Apple's 2TB iCloud plan will only cost $10 a month(engadget.com)
engadget.com
Apple's 2TB iCloud plan will only cost $10 a month
https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/06/icloud-2tb-plan-10-dollars-a-month/
85 comments
I hear you on a lot of these issues, and as someone who uses Apple everything, I too rely on GDrive. But my girlfriend pays for the 200gb plan and loves it. She doesn't know what a root partition is, and she doesn't want to understand how syncing works. She just wants her stuff to be everywhere as she has come to expect it. This is where Apple shines. I wish they would open it up a bit to allow power users to really fiddle with it, but I would argue that they nailed the intended functionality which is specifically to abstract away all of what you mentioned.
This is an interesting look for me into exactly who Apple is targeting. Obviously, not you, because you want more control. But the more that I hear about what they are doing and the direction they are going, I am more likely to buy their services, because I just want something that works.
Really, I think the crux is that I trust Apple to do the right thing for a bunch of non-solid reasons, and so I am willing to give them the control over the particulars of the mechanisms as long as the input-->output is what I want/expect from them.
Really, I think the crux is that I trust Apple to do the right thing for a bunch of non-solid reasons, and so I am willing to give them the control over the particulars of the mechanisms as long as the input-->output is what I want/expect from them.
The choice of the word "only" is an interesting one. It may be better than Drive or Dropbox, but from my perspective that comes out to $120/yr, which is still double the price of a Crashplan or Backblaze yearly subscription, both of which are unlimited.
I don't have a Mac, so many someone can explain whether the iCloud integration into MacOS and iOS is worth the price premium. For me, it wouldn't be enough, as I have way more than 2TB of data.
I don't have a Mac, so many someone can explain whether the iCloud integration into MacOS and iOS is worth the price premium. For me, it wouldn't be enough, as I have way more than 2TB of data.
Backblaze and Crashplan aren't really comparable to iCloud, in the same way that they shouldn't be compared to Dropbox. They're both backup services, neither position themselves as online file storage in quite the same way.
iCloud storage includes file storage, iOS backups, mail (if you're using an iCloud email address), and photos. It doesn't have the same features as Dropbox or Box, but I prefer it simply because it works fine for me. I'm on a 200GB plan and plan to upgrade once the family sharing plans are live.
Personally, $120/year for 2TB of online storage for a service I regularly use is actually great. But I'm still disappointed that iCloud only comes with 5GB of free storage and the pricing options of lower tiers hasn't really changed.
iCloud storage includes file storage, iOS backups, mail (if you're using an iCloud email address), and photos. It doesn't have the same features as Dropbox or Box, but I prefer it simply because it works fine for me. I'm on a 200GB plan and plan to upgrade once the family sharing plans are live.
Personally, $120/year for 2TB of online storage for a service I regularly use is actually great. But I'm still disappointed that iCloud only comes with 5GB of free storage and the pricing options of lower tiers hasn't really changed.
> They're both backup services, neither position themselves as online file storage in quite the same way.
Indeed, CrashPlan has a policy of removing backups if the machine hasn't connected in 6 months [1]. Those services aren't intended for long term document storage with no local copy, just for disaster recovery.
[1] https://support.crashplan.com/Subscriptions/Backup_Retention...
Indeed, CrashPlan has a policy of removing backups if the machine hasn't connected in 6 months [1]. Those services aren't intended for long term document storage with no local copy, just for disaster recovery.
[1] https://support.crashplan.com/Subscriptions/Backup_Retention...
I believe that was deliberate. Many people only care about iCloud to backup their iOS devices, and 5GB is really only enough space to backup a single device because the backup sizes inflate over time due to some mechanism I've been unable to pin down even after extensive effort.
The alternate is to setup multiple Apple IDs and link them via family sharing to get the same iTunes purchases, but that's a huge pain in the butt and (IMO) not worth the effort to save $1/month on the 50GB iCloud plan.
