Time Capsule Not Using Server-Grade Hard Drive As Advertised?

[Blue Velvet]

Have I ordered 'bad' product?

No, you have not. The people complaining here have got things all out of proportion and are arguing for the sake of it over the most ridiculous minor points of definition.

As with all Apple products, it's covered under warranty, anyway.

 

[Tosser]

The "big boys" do use these drives in their servers:
"Hitachi Global Storage Technologies (Hitachi GST) today announced that SoftJoys – a provider of computing server equipment and services in Russia – is using Hitachi GST’s one terabyte* hard drives in its high-capacity data storage servers. The Hitachi Deskstar™ 7K1000 hard drive will be used by SoftJoys to develop and launch data storage servers with a total capacity of 24 terabytes. The data storage servers are intended for data streaming applications."

So, with that, they might as well be calling them enterprise grade in the eyes of the average consumer. But they don't. I wonder why.

If they're off the hook for false advertising, it means the claim is supportable and therefore valid. "Technicalities" are the whole ball game.

Hmm, not really. Being found "not guilty" is not the same as being innocent. As someone purporting to work with the law, you of all people should know this.

I did consider it--in the very same sentence, no less. I said that there is a space between consumer and enterprise, and that server-grade was one possible and perfectly reasonable way to describe it.

Hmm, no you didn't. I wrote:

Weird, because I see you defending misleading fluff-marketing, stating that "server grade" is a precise term, claiming that "server grade" means that there is a noche in between consumer and "enterprise", and that that niche should be called "server grade". But that's not all. Besides your feeble attempt at revisionism, you also don't even mind twisting my words, making strawman arguments. Yes, I can certianly see how you focus on the "pointing out" …

–*To which you completely fail to respond. My point was that in order to defend this "premium" consumer HD, you begin to defend the introduction of a marketing term aimed at misleading the consumer to think it's even better. That was my point. Not whether one could argue that we should divide the "gradings" up even further.

That's not a "technicality". It's the same term Dell and HP use to differentiate the machines between their workstations and their enterprise servers. It's the same term Intel uses between its consumer chipsets and its enterprise chipsets.

Yes, because the average computer user and TC buyer will know and check these things

You quoted me as saying "Server != enterprise". That doesn't mean what you think it means.

I am well aware you meant "server ≠ enterprise", but I was talking about when you claimed this (among other places where you use "enterprise" when you should have used "server grade":

An enterprise-grade drive is a good desktop drive.

A classic way of telling if a seemingly valid argument is indeed valid is to use the same argument in a different place. If it doesn't hold water there, or can be used to explain/defend/argue against everything and anything, then the argument is invalid.

Indeed. "Server-grade" doesn't mean "enterprise-grade" anywhere else, and it doesn't in hard drives either.

.

Hello! You're saying that the drive is better than a consumer drive, and up until the marketing department of Apples came alive, you only had two (2) categories: Namely "consumer" and "enterprise" –*the latter know amongst laymen as "the harddisk used for servers by the big boys".

I'll even throw in another one: Windows Vista, Windows Server, and Windows Enterprise Server (there's even Datacenter Edition, which is even "better" than Enterprise).

Ah, yes. There's marketing for you. But I see you're now throwing in different amounts of crippling in a software product. Yup, that truly helps your argument …

No, because that implies at least three classifications. It may well be a ternary, and I'm perfectly content with the separation of 3.5" desktop hard drives into a ternary.

It doesn't matter. Some might only go "pro" and "consumer". It doesn't matter if there is three or just two categories, there will still be quite a bit of differences between the products in each category. And that is my point exactly: EVEN with THREE categories, it's STILL a matter of thresholds. And if you take one the lowest category and invent one, that really doesn't cut it, but is just marketing, it's just at the top of the lowend.
You said it yourself, when you stated that without the introduced fluff, it would be called a "high performance consumer drive".

We don't have a situation in which there are your basic consumer drives, your top-of-the-line enterprise drives, and nothing in the middle. The "thing" in the middle needs a term.

Again, all that apologism is giving me nausea. Again, you said it yourself:

It could also be called "premium", "high performance", "workstation"

From that, it's obvious you're trying to defend that "premium" consumer drive is called something that will make the layman think it's one step further up.
Your attempt at insisting that yet another category is needed, otherwise people wouldn't know about the products quality can be continued ad nauseum. Think about it. We could get a category for any and all drives out there. Each and every one. And just because you can use your argument that way, it shows it's not valid at all.

