbox for files/pics/etc and spotify for music as iCloud is not going to do anything better than that combo at the mo.
I don't think that's the view. Here at least. The TC is an optional extra for those who want a local cloud synced with the ..er.. iCloud.

As others say, for those with existing kit it will be disappointing if they have to upgrade to use this. Hopefully at least some elements will be usable with existing kit.
 

bilbo--baggins

macrumors 6502a
Jan 6, 2006
702
1
UK
Might work if you have a choice of paying for online cloud storage OR your own Time Capsule?

I hope they make the Time Capsule more grown up though - it needs easily replaceable hard drives and drive redundancy. In it's current form it's little more than a toy.
 

res1233

macrumors 65816
Dec 8, 2008
1,127
0
Brooklyn, NY
Holy crap! Steve actually condoned clones back then? Was he insane? Clones were by all accounts one of the things that contributed to their near-demise. I'm glad he changed his mind on that...
 

jaw04005

macrumors 601
Aug 19, 2003
4,369
15
AR
So far, we've heard quite a bit about the new Time Capsule.

- will use A4 or A5 chip
- runs iOS
- will download software updates for Macs and presumably iOS devices automatically
- backs up Time Machine data to iCloud (backups would like be "smart" in that purchased iTunes content would not need to be backed up)
- syncs iTunes purchased content across multiple devices
- will feature an iTunes server-like application that will stream iTunes media to iOS and Mac devices

Combine this with all the current features of Time Capsule, drop the price to $199 and make the hard drive user accessible (for data recovery and drive replacement) and I'm sold!

The current Time Capsule is a ticking time bomb of data loss. I would know seeing as I had to have my original replaced and AppleCare said "Sorry. We can't perform data recovery on Time Capsule devices."
 

shandyman

Suspended
Apr 24, 2010
6,458
384
Dublin, Ireland
I don't think Apple is looking at this as a solution that will involve Windows users.

But I'm thinking I'll be sending more money Dropbox's way after Monday.
Well who knows with apple! they've done stupid things before.

iCloud was a hard sell to me before this anyway, music-wise, spotify is awesome as i can have any music i want on the go, can even have offline mode so no wasting internet data usage. streaming video on the go is rubbish at the mo, in the UK, unless you're dead close to a city centre, connections not really good enough to stream without waiting to buffer and i have 3Gb on dropbox for free.

Apple will have to pull something awesome out tomorrow to convince me and alot of others, that iCloud is worth it.
 

commander.data

macrumors 65816
Nov 10, 2006
1,007
95
A local piece of the iCloud (this TC solution) for non-iTunes-purchased media and non-local storage of the rest on Apple servers seamlessly presented to us users as if all of it was in either place.
I agree. I don't see Time Capsule being required for iCloud, but it will enable more features. It makes sense for all iTunes purchased content to be streamed from Apple's servers since they now have the licenses for that and they only need to hold basically a single master copy to serve up to people. Contacts, bookmarks, calenders, and other existing MobileMe services will continue to come from Apple's servers.

What the addition of Time Capsule will do is allow you to stream your non-iTunes media to your mobile device using iCloud as a conduit service. It'll also allow you to stream documents, pictures and other files that you might not want to upload to Apple's servers for privacy reasons or that would be inconvenient for Apple to store.


- backs up Time Machine data to iCloud (backups would like be "smart" in that purchased iTunes content would not need to be backed up)
Even with out iTunes content, backing up Time Machine to Apple's servers will be 100s of GBs, even TBs of data. Even if Apple has that much storage space for each of their users multiple computers, most people probably don't have sufficient monthly bandwidth quotas to make this worthwhile.
 

AZREOSpecialist

macrumors 68020
Mar 15, 2009
2,104
881
I doubt you'll need to buy a Time Capsule to get iCloud functionality. I suspect that for those who want a Time Capsule, iCloud may offer some additional benefits, especially if you also have a Mac and Apple TV. Perhaps it's a unique solution for those who don't trust "the cloud" and would rather stream from a server on their home network.

The Time Machine angle may be Steve's "one more thing".
 

Moccasin

macrumors 6502a
Mar 21, 2011
930
165
Newcastle, UK
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Presumably this is all what Steve Jobs had in mind when he talked about the Post PC world. Whether you can update an iPad over the air would be a moot point - but if those who only need to email and surf could choose to have a £150 home media hub instead of a PC, then that would be quite powerful.
 

hh83917

macrumors 6502
Jun 30, 2005
296
65
I don't mind upgrading my Timecapsule. It is a fairly stable router but it stills acts up now and then, so I had to reboot it once in a while like other consumer routers when it freezes, even though not as often. I've used some robust business routers before that virtually never freezes and does not require reboot when changing settings. I hope the new Timecapsule/ router with HDD will be able to achieve that level of robustness with faster processor and better chips. If that's the case, I don't mind the extra cash to upgrade. :rolleyes:

And if Apple is to do something like back-to-my-timecapsule, then I think the success of it really depends on how fast the user's home network is. Quite frankly, not everyone can get FIOS upload speeds and it will be a pain watching the files/videos/music load on your devices when you're outside...
 

jaw04005

macrumors 601
Aug 19, 2003
4,369
15
AR
Even with out iTunes content, backing up Time Machine to Apple's servers will be 100s of GBs, even TBs of data. Even if Apple has that much storage space for each of their users multiple computers, most people probably don't have sufficient monthly bandwidth quotas to make this worthwhile.
Most people don't have 100s of GBs of data. We're talking documents and photos for 99.9% of users. A generous amount of storage such as 50GB to 100GB (think DropBox) would suffice. It's not like you'll be using iCloud to backup your ripped Blu-ray collection.
 

blow45

macrumors 68000
Jan 18, 2011
1,576
0
great news, I d prefer a nas, but a cloud synced simple, ios based, quite and fast arm mini server/interim server is great.

