9 ms·

Ask HN: If Apple integrated Time Machine with iCloud, would you use it?

It blows my mind that Apple, increasingly a cloud services company, has let best-in-class-by-a-mile-when-it-isn't-broken Time Machine basically languish and deteriorate and never integrated it with iCloud storage. It feels like they could dominate a many-billion dollar cloud backup industry over night if they wanted to? I would happily pay another X dollars a month to them for proper cloud backups of someone else if it meant getting the unlimited retention and interface functionality of Time Machine. Am I crazy? Would you? Would your families?

vanilla_nut 5y ago
I'm sure a lot of people would, though most of my friends and family have internet connections that would make uploading 50GB file diffs long, unreliable, and unpleasant (rural USA). I would not. Honestly I'm still kind of mad that I can't automate iPhone backups to my local Time Machine setup.
davidcollantes 5y ago
Apple would have to modify and re-engineer Time Machine to make it fit with iCloud, but yes, I have though about this many times—and I am sure folks at Apple have too. Why it hasn't been implemented yet i don't know, but for all we know it is on a roadmap somewhere, amongst the many things Apple is juggling.
samwillis 5y ago
Absolutely, without question. For better or worse I’m a fully payed up member of the Apple ecosystem. I love that everything generally “just works” (maybe until It doesn’t…). Currently use Arq with S3 but to be honest looking for something simpler. Tried BackBlaze years ago (could be 10 years ago) and found it slow and buggy, probably good now. Would take an Apple online time machine warts and all. I think fundamentally I believe that they would get the encryption and security around it correct, as in general they have a good track record with security and privacy.
- jake_morrison 5y ago
  I use Arq with Backblaze B2, which costs about 1/4 as much as S3. https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html
cehrlich 5y ago
No, or at least not initially. With Apple's track record with online services I wouldn't trust them to not mess this up. I'd stay with BackBlaze for the time being and let others be the early adopters.
- samwillis 5y ago
  > With Apple's track record with online services I wouldn't trust them to not mess this up. While I agree that their track record 5-10 years ago was poor with multiple false starts around iCloud/Me.com. I do think they have absolutely nailed their online services now, iCloud is brilliant and does everything that the market it’s targeted at wants (maybe except versioned backup).
  - yepthatsreality 5y ago
    > (maybe except versioned backup). And encryption.
  - WanderPanda 5y ago
    If you discount the website icloud.com, yes, it is pretty decent.
rubyfan 5y ago
I think the way they do iCloud is better than TimeMachine. I have tons of time machine backup drives that have useless junk from the OS and libraries installed but really all I want is my files that are important. iCloud gives a pretty seamless experience for that right now. I’m not sure time machine adds a lot. Maybe adding versioning (if they don’t already have it) might be a good add but otherwise I wouldn’t change how they do iCloud now.
- hitpointdrew 5y ago
  > that have useless junk from the OS and libraries installed but really all I want is my files I guess you don’t care about machine state. I, however, do.
  - rubyfan 5y ago
    Yeah for what I use my Macs for, no I don’t really care about machine state. Other people might.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
Possibly. I don’t use iCloud storage at the moment because it doesn’t work very well. But I do like Time Machine so a cloud option on it would be interesting. I think it would need some work though, just mapping a disk image in the cloud wouldn’t be enough. Using TM across a network seems to create problems for many.
vero2 5y ago
I wish Apple would build a chromeOS equivalent with iCloud. Just works and with privacy.
xanaxagoras 5y ago
Big no. I stopped using iCloud after the CSAM debacle showed Apple is eager and willing to weaponize my device against me for the sole purpose of reporting the content of my private files to the federal government. Then I stopped using and sold my iPhone and Apple Watch. I haven't been able to get away from MacOS yet, and there's really no competition for the iPad so I still use both of these. While Time Machine has languished and deteriorated, Arq Backup [1] is alive and well. Used with AWS Glacier it's practically free, aside from the 1 time cost of the software (in case anyone forgot - there used to be a paradigm where you could buy software for money and own it) and whatever you choose to pay for expedited restore from Glacier. [1] https://www.arqbackup.com https://www.arqbackup.com
- voisin 5y ago
  The fact that you pulled the chute on that much of the Apple ecosystem because of CSAM - which was client side - seems like an overreaction, no? And did I miss something or were they never using CSAM to report to government but rather to prevent further sharing? This led you to selling your watch too? Crazy. I suggest not reading up on Android and privacy.
  - shmoe 5y ago
    Not to mention Google's been doing CSAM scans _in the cloud_ for years. Apple's approach was sensible and likely would've lead to end to end backup encryption.. a shame the stupid, uninformed outcry about it has had this result.
    - burner556 5y ago
      No it’s not stupid. They are planning to scan your offline on-device files hashing against a secret list. That’s ridiculous and unacceptable.
      - gjsman-1000 5y ago
        On device files that were going to iCloud, no files that were not intended for iCloud, no scanning if you do not use iCloud, using a list stored on your device.
milesward 5y ago
It's also a backup model that would benefit to a hilarious degree from deduplication...
jdlshore 5y ago
