Oops, sorry, I quote the wrong guy. I think the COO talked about the iPhone. Not the Time Capsule
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.
Time Capsule Not Using Server-Grade Hard Drive As Advertised?
- Thread starter IntrinsicMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oops, sorry, I quote the wrong guy. I think the COO talked about the iPhone. Not the Time Capsule
My bad, I was just saying the same thing and you went off on me because I said something about being lied into a endless war. And how everyone should be way more pissed about that then weather or not Apple didn't tell us the whole truth about a certain piece of hardware. That's all I'm trying to say.
I think it was foolish of Apple to specifically mention that it had a 'server-grade hard drive' because (right or wrong) it led everyone to expect an enterprise class drive. Using the Deskstar rather than any other desktop/consumer hard drive is NOT worthy of highlighting as a special feature.
Mind you, Apple probably assumed that if people are willing to buy the Time Capsule having seen that the festering mess that is the Airport Extreme firmware (Airport Disk problems still ongoing without being fixed), then they won't be surprised to be misled over the components hidden inside. I suppose Time Capsule owners should be grateful if the device even works as advertised, without questioning differences in components.
Apple advertised Time Machine via Airport Extreme so that many people bought the Airport Extreme and external hard drives specifically for this purpose in preparation of Leopard being released, only to withdraw this feature. Airport Extreme users are not only faced with Apple's 180 degree U-turn - now saying that Time Machine isn't supported, but the majority of users cannot even use the Airport Disks for other purposes because the drives don't mount, or don't stay mounted.
If my Airport Extreme and external hard drive had been working as (previously) advertised then I would have seriously considered replacing it with the Time Capsule because it is a neater solution.
However, seeing how badly Apple is handling the problems with Airport Extreme, don't trust them enough to spend any more money until I see them actually sorting these things out. The Apple website still advertises that the Airport Extreme features Airport Disk support even though it doesn't work reliably for most people, so I guess it's not surprising that they claim the Time Capsule contains a server-grade hard drive when in fact it doesn't contain the standard of drive that most people assume this claim refers to.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
I was wondering the same thing. Thanks for the clarification.
AidenShaw said:
I was wondering the same thing. Thanks for the clarification.
The 75GXP was an IBM drive and is what prompted the sale of the DeskStar line to Hitachi. The 75GXP was not representative of the entire line, and "DeathStar" referred specifically to the 75GXP. Unsurprisingly, people couldn't keep such a subtle distinction in their minds.
MTBF is certainly a factor, but every DeskStar that lists an MTBF is rated a 1 million hours or more, and the 7K1000 has a start/stop cycle of 50,000--the same as the drives with 1M hour MTBF.
Absolutely, it is a reliability issue, but there is no reason to believe that the MTBF distinction exists.
It largely depends on your disposition. If the start/stop cycles are the same, it implies an equivalent MTBF. However, the refusal to state that MTBF figure might imply that there's a reason it wasn't stated. There's no conclusion either way, and given that DeskStars are used in servers all the time, including Apple's xServe line, I don't think there's any conclusive support.
Retail warranties, of course, are totally irrelevant to MTBF.
The difference there being that there was a difference. It was also a purely PR motivated move, as Seagate had won on summary judgment and likely would have won on appeal as well.
Since there is nothing here to suggest an inferior MTBF to a server drive, Apple uses the same line of drives in its own servers, Hitachi's own website uses the term "mid-range servers" to describe the lineup, and there is a longstanding distinction between "servers" and "enterprise servers" from the manufacturers of such products, it's a difficult case to make.
They could probably have sprung for the enterprise disks, but it's hard to see it as a legitimate gripe when 'enterprise' and 'server' aren't used interchangeably elsewhere.
I tend to agree with this. However, you have to keep in mind this product is sold to the average user. Do you think the average user make that distinction, or even _know_ there is such a distinction to made?
I'm betting "no", and I think that is exactly what Apple is counting on: Pushing the sale of a product as something it isn't, and getting off on a technicality.