Again I hear many very misinformed naysayers here, as per usual, and I am wondering were do they all go and hide as soon as what apple comes up with proves to be both useful and a bestseller? They did it for the ipad (what good will it be for?), the ipod, ad infinitum.

Anyway, eff ignorance, I have to say what with two desktops (minimum), one notebook, an ipad and various ipods my files have started to run amok and I am glad apple is bringing in what sounds as a robust and simple way to sync everything together. Maybe I lll have to give up the great dropbox after all.

Expect excellent competitive prices as well for the mini servers that the time capsules are going to be.

I would wager that maybe even a rename for time capsule is imminent.
 
Even with out iTunes content, backing up Time Machine to Apple's servers will be 100s of GBs, even TBs of data. Even if Apple has that much storage space for each of their users multiple computers, most people probably don't have sufficient monthly bandwidth quotas to make this worthwhile.
That's right. It seems many of the iCloud dreamers imagine storing everything on Apple's servers. But they seem to be ignoring how the middlemen between their homes and Apple's servers are increasingly pinching bandwidth with tiers and per-GB charges for "heavier users". Even if an iCloud service is only $25/yr from Apple, the potential big expense is much like the show of iPhones being advertised "as low as $49*". The total cost of the iPhone must factor in the service, which might be summarized as paying for bandwidth.

This new iCloud is separated from each of us by pipes owned by AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc, all of which will LOVE it if we all choose to stream everything to/from an off-site cloud. There's lots of money in that for them.
 

Warbrain

macrumors 603
Jun 28, 2004
5,701
287
Chicago, IL
Most people don't have 100s of GBs of data. We're talking documents and photos for 99.9% of users. A generous amount of storage such as 50GB to 100GB (think DropBox) would suffice. It's not like you'll be using iCloud to backup your ripped Blu-ray collection.
You're underestimating how much data people have. Most people don't delete anything off of their drives and want everything backed up even if they haven't used a file or application in years.
 

commander.data

macrumors 65816
Nov 10, 2006
1,007
95
Most people don't have 100s of GBs of data. We're talking documents and photos for 99.9% of users. A generous amount of storage such as 50GB to 100GB (think DropBox) would suffice. It's not like you'll be using iCloud to backup your ripped Blu-ray collection.
Well there's also home videos, which can get pretty big now that people go around shooting at 720p and perhaps want to keep both the original and edited footage.

Of course, in Canada, even if Apple gave users plenty of storage space, ISPs here think a 60GB monthly bandwidth cap is generous, so taking full advantage of Apple's storage can be problematic.
 
And if Apple is to do something like back-to-my-timecapsule, then I think the success of it really depends on how fast the user's home network is. Quite frankly, not everyone can get FIOS upload speeds and it will be a pain watching the files/videos/music load on your devices when you're outside...
That's the trick though. For those people with intolerably SLOW uploads, the choice is to sync it while at home or pay up to store more of it on Apple's servers. That's partially why the hybrid option of a home iCloud and the NC iCloud can be a "something for everyone" solution.
 

blow45

macrumors 68000
Jan 18, 2011
1,576
0
Most people don't have 100s of GBs of data. We're talking documents and photos for 99.9% of users. A generous amount of storage such as 50GB to 100GB (think DropBox) would suffice. It's not like you'll be using iCloud to backup your ripped Blu-ray collection.
yes it is and you are wrong, I am using plex and my imac as servers now and there are in excess of 1tb of tv shows, movies, and music, let alone tons of audiobooks and podcasts.
 

hh83917

macrumors 6502
Jun 30, 2005
296
65
Most people don't have 100s of GBs of data. We're talking documents and photos for 99.9% of users. A generous amount of storage such as 50GB to 100GB (think DropBox) would suffice. It's not like you'll be using iCloud to backup your ripped Blu-ray collection.
Correct, but I bet everyone here would love to put their entire iTunes library on something like dropbox and have the ability to access that everywhere. But to be realistic, the infrastructure is not there yet to support that mostly cost-wise. Hopefully we will all be able to do that 5-10 years down the road... that will be really great :D
 

NAG

macrumors 68030
Aug 6, 2003
2,821
0
/usr/local/apps/nag
Remember when Apple was failing because iCloud was a $25 a year service to stream iTunes Store music to your phone? The memories. I can't wait until we find out how iCloud is going to fail next!
 

skellener

macrumors 68000
Jun 23, 2003
1,765
503
So. Cal.
Correct, but I bet everyone here would love to put their entire iTunes library on something like dropbox and have the ability to access that everywhere. But to be realistic, the infrastructure is not there yet to support that mostly cost-wise. Hopefully we will all be able to do that 5-10 years down the road... that will be really great :D
Just do it yourself for free. Works great. Audio Galaxy
 

srl7741

macrumors 68020
Jan 19, 2008
2,091
1
In my world
I've gone through 3 TC's due to the power supply going out so I cant wait to see what people think when this happens. Whoops!