The alternate is to setup multiple Apple IDs and link them via family sharing to get the same iTunes purchases, but that's a huge pain in the butt and (IMO) not worth the effort to save $1/month on the 50GB iCloud plan.
Really? I only care about iCloud for photos and data syncing across devices.
You plug-in to a computer to backup your phone? That is pretty rare these days!
My music is stored in the cloud, by photos are in the cloud, my e-mail is held elsewhere, I can redownload any apps. What am I bcking up for again?
>You plug-in to a computer to backup your phone? That is pretty rare these days!
Some of us don't want to have our data available to others.
Some of us don't want to have our data available to others.
> because the backup sizes inflate over time due to some mechanism
Was that not fixed in iOS 10? They completely reimplemented how backups work in that release.
Was that not fixed in iOS 10? They completely reimplemented how backups work in that release.
Also Amazon Cloud Drive is $60/year, and is unlimited. They also have an unlimited plan for photos for $12/year.
ACD just royally fucked those of us that use rclone with it. I've now just bought a bunch of hard drives and a recent model optiplex to keep at a family member's house for my offsite backup. Not worth the "convenience" of a managed service when they pull this shit, especially with how expensive it really is compared with owning the equipment and keeping it at a friend/family's house.
Apparently rclone violated amazon's TOS by having an API key in the source code instead of authing with a central server? The cynic in me says "whelp, that's what we get for actually utilizing an 'unlimited' service".
Apparently rclone violated amazon's TOS by having an API key in the source code instead of authing with a central server? The cynic in me says "whelp, that's what we get for actually utilizing an 'unlimited' service".
How is their local internet connection going to handle that? Do you have the same kind of professional reliability like data centers do?
You should be doing a local NAS type thing like you do with your optiplex at home and a cloud service to diversify your backup types.
You should be doing a local NAS type thing like you do with your optiplex at home and a cloud service to diversify your backup types.
I think the 99.99% uptime that most residential internet has will suffice for my incremental backups that I run daily from all of my machines. ACD with rclone had relatively mediocre throughput and slow stat-ing compared to a basic rsync, so if anything I'm in better shape than before for performance.
I already have internal, networked, and cold backups. I just needed one offsite. Doesn't matter to me whether it's a 15 minute drive away, or across the country. If my entire city gets nuked I have bigger things to worry about.
I already have internal, networked, and cold backups. I just needed one offsite. Doesn't matter to me whether it's a 15 minute drive away, or across the country. If my entire city gets nuked I have bigger things to worry about.
ACD involves dumping all your data into one folder. iCloud has better integration with OSX.
Didn't they stopped offering the $12/yr unlimited photos plan? I was on that plan and last year I was migrated off to the 60usd/yr unlimited everything plan.
The iCloud Drive integration on the Mac is pretty good. It's as good as Dropbox. The iOS integration is good too but hampered by the limited concept of files on iOS. Maybe with the Files app on iOS 11 this will change (although that app supports third party cloud drive services).
Having worked on an iCloud using iOS app... it's hugely buggy. I've yet to see as problematic API as iCloud is on iOS 10. Files failing to sync, a lot of users don't even get the app folder, randomly files won't sync (forever) and more. All of that is wrapped into opaque service, which doesn't really tell you what it's doing and what went wrong.
Might be they're all messy like that... but iCloud didn't really seem like a reliable service and it wasn't close to reliability of Dropbox :/
Might be they're all messy like that... but iCloud didn't really seem like a reliable service and it wasn't close to reliability of Dropbox :/
You can also use offline files on Sierra, where files are stored in iCloud and only downloaded when needed to save disk space. It's pretty cool technology, similar to what MS did with Skydrive (nee Onedrive) in Windows 8.
How do I backup my iPhone automatically every night to crash plan or Backblaze?
Can't? Ok, Apple sucks. Now that that's out of the way, given the reality we have, it's worth paying Apple for the storage.
Can't? Ok, Apple sucks. Now that that's out of the way, given the reality we have, it's worth paying Apple for the storage.
