Time Machine via iCloud - why is it still not a thing?

[MajorFubar]

I was really hoping MacOS Ventura would finally launch an iCloud-based Time Machine. Considering iDevices have had the facility to backup to iCloud for years and years, this seems such an obvious missing feature from MacOS.

Internet speeds are so variable across the world (even within the same country, here in England) that it's true the practicality of it would vary depending on where you live, but to me it seems such an incredibly 'easy win' in terms of coding, and another step towards unifying users' experiences across all Apple devices (which from other perspectives is being pursued at quite a pace). It baffles me how Apple still haven't done it.

EDIT: The icing on the cake would be an increase in the maximum size of the subscription-based iCloud+ plan, which currently tops-out at 2TB, but they could launch an iCloud-based Time Machine service without doing that initially.

 

[Weaselboy]

I too am surprised Apple has not come out with a product like this. It seems like it would be an easy money maker for them.

 

[tarsins]

That would be excellent. Currently using a Samsung T5 on my MB and I forget to do regular backups.

 

[MajorFubar]

That would be excellent. Currently using a Samsung T5 on my MB and I forget to do regular backups.

Don't you have it configured to just do it automatically? That's the default behaviour.

 

[tarsins]

Don't you have it configured to just do it automatically? That's the default behaviour.

Wouldn't I have to have the T5 connected all the time?

 

[MajorFubar]

Yes. Wasn't thinking, that's probably not practical on a laptop of course, unless you're one of those weirdos like me who basically just use them like a desktop, always in the same place.

This is exactly why a cloud-based Time Machine would be better.

 

[tarsins]

I'd happily pay for it and/or they could make it part of Apple One. Tim, you're missing an opportunity to make money.

 

[MajorFubar]

I'd happily pay for it and/or they could make it part of Apple One. Tim, you're missing an opportunity to make money.

I find it hard to believe that me as a nobody has thought of something their design engineers have not. I guess they have made a decision to hold it back until most of the world is on much faster internet. Even though I suggested it, it would be completely impractical for me because of my slow internet.

 

[zorinlynx]

I'm all for Apple adding this feature, but if they do they need to have two very important settings:

- Back up to cloud less often: I don't want Time Machine uploading a ton of data to the Internet every hour slowing down my connection. I want it to do it once a day at most.
- Separate exclude list for iCloud and local time machine backups: There's very large stuff I want to back up locally but not to the cloud.

Knowing Apple's penchant for developing solutions that appeal to average people and not power users, I'm not sure if they'll end up doing this right.

 

[Weaselboy]

Back in the DotMac days, the service included an online backup and an app called Backup. It went away when DotMac was replaced by iCloud.

 

[MajorFubar]

Back in the DotMac days, the service included an online backup and an app called Backup. It went away when DotMac was replaced by iCloud.

I remember MobileMe, but I've not been on the scene long enough to remember dot mac. Shame it was removed. With the exponential jump in internet speeds (for most people), online backup would be way more practical now than it was then.

 

[gilby101]

I was really hoping MacOS Ventura would finally launch an iCloud-based Time Machine.

I would continue to use Arq which has all the features I need and gives a choice of cloud storage (mostly cheaper than iCloud).

Knowing Apple's penchant for developing solutions that appeal to average people and not power users, I'm not sure if they'll end up doing this right.

I agree. The 'one size fits all' philosophy ends up with something that nobody likes.

 

[giffut]

TimeMachine is so unreliable in recent years and I suspect the reason is that they would have to completely rewrite the code base to properly support APFS - which it doesn´t do at the moment. iCloud itself is a slow sync service, somewhat unreliable sometimes and really slow for files, too, occasionally. OneDrive works better than iCloud with us, it´s crazy, even regarding the new cloud sync API.

I just think they don´t really care about this anymore. It´s a bit like with Microsoft which relies on third party programs to develop those important features which they themselves depreciate step by step. It now feels like a chore you have to qwatch out for. Backing up once was the corner stone of why the Mac experience was so much better than a PC.

We have only two Macs at home, but backing up - be it TimeMachine, Carbon Copy Cloner or via Synology NAS is just a headache. Nothing really works reliable - like ten years ago you could run TimeMachine backups for years in a row, kind of, without worrying, be it on harddisc, DMG bundle via network etc.

 

[zorinlynx]

TimeMachine is so unreliable in recent years and I suspect the reason is that they would have to completely rewrite the code base to properly support APFS - which it doesn´t do at the moment.

Have you used it lately? Time Machine supports APFS natively since Big Sur, and supports it really well using APFS snapshots. The experience has gotten a thousand times better since this change, including performance and reliability. You can delete old backups manually near instantly now, whereas before it would slog for hours to remove them.

Seriously, if you haven't used Time Machine much since Big Sur, give it another try. They really fixed it. You will have to create a new backup on a fresh disk to take advantage of the new design.

 

[giffut]

I am trying it right now. But I still have problems updating via network - WIFI is not working, which makes automated backups of our macbook impossible.

I also sometimes manually have to restart the backup process because it stops on its own without any visible error message via popup or in console log.

I saw some improvements regarding speed, you are right about this, but reliability is still not where it should be.

What I find most disturbing is that third party tools like Carbon Copy Cloner get more and more hardship implementing functions.

APFS API e. g. is still not fully documented and their software and hardware security model - which is more of a antirepair tool - makes it harder and harder to backup/clone drives.

Mind you we have irreplaceble ssd modules on motherboards and when they fail, you even can't boot from any external drive.

This ease of use was paramount to the former mac experience. It was not a security nightmare, because with filevault enabled your backup clones where perfectly protected.

Under APFS filevault is a mess and full data integrity loss is happening. We and friends experienced this. We had a 321 backup strategy, that saved us - and is always recommended, fingers crossed.

So it is kind of a mixed bag at the moment.

Apple as a company is strong and full of ressources and I can't explain nor accept nor excuse those poor functional software and hardware decisions and outcomes - especially when they show a limitation or reduction in former funtionality which only can be explained for economic reasons, not security or usage wise.

 

[gilby101]

But I still have problems updating via network - WIFI is not working, which makes automated backups of our macbook impossible.

TM is best with directly attached storage. For network backups, so much depends on the server (what are you using? and is it ethernet attached?) as well as the network. But if Wifi is not reliable, there is little point in going for network backup.

Under APFS filevault is a mess and full data integrity loss is happening.

I don't agree that it is a mess. It has always been totally reliable for me.

We had a 321 backup strategy, that saved us - and is always recommended, fingers crossed.

So many people don't have any strategy, particularly what to do after a disaster!

 

[Tagbert]

I use BackBlaze for my offsite backups and love it. It requires no more management than TM does and the price is quite reasonable. I am sometimes tempted to drop my local TM backups and go with just BackBlaze. The cloud access for individual file restoration is simple. If you were to need a whole disk restoration, they offer a service where they will overnight you a hard drive with your files for about $100. That’s a pretty good solution.