I don’t think it’s accurate to say they’ve let TM languish. They recently did a big update that allows it to work on AFPS-formatted drives that takes advantage of AFPS snapshots. And prior to that, changes to take advantage of AFPS snapshots on the source drives as well. The UI hasn’t changed, but there have been big changes under the covers.
yepthatsreality 5y ago
No, considering they don’t encrypt Iphone backups in Icloud.[0] [0] https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/21/apples-icloud-backups-are-unencrypted-due-to-law-enforcement-pressure/ https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/21/apples-icloud-backups-are...
- shmoe 5y ago
  Yes they do.. they just have the decryption key.
  - ohCh6zos 5y ago
    They only offer encryption with a known compromised key. How is that useful?
    - shmoe 5y ago
      It isn't.. but here in reality they're forced to respond to requests by law enforcement for things such as CSAM -- this is the problem they were trying to solve with the on-device scanning. The plan was this would allow for backups they would not have a key to, and thus be unable to respond to law enforcement.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        Here in reality other companies have end to end encryption.
        shmoe 5y ago
        Do they? Consumer level? Or are you able to view your files in the cloud which inherently implies they have that key.
        pseudalopex 5y ago
        I said end to end. Why would you ask if I meant not end to end?
oceanghost 5y ago
Time Machine is completely unreliable even for home use.
- meesterdude 5y ago
  In contrast, always just worked for me
- nodesocket 5y ago
  How so? Works for me the last 10+ years. Restored each time I bought a new machine.
  - prirun 5y ago
    I had Time Machine fail on me, and a customer (I'm the HashBackup author) had it fail on him. Details at https://www.hashbackup.com/hashbackup/customers.html https://www.hashbackup.com/hashbackup/customers.html search for Time Machine.
js2 5y ago
Yes. I love not having to worry about my iPhone and iPad. I've been using iCloud backup on those devices for years and years, transferring across devices and it just works. I don't have a single extended family member who backs up their Macbook's properly. I've tried. No one wants to be bothered with having to periodically attach a USB drive to their laptop. And Time Machine to an SMB share is flakey. The Macbooks in my home are setup to use Time Machine to an SMB share and Arq to B2 because I can help if something breaks. For my kids away at college, they have an external USB drive, but neither reliably plugs it in. So their laptops are also configured with Backblaze because Arq's UI is too damn confusing. It's especially non-sensical to me that Apple doesn't offer this since they already have offer to host your photo library, music library, and documents and desktop folders in iCloud, plus whatever other apps choose to sync to iCloud. They can exclude the OS and apps from the app store. Now, I personally wouldn't use this as my sole backup. But for family members who aren't backing up at all? Yes, please.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Absolutely, without hesitation. Take my money Tim Apple.
mac3n 5y ago
no. no way! I'm ok with Time Machine the way it is. I stay off iCloud, especially on a work laptop.
hedgehog 5y ago
No. iCloud sync for Notes, Calendar, and iMessage lose data on a regular basis so I wouldn't trust them with anything not easily replaced.
- shmoe 5y ago
  I hate to say this .. but are you "using it wrong" ? Never had any issue with any of these 3.
  - hedgehog 5y ago
    I think the vast majority of people either only heavily use one device, don't mind if the occasional note or appointment disappears, or just don't notice. The iOS Dropbox app has pretty frequent sync issues with its text editor too. At least it doesn't break when you feed it high Unicode anymore. The notes solution that has worked reliably for us is to use a third party iOS text editor called 1Writer that calls the Dropbox API. For appointments check anything important on a second device after making edits. The Messages issue seems to only happen on a fresh install, so for each new device really scrutinize the message history if it's not there and if not reset it to factory and try again. It's all navigable, just annoying.
mac3n 5y ago
no. No way! I'm ok with Time Machine the way it is. I stay off iCloud, especially on a work laptop.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
brian_herman 5y ago
Yes! In a heartbeat.
lazyfuture 5y ago
Been a big Apple fanboy for a long time and am moving 100% away from all of their tech. Don't want Apple anything anymore.
- cudgy 5y ago
  Where are you going then?
1123581321 5y ago
It would have to work well with multiple users. iCloud backup can be a simpler solution since iOS and iPadOS devices are single-user.
oneplane 5y ago
Because local data is no longer a relevant matter for the consumer market from the perspective of the corporations. Your media is in the cloud, your communications are in the cloud and apps are re-downloadable. Of course all of this has the capability of being defective down the road or missing something, but so does local storage. The endgame seems to be local cache, edge-retained warm storage and cloud-based bulk storage, all managed transparently.
bproctor 5y ago
I don't know what I'm missing, but I've tried to use Time Machine many times over the past decade and every time it's the same thing. After a few weeks, it forgets what it's doing and has to rebuild the backup from scratch.
st3fan 5y ago
Only if fully encrypted
Youden 5y ago
Not unless the client is open-source. I can trust encryption to some degree but after Apple's CSAM stuff, no way am I letting them do what they please.
ohCh6zos 5y ago
Never, I have no assurances that Apple has no ability to know what the data is.
Mandatum 5y ago
1000% yes. I doubt it'd be economical, but absolutely.