I "only" get free unlimited full-size photo and video storage with my Pixel.
From my perspective that's not worth the trade-off of well... Google. I don't trust them with my data, information, or much at all really.
Though the Pixel is a nice phone.
Though the Pixel is a nice phone.
For me, I pay $1 a month for automatic iPhone/photo backups. $12 a year is trivial and beats syncing up my phone every once in a while and creating two backups for it.
I, however, do use my own HDDs for backing up my computers.
I, however, do use my own HDDs for backing up my computers.
If you go with gsuite you can have unlimited drive for 10/month. It says you need five users but it's not currently enforced. I'm rocking almost 8tb and there's no sign of a cap.
The major feature that makes me stay with iCloud is that it transparently moves rarely-used files to the cloud and frees up the space locally.
[deleted]
To put things in perspective, Hubic's 10 TB plan costs 50€ a year, that's about USD 4.7 a month.
That doesn't mean anything about features / reliability / whatever, though. I'm no user of either of these services.
That doesn't mean anything about features / reliability / whatever, though. I'm no user of either of these services.
Reads are really slow. Thumbnail previews take ages to load.
I'm surprised engaget included Amazon in their comparison as Amazon lacks filesystem integration (on MacOS and Linux; dunno about Windows) which doesn't really make them competitors for Dropbox, Box, Google Drive or iCloud.
Dropbox seems to have the best integration despite their underhanded use of Accessibility capabilities.
Our company has tried to use Google Drive, but found too often the client would claim that the sync was up-to-date while in fact it had simply stopped synching. We now have a Frankenstein system of google docs for text, GD for a library of PDF literature (for historical reasons), and DB pdfs, powerpoint and excel, and code. Sucky.
We used Box at a previous company. Meh. It seems to be aimed at F500 companies.
Oh and I continue to get a stream of confidential documents from another previous employer who standardized on Google, despite my efforts to stop it. Lucky for them I'm a nice guy since I'm no longer covered by NDA ;-).
Dropbox seems to have the best integration despite their underhanded use of Accessibility capabilities.
Our company has tried to use Google Drive, but found too often the client would claim that the sync was up-to-date while in fact it had simply stopped synching. We now have a Frankenstein system of google docs for text, GD for a library of PDF literature (for historical reasons), and DB pdfs, powerpoint and excel, and code. Sucky.
We used Box at a previous company. Meh. It seems to be aimed at F500 companies.
Oh and I continue to get a stream of confidential documents from another previous employer who standardized on Google, despite my efforts to stop it. Lucky for them I'm a nice guy since I'm no longer covered by NDA ;-).
Amazon Drive doesn't provide filesystem integration? What is it by "filesystem integration" that you mean that it doesn't do (on MacOS and Windows, at least)?
Well blow me down: when I go to the Amazon Drive page there's now an "app" button and if I click on it there's something that implies it's a FS driver. Either it's new or I was blind when I looked at Amazon before.
Prime gives you free Amazon storage, so I had a preference to use it instead of paying for DB. I'll give it a try, thanks.
Prime gives you free Amazon storage, so I had a preference to use it instead of paying for DB. I'll give it a try, thanks.
So I tried it and found it silently failed to upload part of my hierarchy. That was pretty discouraging!
On the Google side - have you looked in DriveFS?
You install the client - and it gives you a virtual file-system built on top of your Google Drive.
Announcement here - https://blog.google/products/g-suite/introducing-new-enterpr...
SIgn up for the early access here - https://gsuite.google.com/campaigns/index__drive-fs-eap.html
Personally, I much prefer it to the old sync client, and have been using this for a while.
Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions
(Disclaimer: Work for Google).
You install the client - and it gives you a virtual file-system built on top of your Google Drive.
Announcement here - https://blog.google/products/g-suite/introducing-new-enterpr...
SIgn up for the early access here - https://gsuite.google.com/campaigns/index__drive-fs-eap.html
Personally, I much prefer it to the old sync client, and have been using this for a while.
Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions
(Disclaimer: Work for Google).