That's a non-profit member organization. That is my point precisely. I could essentially create my own group and label as an organic certification organization. I won't since I don't care about organic foods. You pay 275 bucks for someone to come out and say your place is organic. Our tax dollars should be paying the USDA for this.
The fact that the Seagate "ES" enterprise-grade drives are used for the 500 GB Time Capsule weakens Apple's case considerably, however.
Server-grade was clearly meant to imply enterprise level. No amount of revisionist BS can change that gaffe.
So why is that important to me? Simple: an enterprise level failure rate decreases the frequency at which I hedge my hdd backups with optical media backups. That was a BIG selling point for me. Now I'm steering clear.
Apple sure is making their share of missteps lately. They're starting to add up.
So why is that important to me? Simple: an enterprise level failure rate decreases the frequency at which I hedge my hdd backups with optical media backups. That was a BIG selling point for me. Now I'm steering clear.
Apple sure is making their share of missteps lately. They're starting to add up.
I just bought a 500GB from the local Apple store and I won't lose a wink of sleep over it. In all my time with Apple's (and including the 128k), I've only had one drive failure, a WD, and I'm inclined to believe that that was a thermal issue. Too many drives stuffed into my G4. This is a consumer unit, and that's obvious to anyone, but I doubt that there will be a rash of failures before obsolescence.
You Whiners are making mountains out of molehills with your semantics and Apple's marketing. If you don't think that it meets your standards then don't buy it. Buy some high end NAS and find some utilities to back up as conveniently as Time Capsule. Then back up your NAS as well.
Either way, a class action suit will go no where. But knock yourselves out.
Apple's in need of a good reality check lately & someone to sue the pants off them. I'm getting pretty sick of their BS.
Crippling the AEBS so it wont work with Time Machine backups (even though they said it would) so they can sell yet another product to you & advertising "Server Grade" parts for Time Capsule when they are anything but IS NOT gonna fly.
Intentionally crippling products, bricking phones & flat out lying to customers isn't the Apple I've loved for all these years.
I say we get something going. Anyone know any lawyers who deal with this sorta thing??
Crippling the AEBS so it wont work with Time Machine backups (even though they said it would) so they can sell yet another product to you & advertising "Server Grade" parts for Time Capsule when they are anything but IS NOT gonna fly.
Intentionally crippling products, bricking phones & flat out lying to customers isn't the Apple I've loved for all these years.
I say we get something going. Anyone know any lawyers who deal with this sorta thing??
Nah, that's just your inference.
When I heard Jobs use the term, the first thing I thought was that he was signifying that the thing wasn't going to be using some silly laptop drive inside. Because the unit is sealed and because similar-looking Apple products have used lightweight drives, he was letting people know ahead of time that this was not the case with Time Capsule.
That was my inference anyway.
Nah, that's just your inference.
When I heard Jobs use the term, the first thing I thought was that he was signifying that the thing wasn't going to be using some silly laptop drive inside.
Really? I thought the 500GB and 1TB sizes would have told you that.
I tend to agree, but I think both can fairly be said to be server-grade. One does one better than promised, and one delivers exactly as promised. Given that the OEM price for the 1TB is $150 more than the Seagate and the price difference of the products is $200, it does appear that the DeskStar is the most expensive drive that fits within the price point, accounting for a 20-25% gross margin.
I think it also illustrates an attention to quality drives. They're not intentionally ripping off their customers; I think that much at least is obvious. I don't believe that server-grade implies enterprise-grade in any way that could be said to be dishonest marketing (what an oxymoron that is!), though.
Since when? Server and enterprise classes have always been distinct in IT. If you're smart enough to know there's a difference, you're smart enough to know one does not imply the other.
The average person might not know there's a difference, but they know it's "better than". That's the whole point of marketing. Calling anything the "toughest" or "fastest" or "largest" almost always relies on multiple possible definitions for the given criterion.