vanilla_nut 5y ago

I'm sure a lot of people would, though most of my friends and family have internet connections that would make uploading 50GB file diffs long, unreliable, and unpleasant (rural USA). I would not. Honestly I'm still kind of mad that I can't automate iPhone backups to my local Time Machine setup.

davidcollantes 5y ago

Apple would have to modify and re-engineer Time Machine to make it fit with iCloud, but yes, I have though about this many times—and I am sure folks at Apple have too. Why it hasn't been implemented yet i don't know, but for all we know it is on a roadmap somewhere, amongst the many things Apple is juggling.

samwillis 5y ago

Absolutely, without question. For better or worse I’m a fully payed up member of the Apple ecosystem. I love that everything generally “just works” (maybe until It doesn’t…). Currently use Arq with S3 but to be honest looking for something simpler. Tried BackBlaze years ago (could be 10 years ago) and found it slow and buggy, probably good now. Would take an Apple online time machine warts and all. I think fundamentally I believe that they would get the encryption and security around it correct, as in general they have a good track record with security and privacy.

jake_morrison 5y ago
I use Arq with Backblaze B2, which costs about 1/4 as much as S3. https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html

cehrlich 5y ago

No, or at least not initially. With Apple's track record with online services I wouldn't trust them to not mess this up. I'd stay with BackBlaze for the time being and let others be the early adopters.

samwillis 5y ago
> With Apple's track record with online services I wouldn't trust them to not mess this up. While I agree that their track record 5-10 years ago was poor with multiple false starts around iCloud/Me.com. I do think they have absolutely nailed their online services now, iCloud is brilliant and does everything that the market it’s targeted at wants (maybe except versioned backup).
- yepthatsreality 5y ago
  > (maybe except versioned backup). And encryption.
- WanderPanda 5y ago
  If you discount the website icloud.com, yes, it is pretty decent.