I really like DriveFS, it's too bad I can't run it on my PC with Secure Boot :(
If you own your own domain, Google's GSuite for Business costs $10/month/user and offers unlimited storage. I'm fortunate to have fiber at home and upload to GDrive at around 90 megabytes/second.
Yes, it says you only get unlimited with 5 users (at $10/month apiece) but it works with only one.
I have just under 17 TB in mine-- I point Crashplan to a Google Drive mounted via FOSS rclone[1], saving $120/year for my old Crashplan family plan. And of course it's great for storing whatever you want, movies, pictures, etc.
One major disadvantage for iOS users is that you can't store your iOS backups on Google Drive. So I also pay Apple $1/month for the 50GB plan, simply because their base 5GB plan is insufficient to backup 2 iOS devices.
[1] https://rclone.org/
Yes, it says you only get unlimited with 5 users (at $10/month apiece) but it works with only one.
I have just under 17 TB in mine-- I point Crashplan to a Google Drive mounted via FOSS rclone[1], saving $120/year for my old Crashplan family plan. And of course it's great for storing whatever you want, movies, pictures, etc.
One major disadvantage for iOS users is that you can't store your iOS backups on Google Drive. So I also pay Apple $1/month for the 50GB plan, simply because their base 5GB plan is insufficient to backup 2 iOS devices.
[1] https://rclone.org/
That's going away, because of rampant abuse of Google's services and their inability to shut down pirate movie sites that use redirectors and fetchers to steal links from Google's CDN.
Do you have any sources for this? Or is this just speculation?
Source?
Well given they're shutting down GSuite accounts which upload movies and their continued insistence on increasing difficulty for get_video_info methods to fetch video source, I give it 1-2 months before they stop offering unlimited storage with GSuite.
The accounts recently deleted were sold on ebay against TOS.
Is ditch crashplan and install duplicati. I'm using it to backup to gdrive just fine.
Shrug, Crashplan is free backing up to (what it thinks is) a local volume, and it works fine.
Do they let you set your own encryption key? It's been a long time since I've tried their client. It was pretty slow for me.
Do they have a Synology module to backup a NAS?
Duplicati corrupts its database every time I've tried it.
To anyone seriously considering this, I urge you to check out Syncthing. It's free. You install it on all your machines and it syncs the files to each. If you lose a computer all of your files are available from one of the other ones in your setup.
Syncthing is great for file sync.
If you have a 2TB RAID box somewhere, preferably offsite, preferably backed up to Crashplan, things start to look similar to cloud storage.
BTW running ZeroTier on your machines and on a small cloud box with cheap traffic makes for a great LAN-like setup, when you e.g. have easy time syncing with your home machine behind NAT from anywhere.
If you have a 2TB RAID box somewhere, preferably offsite, preferably backed up to Crashplan, things start to look similar to cloud storage.
BTW running ZeroTier on your machines and on a small cloud box with cheap traffic makes for a great LAN-like setup, when you e.g. have easy time syncing with your home machine behind NAT from anywhere.
Syncthing is not really comparable to iCloud IMO.
Apple charges $1 for 50gb . By default I have 5GB and have a 16gb phone , constantly fighting for space cleaning up to install apps or take a photo. Why can't they make default storage 50gB which is more than enough for many. I pay $700 for my phone can't they spend like $1 per month on me to give 50GB, they have $250 billion in bank doing nothing. Google gives unlimited storage for photos and 16megapixel. Why can't apple do something similar
Why would they? You already overpaid for their hardware and ecosystem because you believe in it. A smart consumer would, given the defined variable if not wanting to switch to android etc, buy a bunch of microsd and backup to them. They sell dongles that plug into any phone's port and hold a microsd. You can even overwrite the card for free. And use its contents when you have no signal. Cloud debates are hilarious to me.
Have you seen a MicroSD die before your eyes, failing writes, then reads? I did several times.
A RAID array of MicroSDs, or maybe other flash devices, could be more reasonable reliability-wise, but it would be anything but a sleek consumer device.