Give me a break. Are we really complaining over the use of the term "server-grade" and its meaning?! Let just talk about its performance and how it will work with YOUR system. Did any of you think they were going to use DOD approved storage devices in a consumer product like Time Capsule. This is a joke. Buy it or don't buy it. But don't complain about the ambiguous use of the word server-grade. If the data your backing up is too precious to trust with Time Capsule then you should set up some type of RAID and buy your own enterprise class server-grade hard drives. But I doubt that may of you need that kind of protection. Which is why you will complain on MacRumors today and go to your local Apple Store and buy Time Capsule. Or you can just keep plugging in you USB or FireWire hard drive to you multiple Macs.
Heaven forfend that people discuss(and yes whine) about things they don't like.
Sorry, but I really don't give a rat's arse about you not losing sleep over this, while calling people whiners. To me, it's about taking marketing too far, and in reality saying to people "this is better than most of the rest out there", yet in reality it isn't. It's "false marketing", "misleading marketing" or whatever a native english speaker would call this unethical way of marketing a product. Yes, they might steer clear on a technicality, but that doesn't mean they we'ren't trying to mislead the average consumer.
In cases like this, I try to take into account whether or not a company is being consistent in their product descriptions. In this case, are the same hard drives for Apple's Xserve servers in Time Capsule. They are. That's pretty much it to me.
As to the Airport Extreme Air Disc and Time Machine, I think the jury is still out on that. In order to fix the problem of backing up wirelessly (read here - Why Leopard’s Time Machine Doesn’t Support AirPort Disks.) we all need to know if additional hardware was required or was the fix provided in software and firmware? If it was accomplished via software, than, be patient. I'm sure it will show up in a few weeks via Software Update.
If Apple had to add additional hardware (maybe a bigger physical memory repository for the firmware?) and you want the Time Machine functionality in your Airport Extreme than, all I can say is get an eBay account and pass the AEBS down the food chain.
No, people are just feeling disappointed in Apple once again.
Apple "invents" a new term called "server grade", which sounds much like the upper tier of drives available from the leading vendors. Then we discover that these "special" drives have the word "Desk" in their names.
Whether it's a lie or simply misleading us with "marketing", the disappointment is real.
Totally agree, the majority of people who buy the Time Machine aren't going to do a tear down, and the fact that they're getting more for their money any way is a bonus. As long as Hitachi has the word "Server" in the product description Apple has all of their bases covered.
peestandingup said:
Don't you think you're overreacting a bit? You sound like one of those hippies that won't walk into a Pret a Manger because McDonald's owns a stake in the business. If you don't like the product, and the blurry difference between server grade hard drives and standard hard drives really bothers you that much then don't buy it. I'm sure the majority of people who buy the product will enjoy it regardless of what type of hard drive is in there.
I haven't actually looked into how the AirDisk operates(Don't really use Apple Airports in my environment), but if these developers are right, wow. Apple seriously dropped the ball and hired some bad engineers for the AEBS+Airdisk. That's beyond sad.
yes, technically.
Excellent advice. Now, if Apple didn't think it would actually make some extra sales to the average non-tech user calling it "server grade", don't you think that that claim would have been in some obscure spec sheet?
It's way to easy, anytime a given company tries to mislead the consumers, to go "well, you can just not buy it".
Of course we can, but some might buy that product over the next, simply because this one claims to be "server grade", yet it's just like most other desktop drives.
I just keep finding it strange every time I hear this. People buying AEBS's because of a feature that was still in development of Leopard. Forget the fact that the AEBS is still a pretty sick piece of hardware and that Time Machine is the easiest and in some ways, the best backup solution around. Why would you buy two pieces of hardware for a feature that hadn't made it into the final build of Leopard? And please no one tell me how Steve Jobs himself promised that feature at WWDC. Hey Vista users are still wondering where WinFS is. Go cry with them. But there is one good thing that came from all of you that went down this path, and that is that on October 27, most of you were flooding the internet with complaints about Time Machine and the lack of AirDisk support. Thank you for warning me.
