Paulman! wrote:
Seems stupid to not just have the ability to backup a computer. I also almost lost the files I put in their stupid format and then deleted from icloud after I realized icloud was useless for actually what I wanted it for.
Apple encourages local backups and not full-device iCloud backups because many Mac configurations commonly have lots of storage. Until recently, quite commonly more than what iCloud+ even permitted. Most of the macOS configurations I’m supporting are still past what Apple offers, even with the recent iCloud+ storage limit increase. Somthat’s one issue.
For its backups, Time Machine can back up not just internal storage, but also external direct attached storage. That greatly increases the sizes of the backups.
The Time Machine backup can be to local directly-attached storage, or to NAS available on the local network. This is where your requirements differ, too. You want offsite, but don’t want to rotate archive devices, and expect (want?) off-site backups to be as or more secure than backups your local network.
As for why the Time Machine backups don’t copy well? The built-in Time Machine backup design works quite well for ongoing incremental storage. That design does make copying those archives (locally or remotely) much slower. It does not require making a whole new backup output for each change to the source devices. And the design is fast when adding files to the archive incrementally, which is the usual case fir any backup.
Is this Apple Time Machine design stupid? No. Different from what you want? Apparently, yes.
I do not want my files accessible to all devices. That just seems like a nightmare scenario having a kid get my phone and all of a sudden be able to view all of my photos, or see any file I have backed up.
If you lose control of one of your devices and your credentials, yes, you’re going to have a bad day, entirely independently to any backups. An adversary with that access to your local network is already a catastrophic security breach, because (for instance) they would clearly also have access to your passwords and your Wi-Fi credentials or physical network wiring, as Time Machine storage is routinely encrypted.
What about if I stayed signed into icloud on my apple tv, then someone comes over and starts looking through my files?
If your Apple TV boxes are breached to that degree, you’ve seemingly invited members of an espionage agency or ilk over for a visit, or have somehow exposed your local network and backup credentials. And having backups stored remote isn’t going to appreciably help isolate the breach.
Make a simple back-up solution for my mac (encrypted) and not some depository for all my private files to be seen across devices and on the web.
That’s Time Machine. Which is simple, effective, fast, secure, and works locally or across the local network.
I still want them backed up, but not to be dumped and be seen across multiple devices.
But you are also explicitly asking for your backups to be copied remotely; to iCloud+.
What adds complexity within your iCloud+ backup request is copying a Time Machine archive remotely; to iCloud+, or to some other storage-hosting service. (There are add-on backup tools that can do that.)
But if you are inviting over espionage agencies for visitations and access to your Apple TV boxes, consider segmenting your network as a small additional impediment. But then those same espionage agencies are also going to be targeting iCloud+ storage, too.
Apple really missed the mark on this and have only created another confusing and stupid system of complications.
What’s confusing here (to me) is who you are defending these backups against, as it seems your local network is staggeringly, massively hostile and your attackers unusually adept at most breaches, but somehow not at iCloud+ security. And what security risks exist here to direct-attached or network-attached (encrypted) storage backups.