rubyfan 5y ago

I think the way they do iCloud is better than TimeMachine. I have tons of time machine backup drives that have useless junk from the OS and libraries installed but really all I want is my files that are important. iCloud gives a pretty seamless experience for that right now. I’m not sure time machine adds a lot. Maybe adding versioning (if they don’t already have it) might be a good add but otherwise I wouldn’t change how they do iCloud now.

hitpointdrew 5y ago
> that have useless junk from the OS and libraries installed but really all I want is my files I guess you don’t care about machine state. I, however, do.
- rubyfan 5y ago
  Yeah for what I use my Macs for, no I don’t really care about machine state. Other people might.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

Possibly. I don’t use iCloud storage at the moment because it doesn’t work very well. But I do like Time Machine so a cloud option on it would be interesting. I think it would need some work though, just mapping a disk image in the cloud wouldn’t be enough. Using TM across a network seems to create problems for many.

vero2 5y ago

I wish Apple would build a chromeOS equivalent with iCloud. Just works and with privacy.

xanaxagoras 5y ago

Big no. I stopped using iCloud after the CSAM debacle showed Apple is eager and willing to weaponize my device against me for the sole purpose of reporting the content of my private files to the federal government. Then I stopped using and sold my iPhone and Apple Watch. I haven't been able to get away from MacOS yet, and there's really no competition for the iPad so I still use both of these. While Time Machine has languished and deteriorated, Arq Backup [1] is alive and well. Used with AWS Glacier it's practically free, aside from the 1 time cost of the software (in case anyone forgot - there used to be a paradigm where you could buy software for money and own it) and whatever you choose to pay for expedited restore from Glacier. [1] https://www.arqbackup.com https://www.arqbackup.com

voisin 5y ago
The fact that you pulled the chute on that much of the Apple ecosystem because of CSAM - which was client side - seems like an overreaction, no? And did I miss something or were they never using CSAM to report to government but rather to prevent further sharing? This led you to selling your watch too? Crazy. I suggest not reading up on Android and privacy.
- shmoe 5y ago
  Not to mention Google's been doing CSAM scans _in the cloud_ for years. Apple's approach was sensible and likely would've lead to end to end backup encryption.. a shame the stupid, uninformed outcry about it has had this result.
  - burner556 5y ago
    No it’s not stupid. They are planning to scan your offline on-device files hashing against a secret list. That’s ridiculous and unacceptable.
    - gjsman-1000 5y ago
      On device files that were going to iCloud, no files that were not intended for iCloud, no scanning if you do not use iCloud, using a list stored on your device.

milesward 5y ago

It's also a backup model that would benefit to a hilarious degree from deduplication...

jdlshore 5y ago

I don’t think it’s accurate to say they’ve let TM languish. They recently did a big update that allows it to work on AFPS-formatted drives that takes advantage of AFPS snapshots. And prior to that, changes to take advantage of AFPS snapshots on the source drives as well. The UI hasn’t changed, but there have been big changes under the covers.

yepthatsreality 5y ago

No, considering they don’t encrypt Iphone backups in Icloud.[0] [0] https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/21/apples-icloud-backups-are-unencrypted-due-to-law-enforcement-pressure/ https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/21/apples-icloud-backups-are...

shmoe 5y ago
Yes they do.. they just have the decryption key.
- ohCh6zos 5y ago
  They only offer encryption with a known compromised key. How is that useful?
  - shmoe 5y ago
    It isn't.. but here in reality they're forced to respond to requests by law enforcement for things such as CSAM -- this is the problem they were trying to solve with the on-device scanning. The plan was this would allow for backups they would not have a key to, and thus be unable to respond to law enforcement.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      Here in reality other companies have end to end encryption.
      - shmoe 5y ago
        Do they? Consumer level? Or are you able to view your files in the cloud which inherently implies they have that key.
        pseudalopex 5y ago
        I said end to end. Why would you ask if I meant not end to end?

