Airport Extreme owners not happy to be left out of Time Capsule

It's no secret that most of you aren't exactly pleased with Apple's decision to charge $20 to add in Mail, Maps, Stocks, Weather, and Notes to the iPod touch, but there's another segment of Apple users feeling burned by last week's announcements: Airport Extreme owners. Seems like Apple's only enabled network support for Time Machine when used with Time Capsule, not for USB disks connected to the Airport Extreme -- even though early Leopard promo materials promised such support. Of course, it's an easy hack to enable NAS support (although it's probably pretty risky), and who knows what'll happen when 10.5.2. is released, but for now, it certainly seems like Airport Extreme owners just got a raw deal.

[Mr.Tech @ Jan 21st 2008 2:36PM]

What happen to customer service? At least Bill Gates give free upgrades to Vista even if it's not all that great until SP3.

[Blaktornado @ Jan 21st 2008 3:24PM]

Yeah, just like Apple gives free software updates for it's current version of OS X. (For you Mac illiterate people, OS X is not the operating system. It's a collection of operating systems. The operating systems are Tiger 10.4 , Leopard 10.5, etc. not Mac OS X.)

And so you know, Apple's customer service is great. I had to use it once to get a Might Mouse replacement (Yeah, the scroll ball -while being a great design concept- sucked balls [lololol]) and I must say that Apple Customer service was very helpful and understanding about the whole situation. Although, where most people go wrong, is that they start off being angry with the guy on the other end of the phone for something that's not his fault and thus they don't get as great customer service as the guy who is polite - they're only humans after all...

[jacob @ Jan 21st 2008 3:27PM]

got mine working last night. no hacks. no time capsule. just an airport extreme base station and an old lacie 250 giger.

here's the key .... you ready

set the time machine up with the drive physically connected to your computer, THEN connect it to the base station. when you mount it time machine will backup.

you do have to still mount the drive tho. NLA incorporated into the scheme [maybe through automator] would automount the drive. its actually backing up right now... wirelessly... from my couch.

yeay.

i also think its wicked i can backup my Vista desktop to this same hdd, its hfs+ formatted.

[Greg @ Jan 21st 2008 4:50PM]

Standing up for Apple gets a low ranked post? Whoda thunk it? -_-
There is a reason for the lack of support.

[John @ Jan 21st 2008 5:10PM]

I'm so pissed about this. Airport Extreme users have been getting the shaft more than anyone else lately, and for a variety of reasons. First of all, I buy an Airport Extreme for the purpose of using it with Leopard's Time Machine. I buy the Airport Extreme, and two days later, Airport Extreme with Gigabit Ethernet comes out. Not a big deal, but still kind of lame. Leopard comes out, and they silently pull the plug on Airport Extreme Time Machine support! It took a while for Apple to even acknowledge the problem, leaving the discussion forums over on the Apple website up in arms. To add insult to injury, the 7.2.1 update of the Airport Extreme firmware rendered AirDisk completely useless to people who upgrade to Leopard. Many Leopard users on MacBook Pros discovered that after putting the computer to sleep, the AirDisk is no longer accessible upon waking up again UNTIL YOU FRIGGIN RESTART THE BASESTATION. Bullshit. Complete bullshit. So far, Apple isn't even acknowledging the problem and the only way to solve the problem is to downgrade to firmware 7.1.1.

So now, after all of this, I find that they're abandoning Airport Extreme for Time Capsule! WONDERFUL. Thanks Apple!

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Jan 21st 2008 8:51PM]

jacob:
Now here comes the real fun:
Wait two days for the disk sharing on your Airport Extreme to stop working.

That's what kills me. I don't care about Time Machine. I want to use mine as a home server and it crashes on me repeatedly.

[Geir E @ Jan 22nd 2008 7:59AM]

I just bought an airport extreme just before the time capsule was released. I am getting a macbook pro after the next rehash (multitouch trackpad and all that, whenever that is) but it is a while until so i wasnt too bummed when they released the time capsule and decided to keep the extreme when it came cause i would want a real raid-5 nas for storage and backup anyways to get even more security. And knowing there was a "hack" to make it work when i finally got a mbp.

but what really annoys me is that i just had to disconnect the two 320gb discs i had cause the extreme died and took everything with it.