Since it includes most servers on the planet with the exception of enterprise-duty servers, I'm perfectly content calling it "server-grade".

Be my guest. As you yourself have pointed out, it's not a precise term, nor does it mean anything else but "high performance".

The point is that it is clearly neither consumer nor enterprise,

How many times is it necessary to point out, that you yourself have stated it's not enterprise, but can be considered to be a "premium" consumer drive? That means, that without the introduction of this marketing term, it would _still_ be just a (good) consumer drive.

and so the marketing term accomplishes its goal.

Yes leading non-geeks to believe this is what we call enterprise.

They were very careful to avoid "enterprise-grade" for the precise reason that they weren't referring to enterprise drives, or they would have just said so.

That's your take.
In other news, it seems they wanted to lead the laymen to believe it is, but by tehcnically not saying it is, the y might _legally_ be off the hook.

Everyone else on the planet calls enterprise-grade products "enterprise-grade" products.

You spend way too little time with non-industri people and non-geeks. Hell, even my most tech-savvy friend doesn't do that. The reason being, he's an audio engineer, and acoustician (I think that's the correct translation from danish). His expertise is in quite a different area. Btw. He's the lead engineer in one of the world's largest hearing-aids companies.

Intel's chipsets distinguish server and enterprise server, Microsoft's products distinguish server and enterprise server, HP and Dell's servers distinguish between servers and enterprise servers, and so hard drive makers doing the same isn't unreasonable or even unique to the time capsule. They clearly cut out drives they don't recommend for servers.

Again, you attempt to defend marketing fluff, by saying that if only people would know and read all sorts of technical details on chips and whatnot, they would agree that this new marketing category makes sense. You cannot be serious.

 

[BongoBanger]

I think Apple have been a bit naughty here. Rather than claiming their drives to be server quality they could have just said nothing or "same as any other NAS on the market".

Contrary to some opinion Apple does deserve a slap on the wirst here but just a light one and with the sleeves rolled down.

 

[tony-in-japan]

Don’t worry dude... they’re just playing word games on here.

I've just ordered and paid for a new MBP and a 500GB TC... Reading these posts I am not the wiser as to should I have ordered a TC? Have I ordered 'bad' product? I don't want to lose my 5000 digital photographs... Could one of you 'experts' pls advise...

Don’t worry dude. It is a good product (I also just ordered one recently).

The drive in the 500GB is the Seagate Barracuda ES enterprise hard drive. If you are interested in finding out more about the HD you will get, here is a link:

http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.j...7f43110VgnVCM100000f5ee0a0aRCRD&reqPage=Model

Enjoy!

 

[matticus008]

So, with that, they might as well be calling them enterprise grade in the eyes of the average consumer. But they don't. I wonder why.

That doesn't even begin to make sense. No surprise there.

Hmm, not really. Being found "not guilty" is not the same as being innocent.

There's no such thing as "guilt" in advertising findings.

I am well aware you meant "server ≠ enterprise", but I was talking about when you claimed this (among other places where you use "enterprise" when you should have used "server grade":

No. An enterprise-grade drive is a desktop drive. It's a 3.5" hard drive, not more than 1.5" tall, with AT-standard screw offsets, and a molex or SATA power connector. You can slap one in your iMac or your PC if you want. The term is ambiguous. You seem to be lost in your own pile of words.

Hello! You're saying that the drive is better than a consumer drive, and up until the marketing department of Apples came alive, you only had two (2) categories: Namely "consumer" and "enterprise"

Flatly untrue. There have always been multiple tiers of hard drives for consumer, server, and enterprise use. There are also drives meant for PVR use, industrial use, and a variety of other applications. Not all drives are marketed for servers.

You said it yourself, when you stated that without the introduced fluff, it would be called a "high performance consumer drive".

No, I did not. Try again.

From that, it's obvious you're trying to defend that "premium" consumer drive is called something that will make the layman think it's one step further up.

A "'premium' consumer drive" is a step up, though "premium consumer" is contradictory. Premium != consumer just like server != enterprise server.

How many times is it necessary to point out, that you yourself have stated it's not enterprise, but can be considered to be a "premium" consumer drive?