oceanghost 5y ago

Time Machine is completely unreliable even for home use.

meesterdude 5y ago
In contrast, always just worked for me
nodesocket 5y ago
How so? Works for me the last 10+ years. Restored each time I bought a new machine.
- prirun 5y ago
  I had Time Machine fail on me, and a customer (I'm the HashBackup author) had it fail on him. Details at https://www.hashbackup.com/hashbackup/customers.html https://www.hashbackup.com/hashbackup/customers.html search for Time Machine.

js2 5y ago

Yes. I love not having to worry about my iPhone and iPad. I've been using iCloud backup on those devices for years and years, transferring across devices and it just works. I don't have a single extended family member who backs up their Macbook's properly. I've tried. No one wants to be bothered with having to periodically attach a USB drive to their laptop. And Time Machine to an SMB share is flakey. The Macbooks in my home are setup to use Time Machine to an SMB share and Arq to B2 because I can help if something breaks. For my kids away at college, they have an external USB drive, but neither reliably plugs it in. So their laptops are also configured with Backblaze because Arq's UI is too damn confusing. It's especially non-sensical to me that Apple doesn't offer this since they already have offer to host your photo library, music library, and documents and desktop folders in iCloud, plus whatever other apps choose to sync to iCloud. They can exclude the OS and apps from the app store. Now, I personally wouldn't use this as my sole backup. But for family members who aren't backing up at all? Yes, please.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Absolutely, without hesitation. Take my money Tim Apple.

mac3n 5y ago

no. no way! I'm ok with Time Machine the way it is. I stay off iCloud, especially on a work laptop.

hedgehog 5y ago

No. iCloud sync for Notes, Calendar, and iMessage lose data on a regular basis so I wouldn't trust them with anything not easily replaced.

shmoe 5y ago
I hate to say this .. but are you "using it wrong" ? Never had any issue with any of these 3.
- hedgehog 5y ago
  I think the vast majority of people either only heavily use one device, don't mind if the occasional note or appointment disappears, or just don't notice. The iOS Dropbox app has pretty frequent sync issues with its text editor too. At least it doesn't break when you feed it high Unicode anymore. The notes solution that has worked reliably for us is to use a third party iOS text editor called 1Writer that calls the Dropbox API. For appointments check anything important on a second device after making edits. The Messages issue seems to only happen on a fresh install, so for each new device really scrutinize the message history if it's not there and if not reset it to factory and try again. It's all navigable, just annoying.

mac3n 5y ago

no. No way! I'm ok with Time Machine the way it is. I stay off iCloud, especially on a work laptop.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

brian_herman 5y ago

Yes! In a heartbeat.

lazyfuture 5y ago

Been a big Apple fanboy for a long time and am moving 100% away from all of their tech. Don't want Apple anything anymore.

cudgy 5y ago
Where are you going then?

1123581321 5y ago

It would have to work well with multiple users. iCloud backup can be a simpler solution since iOS and iPadOS devices are single-user.

oneplane 5y ago

Because local data is no longer a relevant matter for the consumer market from the perspective of the corporations. Your media is in the cloud, your communications are in the cloud and apps are re-downloadable. Of course all of this has the capability of being defective down the road or missing something, but so does local storage. The endgame seems to be local cache, edge-retained warm storage and cloud-based bulk storage, all managed transparently.

bproctor 5y ago

I don't know what I'm missing, but I've tried to use Time Machine many times over the past decade and every time it's the same thing. After a few weeks, it forgets what it's doing and has to rebuild the backup from scratch.

st3fan 5y ago

Only if fully encrypted

Youden 5y ago

Not unless the client is open-source. I can trust encryption to some degree but after Apple's CSAM stuff, no way am I letting them do what they please.

ohCh6zos 5y ago

Never, I have no assurances that Apple has no ability to know what the data is.

Mandatum 5y ago

1000% yes. I doubt it'd be economical, but absolutely.