News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

January 24, 2008

hardware

Time Capsule: Expo’s buried treasure

Posted Jan. 24, ’08, 11:40 AM PT by Dan Moren
Category | Hardware

Time CapsuleAmong the four major topics Steve Jobs discussed at his annual coffee klatch, the one that probably got the least attention—or the least positive attention, anyway—was Time Capsule. On the face of it, Time Capsule’s not necessarily a revolutionary product: network attached storage with wireless support has certainly been done before. But that doesn’t make it any less of a cool idea, especially when it’s implemented with Apple’s usual elegance and simplicity.

When Leopard was rolled out last year, Time Machine was unquestionably the biggest draw. Even now, months later, I find that amazing: the most anticipated feature of a new Operating System is making backups. That’s kind of like getting excited about a Hollywood blockbuster because you hear the craft services were pretty sweet—it’s important, to be sure, but it’s hardly what one might call sexalicious.

Of course, at the time, using Time Machine meant you needed an external drive, so Apple pushed all sorts of FireWire drives as the backup vector of choice. That was useful, but it clearly wasn’t Apple’s ideal solution. I mean, wires and cables are so 2005. If such a thing could be accomplished even more simply, then Apple had an interest in making that happen. And thus, Time Capsule was born.

On a personal time level, Time Capsule would potentially solve one annoying problem for me. Like many people these days, my primary computer is a notebook, a MacBook. I do have a Time Machine backup on an external FireWire drive, but that’s dependent on a couple of factors, and the weakest link in the chain is that I frequently forget to plug the drive in and turn it on when I’m home. Is it worth it for me to shell out $299 to combat my faulty memory? Maybe not, but when you throw in what’s essentially a free AirPort Extreme, well, that deal begins to look a bit sweeter.

The only real problem there is that my MacBook is the pre-802.11n flavor, meaning that such backups are likely to be quite a bit slower than they are over FireWire. Then again, maybe that’s just a reason to swap my MacBook for an Air…but I digress.

There are a couple of other weaknesses in Time Capsule too, such as the reliance on a single drive. One backup is better than none, certainly, but any serious computer user will tell you it’s not as good as two (especially one that’s offsite). My critical work files are usually stored on my iDisk, since that ensures a copy on my local machine as well as remotely (and Apple backs those files up as well). What happens when (not if, but when) that backup drive dies? Can you open up Time Capsule and install a new drive? Probably not easily, if Apple’s history of user-servicing is any indication, but there will be those that will venture forth and give it a shot, have no doubt.

Interestingly enough (though perhaps not surprising, since Time Capsule is basically an AirPort Extreme with a SATA drive shoved in) it seems that Time Capsule’s USB port does support AirPort Disk, making me wonder if you could somehow rig a two-drive solution.

The leads nicely into the conflagration over the lack of Time Machine support for the Extreme’s AirPort Disk. That feature was supposed to be in Leopard—it was in the list of Leopard features and was mentioned by Steve Jobs in last year’s WWDC keynote—but it ended up being removed from the final release for reasons that were about as clear as the federal tax code. I’ve heard tell of security problems and hardware issues lying behind that decision, but Apple’s publicly said nothing one way or the other. Meanwhile, the cynical say that Apple saw a way to make more money by introducing a product like Time Capsule, so they deliberately crippled the AirPort Disk functionality.

Does that theory come with a free tinfoil hat? Because, personally, I see Time Capsule and AirPort Extreme as two distinct products. Time Capsule is first and foremost a backup server, hence the SATA hard drive interface, which is far better performing than USB 2.0, and the server-grade drive—the wireless access point features are ancillary to that functionality. The AirPort Extreme, meanwhile, is predominantly an access point; if you want to attach a disk for attached storage, you’re free to go ahead at extra cost to yourself, but that’s beside the device’s main point. These differences are reflected pretty concretely in the pricing: $179 for the Extreme, and $299 for the 500GB Time Capsule. You can find external USB drives for around that price difference, but frankly, if that’s what you want the Extreme for, you might as well buy a Time Capsule.

Cold comfort to those who already bought an AirPort Extreme, you might point out. But I believe that Apple’s going to make good on that initial feature promise. Rumors swirling at the moment suggest that the imminent 10.5.2 update will support using AirPort Disk as a Time Machine destination, so I don’t think those users will be left to die of exposure. I think it’s more likely that Apple realized they couldn’t get Time Machine via AirPort Disk working to their standards in time for Leopard’s release and decided to push it off to a subsequent update. In the meantime, there are third-party solutions, like iTimeMachine that do enable the functionality, though I might be a little wary about exactly how they’re accomplishing that.

If you want to argue that many of those people wouldn’t have bought an AirPort Extreme in the first place if they’d known Time Capsule was on the way, well, that’s just the way Apple rolls. Yeah, it’s inconvenient—you’re talking to a person who’s been burned by Apple’s penchant for secrecy plenty of times—but by now, you ought to know what you’re getting into.