No matter how many times you say it, it will not be true. I have specifically stated that it is neither consumer nor enterprise. How you can continue to press on with such nonsense is beyond me.

That means, that without the introduction of this marketing term, it would _still_ be just a (good) consumer drive.

No, it would be exactly what it was in April 2007 when it launched, long before Time Capsule: a drive for high performance and server applications.

Again, you attempt to defend marketing fluff, by saying that if only people would know and read all sorts of technical details on chips and whatnot, they would agree that this new marketing category makes sense. You cannot be serious.

They don't have to read anything. 'Server-grade' means "used in servers" to a typical person. This drive is absolutely used in servers. It is better than a simple consumer drive. Ergo, no problem.

I thought you were finished.

 

[Tosser]

That doesn't even begin to make sense. No surprise there.

Sigh. When you state that Hitachi themselves use them for enterprise purposes, then they might as well call them that. But they don't.

There's no such thing as "guilt" in advertising findings.

Even as that may be true, you completely miss my point once again: You're saying that if they are off the hook on a technicality, then everything is great. My point is, that it can still be misleading the customer, even though it may not be to a degree that is enough to warrant a slap on the wrist. The reality is, that it depends which country is doing it. And the laws in place to protect customers about such matters vary from country to country. So, even though, they may not get a slap on the wrist from some institution, they may well be guilty of misleading the customers.
You are suggesting, that ethics has no say in the matter, all that matters is if they overstep some legal borders. Well, sorry to break it to you, but more and more people actually care if they're taken, and whether a given company actually use and apply ethics.

No. An enterprise-grade drive is a desktop drive. It's a 3.5" hard drive, not more than 1.5" tall, with AT-standard screw offsets, and a molex or SATA power connector. You can slap one in your iMac or your PC if you want. The term is ambiguous. You seem to be lost in your own pile of words.

Duh. You and I both know, that you used that response when I said that enterprise was not "desktop grade". You then decided to twist it, so it looked like I was saying you couldn't not use such a drive on a desktop (just as you are now). Yet, you still fail to see the irony: We were talking about the drive, you yourself have stated is not enterprise.
Btw, what happened to your claims about "desktop grade" not being a quality, whereas "server grade" is? Come now. You wen't awfuly quiet on that front all of sudden.

Flatly untrue. There have always been multiple tiers of hard drives for consumer, server, and enterprise use. There are also drives meant for PVR use, industrial use, and a variety of other applications. Not all drives are marketed for servers.

No, I did not. Try again.

You agree that before this "server grade" there was "enterprise grade" and "consumer grade". And you concede that the drive is indeed not an enterprise drive. And with that in mind, you posted this (my emphasis):

"My" definition is that server-grade implies more than consumer-grade and less than enterprise-grade.

[…] it is one possible term to describe something between consumer and enterprise products. It could also be called "premium", "high performance", "workstation", or any other equally ambiguous term. What is clear is that it is something better than a consumer drive and something not as good as an enterprise drive.

So, you see, if you do not invent some new form of category, it is indeed not an enterprise grade drive, and as such it must be a consumer drive. Although high end. Don't tell me you didn't say the above. Without the newly coined phrase it IS a consumer drive. No amount of chopping and distorting that with marketing fluff will alter that. And even though you try to run away from, you did say it. So please, don't attempt the "try again"-routine.

A "'premium' consumer drive" is a step up.

Nope, it's just the high end of the consumer market.

No matter how many times you say it, it will not be true. I have specifically stated that it is neither consumer nor enterprise. How you can continue to press on with such nonsense is beyond me.

Yes, I have even quoted you for it. The crux in your argument, is that in order for you to claim that it's not a consumer grade drive, you have to make up a completely new category. If you cannot make that up, all that stands is that we have the two categories, and it's not enterprise grade.

No, it would be exactly what it was in April 2007 when it launched, long before Time Capsule: a drive for high performance and server applications.

Yes, a high end consumer grade drive.

They don't have to read anything. 'Server-grade' means "used in servers" to a typical person. This drive is absolutely used in servers. It is better than a simple consumer drive. Ergo, no problem.

LOL, since when? If it did, then from now on, anything can be added the monicker "server grade". If that is how average Joe interpreted it, it wouldn't work putting that label anywhere. Of course that's not the connotations they wish to give potential buyers.