[Jason @ Jan 21st 2008 2:38PM]

Can I plug a USB HD into Time Capsule and use it for Time Machine backup instead of the built in drive? Does a USB HD plugged into Time Capsule show up as a share on the network at all?

I'm so confused. Thanks Apple.

[Bender Bending Rodriguez @ Jan 21st 2008 3:10PM]

Yes you can.

[Mischa Lockton @ Jan 21st 2008 2:39PM]

Cry me a river. Still kicks Vista where it hurts.

[Ruben @ Jan 21st 2008 2:54PM]

Vista users can backup to anything they want. In this regard, this is a disaster.

In fact, i can backup to a USB drive on an Airport Extreme!

[Matt @ Jan 21st 2008 3:35PM]

"Vista users can backup to anything they want. In this regard, this is a disaster.

In fact, i can backup to a USB drive on an Airport Extreme!"

Now there is some irony for you...

[Chewy @ Jan 21st 2008 4:47PM]

"Vista users can backup to anything they want. In this regard, this is a disaster.

In fact, i can backup to a USB drive on an Airport Extreme!"

In fact, we have been able to do this as a (get this) FREE FEATURE (how much did you pay for your OSX service pack aka tiger again) of windows since windows 95.

[ethana2 @ Jan 21st 2008 5:48PM]

'Cry me a river. Still kicks Vista where it hurts.'

Ha. I use *nuchs. And as far as I'm concerned, Microsoft's Black Night and it's mere flesh wounds aren't really a place to talk about pain from.

Yes. Horrible joke. Really though, Canonical is awesome.

[Mischa Lockton @ Jan 21st 2008 7:20PM]

That wasn't my point- my point is despite this failure, over all, having used both, I would say Leopard is more intuitive and problem free over all.

Vista users can back up wherever they want sure, but still are more prone to strange failures. I still use XP, but on my Macs I use Leopard. This is far from a "disaster" for the common user. Besides a backup over wireless is NOT the fast way to get 'er done.

[Ruben @ Jan 21st 2008 9:38PM]

That is your opinion, not gospel. I use vista and have yet to have an issue (besides the Overclocking issues i cause). Leopard on my iBook, on the other hand, is an absolute disaster. Random color tearing on screen, slow as hell, Time Machine is unusable on that machine due to slowdown, and im ready to go back to Panther.

See, what you like might not be what others like. Because you had problems doesn't mean everyone did.

[Mischa Lockton @ Jan 22nd 2008 5:57PM]

yep, and just because you have had no issues with Vista, does not mean millions have not.

I never said I was writing any more than my opinion, but many agree with me, demanding reverts to XP.

The truth is, Vista won a few worst of the year awards and I agree. As for my personal exp., it crashed my machine hard, needing several reinstalls. When it was working, the settings/prefs were implemented terribly, and I had absolutely no reason to bear the pain, so I sold it on ebay.

[osalom @ Jan 21st 2008 2:41PM]

Greedy Apple.... greedy indeed

[nule @ Jan 21st 2008 2:46PM]

As much as I'd like my extreme to support Time Machine, I'd *much* rather it work on any mappable drive. I have an infrastructure of Linux machines to support my development work and use Samba to do quick transfers and backups. Oh well, I guess I stick with rsync (and keep the money I would have given to Apple for 10.5).

[Curtis @ Jan 21st 2008 2:49PM]

What??? Engadget reporting something negative about Apple? Unheard of...

[sinai @ Jan 21st 2008 2:53PM]

even if the article can be seen as negative to mactards such as yourself, it doesn't make it any less true. apple promised support, never gave it. however, if you would like to pay more for our exclusive model with that feature that should have come with it anyway...

that's apple all right.

[Ruben @ Jan 21st 2008 2:57PM]

Apple has to stop doing negative things for Engadget to not report something negative about Apple.

They have been dishing out some piles of sh*t lately.