OTOH, Apple is selling the "experience", the polish and automagic features. Maybe iCloud integration leaves a lot to be desired, it still beats a dongle 99% of the time.
(Disclaimer: Android user since Android 1.x.)
A RAID array of MicroSDs, or maybe other flash devices, could be more reasonable reliability-wise, but it would be anything but a sleek consumer device.
OTOH, Apple is selling the "experience", the polish and automagic features. Maybe iCloud integration leaves a lot to be desired, it still beats a dongle 99% of the time.
(Disclaimer: Android user since Android 1.x.)
Yes I have and it's no less horrifying then thinking you can access your cloud server when you suddenly cannot. My point is for a small amount you could afford to buy microsd cards in bulk and backup every day. Or even CD-R/DVD-R/BR-R. But I was trying to keep the discussion to direct transfer from a cellphone as per the parent.
A relatively hassle-free, alternative local backup solution makes sense! Does it exist? For being realistically useful, it should work either over w-fi, or over cable when attached to a computer.
Yes as I already described amd you chose to ignore. Pick your choice or backup program that asks what drive and select your sd card. They are also available with wifi dongles.
Micro sds don't have data integrity that a cloud service would provide
Pure marketing bs. I've never had an unscathed CD-R fail. The cloud is just redundant servers and nothing more.
Looks like you will be able to share that 2TB across the family too, which makes it quite attractive
Where do you see that?
Very bottom of the page here:
https://www.apple.com/macos/high-sierra-preview/
"iCloud storage plans. With room for the whole family. Now you can share an iCloud storage plan with your entire family. Choose 200GB or 2TB and give everyone enough space to store photos, videos, documents, and more."
Strangely this comment is the only mention of it I have found outside of Apple's own site. I'm desperately looking forward to when this will be an option though.
"iCloud storage plans. With room for the whole family. Now you can share an iCloud storage plan with your entire family. Choose 200GB or 2TB and give everyone enough space to store photos, videos, documents, and more."
Strangely this comment is the only mention of it I have found outside of Apple's own site. I'm desperately looking forward to when this will be an option though.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I have an iPhone and use Onedrive for photo and video storage. Apple can do one with their greedy fingers. Besides now i get added functionality that iCloud cannot match:
Share video and image with friends. Quick browsing on Desktop with folder like structure.
Added Office 365 ++ much more
Added Office 365 ++ much more
That's $10 too much.
[deleted]
How much is the version that doesn't auto-share with hackers?
Indeed it does feel like there is an iCloud hack every other year.
Except there isn't. AFAIK iCloud has never been hacked. The only big "hack" news about iCloud wasn't actually iCloud being hacked, it was people who reused passwords and were victims of someone else's password breach.
Yeah? How about from the inside?
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/06/08/china-uncovers-massive...
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/06/08/china-uncovers-massive...
That's... not a hack.
That's just employees improperly accessing information about customers and selling it. You'll note that the information is things that Apple naturally has access to like names / phone numbers / Apple IDs, rather than private data stored on customers' devices or in iCloud. No hacking necessary to get this, just breaking internal policy and some laws.
That's just employees improperly accessing information about customers and selling it. You'll note that the information is things that Apple naturally has access to like names / phone numbers / Apple IDs, rather than private data stored on customers' devices or in iCloud. No hacking necessary to get this, just breaking internal policy and some laws.
Of the 22 suspects, 20 were Apple employees ...
The suspects, who worked in direct marketing and outsourcing for Apple in China
I'm not sure these people should have access to private information by default.
You are arguing semantics, it was illegal access of private data on Apple's watch. Even if you do not consider it a hack (~fud), iCloud is in the news again, which was the original point. BTW, to me, taking it at face value, it reads like Apple had no idea what is going on and it was all the work of the police.
The suspects, who worked in direct marketing and outsourcing for Apple in China
I'm not sure these people should have access to private information by default.