I thought you were finished?

I was. Turned out I had a cancellation.

 

[matticus008]

Sigh. When you state that Hitachi themselves use them for enterprise purposes

I stated that they used them in servers. Are you intentionally trolling, or just thoroughly confused?

Btw, what happened to your claims about "desktop grade" not being a quality, whereas "server grade" is? Come now. You wen't awfuly quiet on that front all of sudden.

Um, you're replying to just such a quoted example. Desktop drives are 3.5" drives with the features I listed directly above this line in your post. Where's your outrage that "desktop drive" is misleading and ambiguous? Oh, that's right. It would be inconvenient.

You agree that before this "server grade" there was "enterprise grade" and "consumer grade".

Yes, among others.

And with that in mind, you posted this (my emphasis):

Pointless emphasis aside, yeah. There was always something between consumer products and enterprise products, and they were always called by a variety of terms. As long as that term is neither "consumer" nor "enterprise" it is a suitable term for that "grey area" that makes sense to consumers and doesn't step afoul of any advertising laws (or your arbitrary, extralegal "ethics" standard).

So, you see, if you do not invent some new form of category, it is indeed not an enterprise grade drive, and as such it must be a consumer drive.

Binary! Stop. Just stop.

So please, don't attempt the "try again"-routine.

If you'd get it right, it wouldn't be necessary.

If you cannot make that up, all that stands is that we have the two categories, and it's not enterprise grade.

This drive didn't spring into existence this week. We've never had only two simplistic categories (STOP WITH THE BINARIES), and everything that is not enterprise is not necessarily consumer. A server isn't a consumer-grade product. It's not automatically an enterprise-grade product as a result.

You can't make up your mind or follow anything, but you keep posting away. Trust me, you're not going to wear me out with flip-flopping and nonsense.

 

[diamond.g]

Can't you two agree to disagree? Seriously.

It would be more constructive to complain about the lack of RAID in Apples NAS than what kind of drives are used.

 

[jragosta]

I have been saying that the problem is that Apple has not defined the term "server grade", and that reasonable people might assume that they mean one of the enterprise/server grade drives sold by various manufacturers.

And, I'm blown away that "Dell is doing it too" is being claimed by Apple fanbois. ROTFLOL when Dell is held up as an example of high quality.

No, a reasonable person would not assume that. Since 'server grade' means used in servers and 'enterprise grade' means something used in high end, enterprise level systems, a reasonable person would know the difference. Why don't you?

As for Dell, it's a simple matter of definitions. If Apple, Dell, Hitachi, and Softjoy all agree that this drive is good enough to use in servers, who are you to disagree? It has nothing to do with whether Dell is high quality or not.

Am I the onloy one who is worried by the fact that Apple uses desktop-HD's in their servers? Obviously that's where Apple got their "server-grade" claim from, but fact remains that Deskstar is a consumer-HD. SJ even went as far as specificly mentioning "server-grade" HD during the keynote, and that claim is repeated in the website. Why say something like that when they are in reality using regular Joe Sixpack-HD?

Apple DOESN'T use desktop HDs in the xServe. They use a drive which is sold by the manufacturer for server use. They do NOT use an enterprise drive - which is well known.

"My" definition is that server-grade implies more than consumer-grade and less than enterprise-grade. This is born out by every major manufacturer of hard drives. It is born out by manufacturers of computers and computer chipsets.

That is an arbitrary definition, as well. 'Server grade' means good enough to use in servers. That is clearly a term open to discussion. But since Hitachi, Apple, Dell, and Softjoy all agree that this particular drive is good enough to use in servers, there just plain isn't much to discuss - other than in the minds of the Apple bashers.

So, with that, they might as well be calling them enterprise grade in the eyes of the average consumer. But they don't. I wonder why.

Because 'enterprise drive' has a meaning in the industry, so Apple might be guilty of false advertising if they made that claim.

 

[AidenShaw]

Good morning, y'all. Glad to see that the bickering continued overnight

Because 'enterprise drive' has a meaning in the industry, so Apple might be guilty of false advertising if they made that claim.

So, Apple sticks with deceptive advertising to avoid false advertising?

Actually, I don't think that "Enterprise" is a well-defined term at all. It tends to be used for higher reliability and higher scalability/performance things, but an "enterprise" has all kinds of needs. A mom-and-pop shop might have the need for a 24x7 enterprise system, and a multi-billion $/year multi-national will have lots of systems where failures are tolerated.

A lot of those ProLiants are using Xeon DPs and server-class chipsets in definitely enterprise-class reliability systems.

But back to disks....

Let's see what Western Digital says...

Hmmm, "Enterprise" means servers and NAS - since Apple says "server grade" and clearly the Time Capsule is a NAS, so apparently WD says that it should have an enterprise drive.​

One flavor is "Desktop", the other flavor is "Server and Enterprise". Pretty clear here - don't click on "Desktop" to find "Server" drives.​

More choices here, but Desktop/Deskstar and Enterprise/Ultrastar stand out. Since I know what a "Desktop" is, it looks like I should click on Ultrastar/Enterprise to find server drives, right? Travelstar isn't relevant (but notice that even in the Travelstar line there are "E-series" Enhanced drives for 24x7 use). Cinemastar certainly isn't relevant, it would be stupid to use an AV version of the 7K1000 in a backup device. If I click on "Ultrastar", it says for mission-critical computing - doesn't even use the "E-word".​

So, there's no clear definition of "Enterprise" appearing here - just a general trend that it's more demanding than Desktop and something you find in servers. It looks like "Enterprise drive" and "Server drive" are pretty much synonyms in my initial reading.

Apple should define "server grade".... You shouldn't have to spend time reading various PDFs and obscure interviews to understand the ad -- it's deceptive copy if the initial impression is different from what you discover after taking time for some in-depth research.

 

[matticus008]

Can't you two agree to disagree? Seriously.

Certainly, but that's not the issue. The fact that there is legitimate disagreement goes to show that the term is applicable in at least one reasonable, applicable sense and therefore not "false advertising" as has been claimed by whiners. It's a legitimate advertising claim, backed by the credentials of the drive itself. There's no requirement that an ad be absolute.

If we required our advertising to be conclusive, binary-surviving, and absolute, advertising wouldn't say anything other than the name of the product and a picture.

The burden of proof pulls through here: there's disagreement, but not consensus. False advertising cannot be supported.

If I click on "Ultrastar", it says for mission-critical computing - doesn't even use the "E-word".

Sure it does, in any drive's datasheet so advertised.

So, there's no clear definition of "Enterprise" appearing here - just a general trend that it's more demanding than Desktop and something you find in servers.

Apple should define "server grade"....

Now here's an interesting argument. Apple should define 'server-grade' explicitly even though you're now claiming that hard drive manufacturers haven't clearly defined enterprise-grade, let alone server-grade or consumer-grade, in their own products? That wouldn't lend clarity to anything or help one way or the other if we grant your premise. If, however, you're saying everyone should sit down and establish formal categories, that's not a bad idea.

 

[saltyzoo]

No matter what, it can't possibly be a "server grade" drive.

The minute they put it into a "consumer product" any drive ever made becomes a "consumer grade" drive.

 

[AidenShaw]

Sure it does, in any drive's datasheet so advertised.

Thank you for reinforcing my point that you have to dig deep into the websites to get the full picture - and that more casual views lead to the conclusion that there are two flavors of drives - "Desktop" and "Server/Enterprise".

Apple should define 'server-grade' explicitly...

Yes, because the use of undefined terms is misleading - especially since on the disk manufacturers' websites you find similarly named things that mean something different.

If, however, you're saying everyone should sit down and establish formal categories, that's not a bad idea.

I think that it's a bad idea - simply because the technology is changing rapidly.

A few years ago the top drives had 300,000 hour MTBF, now 1.2 million is the norm, and Seagate's 2.5" Enterprise SAS/FC drives are hitting 1.5 million with 1/1E16 error rates. (The Seagate 2.5" enterprise drives, by the way, are the only drives that I'm buying for my new servers with standard builtin hardware RAID.)

Let's work on getting realistic AFR (Annualized Failure Rates) and other meaningful metrics for the disks (MTBF is losing credibility), and use those. Let's not define fixed categories based on the values of those metrics.

There's nothing wrong with letting the manufacturers choose more or less arbitrary dividing points between their product lines, as long as there are specs that can be trusted and compared.

There's also never going to be an exact division. Desktop-class drives will be suitable for lower-end server applications and light duty NAS servers. As server drives improve, reliability of desktop drives will climb as the older server-grade drives are sold for lighter use.

Flash and DRAM drives bring entirely new metrics to the picture - so again static definitions will not be adequate.

 

[benpatient]

can someone explain to me why the mini, the ipod, the macbook, the imac and the apple TV don't have a big "SERVER GRADE HARD DRIVE" sticker on the box?

Basic facts:

A hard drive company makes two versions of a drive, the consumer version and the enterprise or server version. They have the same basic specs and the same basic performance. The differences are mechanical, better bearings, housings, etc. Better warranty and higher expected service life.

An electronics company announces a new product, one of many products they sell that use hard drives, and prominently advertises that this product uses "server grade" hard drives. Upon inspection, one version of this product (the 500gb version) does, indeed use a "server" or "enterprise" product with all of the benefits of such a distinction. The other one uses a regular drive, despite the existence and availability of a true "server" or "enterprise" version of the exact same drive.

This is at the very least intentionally misleading. I'm willing to bet that in California if not elsewhere, it is toeing the fraud line.

 

[AidenShaw]

This is at the very least intentionally misleading. I'm willing to bet that in California if not elsewhere, it is toeing the fraud line.

Oh, benpatient, you make a very reasonable observation.

Be prepared for a lot of irrational rebuttals .

Well done everyone, now we've got people worried about buying Time Capsule or concerned they've ordered a duff product. (below)

And maybe they are thinking about whether a non-RAID backup system is a good idea in the first place - since in the end both server and desktop drives fail at a significant rate.

 

[Sonic]

Everywhere I turn on MR it's 3-page-long posts quoting and trashing every single line of their antagonist's posts, usually over petty semantics (not naming names). Maybe because Apple's actually doing quite well at the moment [edit: not stockwise, but I'm sure that will improve] and people haven't got enough to complain about, haha.

Agreed this is a grey area, and some creative copy from Apple (who doesn't do this?) But if you care enough you'll check out what the drive itself is, and make your decision based on that. If you don't care, you don't care!

I think the Time Capsule is tempting. Would like to know how fast it runs and if you can back it up.

 

[ascender]

Well done everyone, now we've got people worried about buying Time Capsule or concerned they've ordered a duff product.

Got to love the internet.

 

[notjustjay]

Avoiding the long arguments here, but my opinion is that "server grade" is being tossed around the same way as "contractor grade" (for tools, garbage bags, etc.) and "professional quality". Even "deluxe edition" gets misused these days. And remember when "made of space age materials" sounded special, even though the big space race was, well, 40 years ago?

All nice marketing, but meaningless when you sit down and think about it.

 

[kuwisdelu]

Well I consider myself pretty computer literate, though not in the area of hard drives. I really knew nothing of drives until this rather wild and pointless argument. But as a reasonably tech-savvy, drive-illiterate, consumer, I really just interpreted "server-grade" as "better than average." For the price of Time Capsule, I was never really expecting something "enterprise-grade," but just something good enough to be used in servers--which it sounds like the Deskstar is. That's really all many of us need.

I'm not sure what to think about an "enterprise-grade" drive being in the 500GB version, and maybe there's more to it there than we know, but it sounds like more than I was expecting got into that one.

I believe most people like myself would interpret "server-grade" as "good enough to reasonably be used in a server," and the drive in the 1TB version of TC certainly seems to past that test (to me).

I don't think there's anything wrong with it being called a high-end of consumer drives, or anything like that, because I would imagine anyone looking for something more than that would want a more complicated setup to begin with. The target market for Time Capsule isn't going to spend much more for an extra reliability they'll probably never see or need, nor do I think anyone reasonable would interpret "server-grade" on a consumer product as meaning "enterprise-grade." When a drive is considered by multiple, big companies as good enough for a server, that's good enough for most consumers looking for a Time Capsule, and most won't care about any extra step up to "enterprise-grade" because we're not running servers that require 99.99% uptime or using it as the only place to store critical information (backup implies it's the second place we have it).

All I really need is safe, wireless backup and storage, which is what Time Capsule is for, even though it's capable of more. "Server-grade" is a pretty unclear, but all I expected when I saw "server-grade" was better than the cheap external I'd normally pick up at Best Buy--which is not the same as expecting "enterprise-grade." This crazy argument over semantic is getting pretty silly.

