3 ms·

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

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.

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.