[Curtis @ Jan 21st 2008 3:04PM]

You guys obviously didn't get it did you...Engadget always holds Apple in such high regard for some apparent reason and hardly ever reports anything negative about them because of it. I found it surprising that they actually reported something negative when they get paid off by Apple constantly. I don't even own any Apple products so I don't see how I can be a "mactard".

[Ruben @ Jan 21st 2008 3:21PM]

I guess everyone always assumed that Engadget was paid off by Apple. The fact is that they are just Apple fanboys, and the fanboys are the loudest, most bitchy technology fans out there, yet when the time comes, they give up and pull down their pants for another dose of Apple love.

[Bender Bending Rodriguez @ Jan 21st 2008 3:22PM]

sinai wrote, "apple promised support, never gave it."

They haven't given in yet and never gave it are two different things. We've only had one update to Leopard since the retail release. The developer builds did allow for network use of Time Machine but it was very buggy.

Even Engadget acknowledges that it may come with 10.5.2. One thing is for certain, Even if you had a Time Capsule right now you could use it for Time Machine backups until this 10.5.2 comes out. The ability just isn't in 10.5.1 yet. This does point to a good chance that it will enabled for all remote drives soon, and if it isn't a simple hack will surely trick Time Machine into thinking it's a valid remote drive.

Either way, I think we should hold off our torches and pitchforks until 10.5.2 comes out.

[MATT! @ Jan 21st 2008 3:24PM]

Promised support? It was listed on their website before it was released with a note saying "features subject to change". Before it was released it was taken down. That is not a promise where I come from.

[Kizorblade @ Jan 21st 2008 5:54PM]

@ Sinai

Are you an Apple shareholder REALLY (REALLY) unhappy with the drop in Apple stock price? Because my god you are acting like one.

"even if the article can be seen as negative to mactards such as yourself, it doesn't make it any less true. apple promised support, never gave it. however, if you would like to pay more for our exclusive model with that feature that should have come with it anyway...

that's apple all right."

Using the dictionary widget on my dashboard, "Promise" is: A declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing or guarantees that a particular thing may happen.

Saying that they had a feature before Leopard was released then pulled it isn't "promising" you anti-Apple twit. Look at Vista!

[sinai @ Jan 21st 2008 6:35PM]

"Seems like Apple's only enabled network support for Time Machine when used with Time Capsule, not for USB disks connected to the Airport Extreme -- even though early Leopard promo materials promised such support." -- Engadget

""Promise" is: A declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing" -- kizorblade

if a company prints literature saying it will do it, then that is a DECLARATION. therefore, it said it will do something and then didn't deliver. that's a broken promise to me.

[Kizorblade @ Jan 21st 2008 7:31PM]

"Features subject to change" - Apple

Missed that important quote, sorry.

[sinai @ Jan 22nd 2008 1:00AM]

so i can go ahead and put out a press release and promise everything, take a bunch of preorders and not deliver cuz i had "subject to change" in the fine print? gtfo.

companies put that on ANY unreleased product to come. it's common practice. what's NOT common practice is when companies promise things and then not deliver citing "subject to change." the fact remains that it was promised, and not delivered. you'd be cheesed if you bought a new car and it didn't have any airbags because on some previous press release, they noted "subject to change."

but then again, you're living in the steve jobs reality distortion field.

[Kizorblade @ Jan 22nd 2008 2:42AM]

Actually, I actually check what I'm getting instead of, you know, running out to the store without doing any research. I'm sorry but I just do not see how putting "Features subject to change" on the page is a promise.

[GrossGreg @ Jan 21st 2008 2:58PM]

I am a so-called "Apple Fanboy," but mostly because I got used to the "I got screwed by Apple again!" feeling years ago. As Apple expands its user-base, more and more people are coming out of the woodwork every year that claim to feel betrayed by Apple.

Sorry, but people that use Apple products (by choice, of course) are going to have to get used to it. Apple has an ingenious marketing strategy; no other company in the tech world can hold a candle to the Apple hype machine. Unfortunately, it fosters a dubious relationship with some customers.