You are arguing semantics, it was illegal access of private data on Apple's watch. Even if you do not consider it a hack (~fud), iCloud is in the news again, which was the original point. BTW, to me, taking it at face value, it reads like Apple had no idea what is going on and it was all the work of the police.
Employees doing unauthorized things with information that they have access to is not hacking.
And iCloud is not in the news again. That article had literally nothing at all to do with iCloud; it didn't even mention it.
And iCloud is not in the news again. That article had literally nothing at all to do with iCloud; it didn't even mention it.
You are right, the article does not mention iCloud specifically.
Just because some of the suspects are Apple employees it does not disqualifies it as a hack, but we can agree to disagree on the definition. Apple employees selling private info is much more of a reason not to trust the company with your data, mind.
Just because some of the suspects are Apple employees it does not disqualifies it as a hack, but we can agree to disagree on the definition. Apple employees selling private info is much more of a reason not to trust the company with your data, mind.
Apple employees selling basic customer information (e.g. name, phone number) is something that can happen at literally any company, and is not a reason to not trust Apple with your data. Now if the company itself was selling this info, sure, don't trust them, but these employees were not doing this on behalf of the company. Any company can end up with rogue employees.
Definitely not, that is Apple employees/suppliers/vendors/other 3rd party people selling private data (users’ names, phone numbers, Apple IDs, and other data) for $7M+.
It can't happen at any company and it is an obvious reason not to trust them. It is not a rouge employee, there were 22 people involved. Either they were hacked, or they were basically employing/contracting criminals.
It can't happen at any company and it is an obvious reason not to trust them. It is not a rouge employee, there were 22 people involved. Either they were hacked, or they were basically employing/contracting criminals.
User's names, phone numbers, Apple IDs, are all just basic customer information. Rogue employees at any company can sell off customer information.
And yes, 22 people, that work at a large company. It shouldn't strain credulity to believe that a company that has over 100 thousand employees can end up with a handful of dishonest ones. This doesn't mean they were hacked. And yes, they were employing criminals, by definition, because the thing those employees did was a criminal act. Presumably they weren't criminals when they were hired though.
And yes, 22 people, that work at a large company. It shouldn't strain credulity to believe that a company that has over 100 thousand employees can end up with a handful of dishonest ones. This doesn't mean they were hacked. And yes, they were employing criminals, by definition, because the thing those employees did was a criminal act. Presumably they weren't criminals when they were hired though.
$10 a month. It says in the headline.
$100 for a 2TB hard drive.
Monthly fee to maintain access to your own data: $0.
Monthly fee to keep hackers from stealing your information and spreading it all over the Internet: $0.
Monthly fee to keep some slimy corporation from handing your data over without your knowledge in response to a secret warrant: $0.
Monthly fee to maintain access to your own data: $0.
Monthly fee to keep hackers from stealing your information and spreading it all over the Internet: $0.
Monthly fee to keep some slimy corporation from handing your data over without your knowledge in response to a secret warrant: $0.
One-time fee for when you want to restore data for the first time in years and bit rot has eaten everything: priceless
But of course he was smart and used ZFS so there is no issue with bit rot.
I was under impression that ZFS on a single disk is pointless, because while an error can be detected it can't be fixed. Am I wrong ?
Is ZFS fireproof?
For me, the choice isn't about price; it's about functionality.
I desperately wanted to like iCloud, but Apple missed the mark on this one.
First, the way they try to "integrate it" makes it difficult to manage your data. Don't want your iCloud stored on your root partition? Huge pain to move. Second, it's hard to tell exactly what it's doing, when it's syncing, what's in sync, partially syncing content, etc. In other words, clarity to what's occurring is lacking. The list goes on, but this was enough for me to drop it.
Google Drive got it right, which is what I'm using. (Of course so did Dropbox, who pioneered it)
Until Apple allows more flexibility as to what's synced, how it's synced, where its synced, I won't be going back at any price.
(Note: I do use iCloud for photo storage just because it's easy, but I'm not using anywhere close to the current limits).