Personally, I'm buying a 1TB Time Capsule, using it for back up, and feeling good about it. For the step up to a 802.11n wireless router + 1TB of storage, I think it's well worth it--even if it's not (gasp!) enterprise-grade.

And maybe they are thinking about whether a non-RAID backup system is a good idea in the first place - since in the end both server and desktop drives fail at a significant rate.

How much of Time Capsule's target market do you think even knows what RAID is in the first place? For how many of them do you think it's really appropriate?

 

[diamond.g]

Avoiding the long arguments here, but my opinion is that "server grade" is being tossed around the same way as "contractor grade" (for tools, garbage bags, etc.) and "professional quality". Even "deluxe edition" gets misused these days. And remember when "made of space age materials" sounded special, even though the big space race was, well, 40 years ago?

All nice marketing, but meaningless when you sit down and think about it.

Like I said earlier I am more suprised there is no uproar over the 1 yr warranty for the HD. When the OEM clearly has a 3 (or 5) year warranty for it.
Plus it is a bummer that the only Time Machine compatible NAS device lacks any sort of RAID option. Oh well, I want one still so I can start backing up more often (and without having to constantly manage it).

How much of Time Capsule's target market do you think even knows what RAID is in the first place? For how many of them do you think it's really appropriate?

Probably not many. If you can show them that their data has less of a chance of going *poof* due to drive failure, I reckon they would be pretty happy.

It makes it seem like Time Capsule isn't truly a robust option. I mean how is it good that you can possibly loose your backup drive and thus all your backups with it (and be out of a backup system for however long it takes to fix)?

 

[saltyzoo]

No gazillion hour MTBF drive, no RAID 0, 1, 5, no way to back it up.

Digging pretty deep there to find complaints IMO. It's funny though. Now where did I set my popcorn?

 

[diamond.g]

No gazillion hour MTBF drive, no RAID 0, 1, 5, no way to back it up.

Digging pretty deep there to find complaints IMO. It's funny though. Now where did I set my popcorn?

It is still in the microwave.

I am listing personal observations. Nothing that is going to stop me from getting one. Shoot the wife is the only way I wouldn't get one at this point (well that and money).

 

[AidenShaw]

It's an opportunity - for the Time Capsule Pro !!

How much of Time Capsule's target market do you think even knows what RAID is in the first place?

For how many of them do you think it's really appropriate?

It's an opportunity for Apple - the hot-swap capable Time Capsule Pro.

It is possible to sell RAID-like storage to the masses, you don't need to call it RAID.

 

[kuwisdelu]

Probably not many. If you can show them that their data has less of a chance of going *poof* due to drive failure, I reckon they would be pretty happy.

It makes it seem like Time Capsule isn't truly a robust option. I mean how is it good that you can possibly loose your backup drive and thus all your backups with it (and be out of a backup system for however long it takes to fix)

How come this has never been a point brought up about *any* external hard drive, then, rather than just for Time Capsule? Something like RAID--hell, something like enterprise-grade--is really overkill for most peoples' backups if they're doing them right. A backup is a second storage of data, so if that data does happen to go *poof* then you still have the original data, and you re-back it up. Of course, anyone who's using an external--or any drive for that matter--as their one and only place to store critical data is asking for trouble anyway, and that's from their own stupidity, not out of any fault of the drive, should it fail.

Am I the only who thinks it's pretty silly to suggest the average consumer would want much more than what Time Capsule (or any external drive + wireless network) offers? Once you start asking for too much more, things start getting more complicated and more pricey than what the vast majority of people are looking for. (And anyone involved in this argument is pretty decidedly not average....)

 

[kuwisdelu]

It's an opportunity for Apple - the hot-swap capable Time Capsule Pro.

It is possible to sell RAID-like storage to the masses, you don't need to call it RAID.

That would be a great option to give in addition to what Time Capsule already offers. But like I said before, it would be major overkill for lots of people simply looking for good wireless backup.

It's a great idea, and I'd be thrilled if Apple offered it, but lots of people would still go for the regular Time Capsule. Just like lots of people still go for the regular MacBook when there's the MacBook Pro. Perfect for some people, but just too much for others.