Time Capsule, like Time Machine, is a tremendous accomplishment: getting the average user to back up their files is like getting a kid to eat their vegetables. I’d be interested to see how many of those 19% of OS X’s installed base who are now on Leopard are actively using Time Machine; I’d guess it’s a pretty high number, if the people I surveyed at Leopard’s launch were any indication. I don’t know if I’ll be first in line to buy a Time Capsule, but I’ve gotta say that it’s definitely a more attractive package to me than the AirPort Extreme was—and I was pretty psyched about the AirPort Extreme last year.

Then again, maybe I just have a thing for small white boxes.


7 Comments

fletcher Author Profile Page said:

Yeah, "That's the way Apple rolls." They promise a feature in one product, remove it without any explanation, and then release another similar product with the feature.

I bought an Airport Extreme specifically to use as the host for an AirDisk for Time Machine. I did so based on the published features of the product and based on Apple's marketing. I spoke to people at the Apple store when I made my purchase and they assured me it would work.

It's not the end of the world. Just a broken promise. Just a huge bug that makes one of Apple's most touted features of their new operating system not work.

If Apple is legendary for ease-of-use, well here's a big black mark. I have all Apple equipment. I'm trying to use an advertised feature. And, it doesn't work at all.

Apple can solve things quite easily by fixing the bug. I'd like to hear that they are working on it. Maybe 10.5.2 will bring some joy.

January 24, 2008 12:09 PM
Dan Moren Author Profile Page said:

@fletcher I agree, I wish they'd been a little more forthcoming about it. This is one of those times when I think their secrecy just hurts their customers.

But keep in mind that while Time Capsule has been announced, it won't be shipping until February. There's still time for them to roll out 10.5.2 with fix included before then. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you.

January 24, 2008 12:20 PM
Anonymous said:

I bought an Airport Extreme to use with Time Machine, and have been bummed that it doesn't work yet.

However, the Time Capsule product is not really a big deal--although having a built in HD would avoid placing one more box on my bookshelf and would be nice in an Apple-ish sort of way. It really doesn't have much of a cost impact--you can easily find a sizeable external HD for close to the cost differential between the two products--and the basic functionality is the same, assuming the AE evenutally can be used with Leopard as promised.

January 24, 2008 12:32 PM
Seiken / VMan of Mana said:

There was a recent post on this blog that deals with Time Machine and AirDisk's broken promise.

AirDisk support seems to be coming for 10.5.2: http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/01/22/10-5-2-to-add-remote-backup-translucent-menubar-option

How his was handled is an example of how Apple's secretiveness can be a double-edged sword. We don't really know why exactly Apple removed AirDisk support for Time Machine. However, the assumption was that it was done deliberately. When Time Capsule was announced, the assumption was that its an Airport Extreme and hard drive taped together, leading to the "conclusion" that its a way of Apple to squeeze money out of its customers.

I understand people being in the defensive. Consumers have a right. But going to the extremes leads to unreasonable whining. People also assumed the worse with the iPhone, firmware updates, and SDK. Or what about claiming that the QT 7.4 update "enforces DRM" in third party applications like how it was claimed in Slashdot when it rather is an issue with specific MPEG codecs?

January 24, 2008 2:59 PM
Dave-O said:

"Does that theory come with a free tinfoil hat?"

Ha ha. Thank you for restoring some perspective.

January 24, 2008 3:09 PM
James "Murderous Intent" Carey said:

"Time Capsule is first and foremost a backup server, hence the SATA hard drive interface, which is far better performing than USB 2.0."

But isn't the whole rig working to the bottleneck of the wireless connection? Unless you plug an ethernet cable in and POOF there goes the wireless convenience. I only have a MacBook Pro, so have for some time been looking for the ideal wireless backup solution, but this just seems a little... too neat, too... limiting. But then it still has the USB 2.0 port if you want more. I need to think about it properly. Either way, a 500Gb HD plus a very capable "N" router for £199 isn't too bad.

January 24, 2008 3:55 PM
Kelmon said:

Here's the thing - I have complained many times on various sites about the AEBS not supporting Time Machine as it was supposed to. The potential advent of this support in 10.5.2 or a later release is good news but one thing does worry me - will they fix the AEBS itself? Mr. Gruber provided a link this morning to a note on MacInTouch on the subject where Peter Sichel cites potential problems with the validity of backups using a non-server grade disk. That's a fair point. A backup is only a useful backup if it is successfully recorded and can be restored. And while Peter has concerns about the way that data is stored to the external disk, I have concerns about the AEBS's ability to operate such a system. With the firmware up to version 7.2.1 the AirDisk function still does not work reliably for me. Earlier versions of the firmware caused the external drive to "vanish" during a large backup and the current version prevents access to the WAN port if the transfer takes a long time. As far as I am concerned, 10.5.2 may well enable Time Machine to operate on an AEBS but it needs to be accompanied by a good firmware update for the unit itself to fix the current problems using an external disk.

Ultimately, as much as I want Time Machine to work with the AEBS I am now thinking that I'd rather they'd never have mentioned the subject in the first place. Put another way, only announce stuff that you are going to deliver and that you know will work. Anything else tends to annoy your customers...

January 25, 2008 12:10 AM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: