3 ms·

I find it mildly interesting that Apple’s pricing scales linearly at these higher levels: 50GB: $0.99 200GB: $2.99 2TB: $9.99 6TB: $29.99 12TB: $59.99 Giv

I find it mildly interesting that Apple’s pricing scales linearly at these higher levels: 50GB: $0.99 200GB: $2.99 2TB: $9.99 6TB: $29.99 12TB: $59.99 Given they usually want to tempt you to make that step up to the next level I wonder if they consider 6TB and above to still be real niche territory. Personally I’m conflicted about the whole thing. $29 a month for 6TB of storage feels insane. But I can’t argue with the utility of having all my photos accessible immediately. Once upon a time I had an Apple router with hard disk storage, I’d love it if I could buy one today and have it contribute to my iCloud storage. Apple TVs already do more than just show videos: they’re HomeKit hubs. A future model could have an option for extra storage. But they’d never make as much money that way.

hedora 3y ago
The prices seem high, but I haven't been able to find something comparable and also cheaper. For instance, at $6 per TB per month, BackBlaze B2 is a budget option: https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/pricing https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/pricing Also, unlike Amazon and Microsoft's consumer offerings, BackBlaze and iCloud have never intentionally rug-pulled their customers (as far as I know)
- afavour 3y ago
  Oh I know. I guess my disappointment is more rooted in a lack of at-home storage solutions. It would be entirely possible to sell a device like an Apple TV with extra storage that gets backed up to some equivalent of Amazon Glacier cheaply. But the appetite isn’t there on the side of the big tech companies. Not that I’m surprised by that, why would they launch a more complicated, less reliable service that makes them less money? I guess in my dream world there’s an open protocol for services to interact with home storage (and market incentive to use it) instead of big tech controlling our interactions. But, alas.
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    > Oh I know. I guess my disappointment is more rooted in a lack of at-home storage solutions. Time Machine still works well. Fun fact: Apple used to sell a "Time Machine device" in the form of the AirPort Extreme Base Station. Today, you can buy a cheap, easy-to-use NAS (QNAP TS-133 is $140 + drive cost) with Time Machine support for at-home backup.
    - afavour 3y ago
      and that's fine... for Time Machine. But you can't use Time Machine as an always-available, on-demand photo library.
      - CharlesW 3y ago
        True, but happily Apple Photos is really good for that part. I use Time Machine to back up that library, and also use Carbon Copy Cloner to back it up to a third place just because I’m paranoid.
  - pama 3y ago
    Not sure I follow. NAS works fine at home (though it may still need a backup to a different physical location to reduce physical risks like fire or flooding)—-do you mean a solution that allows you to access NAS safely from any location?
    - afavour 3y ago
      I mean deep integration. I've tried a bunch of alternative photo backup software that'll save to a NAS, none of them are "family proof". One of the biggest selling points of iCloud is that it integrates so deeply with the iPhone photos app that you're not even aware of which photos are on your device and which aren't. That level of integration simply isn't possible with third party solutions.
      - pama 3y ago
        Thanks for the clarification.
pram 3y ago
A neo-Airport with a built in caching service + the TM stuff would be great. Having a local “hot cache” on iCloud makes so much sense. Ditching that product still defies any logical explanation.
- voisin 3y ago
  I suspect they ditched it because most users would choose a one time cost of an airport versus ongoing cost of iCloud and not appreciate the value proposition of offsite storage.

hedora 3y ago

The prices seem high, but I haven't been able to find something comparable and also cheaper. For instance, at $6 per TB per month, BackBlaze B2 is a budget option: https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/pricing https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/pricing Also, unlike Amazon and Microsoft's consumer offerings, BackBlaze and iCloud have never intentionally rug-pulled their customers (as far as I know)

afavour 3y ago
Oh I know. I guess my disappointment is more rooted in a lack of at-home storage solutions. It would be entirely possible to sell a device like an Apple TV with extra storage that gets backed up to some equivalent of Amazon Glacier cheaply. But the appetite isn’t there on the side of the big tech companies. Not that I’m surprised by that, why would they launch a more complicated, less reliable service that makes them less money? I guess in my dream world there’s an open protocol for services to interact with home storage (and market incentive to use it) instead of big tech controlling our interactions. But, alas.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > Oh I know. I guess my disappointment is more rooted in a lack of at-home storage solutions. Time Machine still works well. Fun fact: Apple used to sell a "Time Machine device" in the form of the AirPort Extreme Base Station. Today, you can buy a cheap, easy-to-use NAS (QNAP TS-133 is $140 + drive cost) with Time Machine support for at-home backup.
  - afavour 3y ago
    and that's fine... for Time Machine. But you can't use Time Machine as an always-available, on-demand photo library.
    - CharlesW 3y ago
      True, but happily Apple Photos is really good for that part. I use Time Machine to back up that library, and also use Carbon Copy Cloner to back it up to a third place just because I’m paranoid.
- pama 3y ago
  Not sure I follow. NAS works fine at home (though it may still need a backup to a different physical location to reduce physical risks like fire or flooding)—-do you mean a solution that allows you to access NAS safely from any location?
  - afavour 3y ago
    I mean deep integration. I've tried a bunch of alternative photo backup software that'll save to a NAS, none of them are "family proof". One of the biggest selling points of iCloud is that it integrates so deeply with the iPhone photos app that you're not even aware of which photos are on your device and which aren't. That level of integration simply isn't possible with third party solutions.
    - pama 3y ago
      Thanks for the clarification.

pram 3y ago

A neo-Airport with a built in caching service + the TM stuff would be great. Having a local “hot cache” on iCloud makes so much sense. Ditching that product still defies any logical explanation.

voisin 3y ago
I suspect they ditched it because most users would choose a one time cost of an airport versus ongoing cost of iCloud and not appreciate the value proposition of offsite storage.