[GrossGreg @ Jan 21st 2008 3:02PM]

Sorry if my initial post missed its mark; I agree with most of the other posters here. My point is that Apple has a history of screwing its customers.

[ethana2 @ Jan 21st 2008 5:41PM]

Customers? Apple is screwing the entire open source community, and the entire IT market.

They should be forcibly split into a software company, and a hardware company, and the evil TPM should be banned from use in the EU and Japan.

...then Google should port sketchup to *nix with WINE libs and cosign Ubuntu.

[njfuzzy @ Jan 21st 2008 2:59PM]

This is pure conjecture at this point. The software to support TimeCapsule is in Mac OS 10.5.2, which hasn't been released yet. Mac sites are reporting that the software enables TimeMachine for any networked drive, including the TimeCapsule. This article assumes it will enable TimeCapsule only. Why not wait until there are facts, rather than fanning a rumor like this? Ah yes... The Dvorjak Effect. Won't someone think of the poor starving advertisers?

[Ireland @ Jan 21st 2008 5:51PM]

This is no lie.

[Bb @ Jan 21st 2008 3:01PM]

Yes, I'm in this boat. To say I'm annoyed is to put it mildly.

This sort of 'planning' from Apple encourages hacking of their products. Maybe that's their secret plan?

[GrossGreg @ Jan 21st 2008 3:04PM]

Nah, Apple's plan is to encourage you to think "Oh well, I could use another base station in order to bolster/extend my network anyway...I might as well buy a Time Capsule." Even if they do issue an update in the next few months, the number of people who bought a Time Capsule under this rationale will be worth it for Apple.

[Bb @ Jan 21st 2008 3:11PM]

Yeah, you're probably right.

My initial reaction to Time Capsule was "Neat - I want one of them!" until I realised I'd already brought a product which I thought would do exactly the same thing (and can, with a little hacking).

Must... resist...

[The General @ Jan 21st 2008 3:04PM]

pr0n

[smi1ey @ Jan 21st 2008 3:17PM]

although i agree with a previous post that 10.5.2 will probably enable time machine to work with a normal networked drive connected to an airport, i still have something to say about this...

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH CONSUMERS THESE DAYS!?!

when you buy a product, you get what you paid for... that's it. if a company releases future updates to fix things for free, great, but when a NEW VERSION (as in hardware) of your product is released with new features, GOOD GOD STOP COMPLAINING. that's how technology works! welcome to the 21st century! (or hell, even the 20th century)

i'm not an Apple fanboy at all, in fact the only Apple products i own are an iPhone and iPod, but it's not hard to realize how stupid the argument is that apple should instantly upgrade everyone's hardware to the newest version because we happened to buy it before the new release.

ridiculous! can you imagine buying a 2007 model of a car right before the 2008 models come out, and then demanding that the car lot refund you or exchange your model for the newest? or even worse, SUING the car lot for not warning you of the 2008 release?

does no one else understand this?!

[Max @ Jan 21st 2008 3:41PM]

What the hell is wrong with is us that this is such a trivial piece of functionality that it really feels like Apple is trying to screw us when we just paid $150 for an AEBS 6 months ago. The fact that they were originally advertising exactly this as a feature of Leopard, only to pull it right before releasing a product that does exactly the same thing and costs $200+ makes it look like they intentionally dropped this feature as a way to try to wring more cash out of us. This feature is not rocket science, it's probably just as simple as adding the Airport Disk to the list of supported devices.

What I hope Apple with figure out is that I'm not going to pay $200+ to replace a perfectly good Airport Extreme just so I can make network backups. Even worse (for them), I've got no real incentive to upgrade the Macbooks in the house to Leopard now, since it seems like Time Machine is the only real compelling new feature here, so by pulling this, they're missing out on my upgrade dollars.

[Bb @ Jan 21st 2008 3:54PM]

Yes, I hear what you're saying. But respectfully, regarding this issue - no.

I brought an Airport Exteme and USB disk for the wireless NAS functionality. Wired NAS/Wireless NAS - really, there shouldn't be a difference from an operating system and user perspective. That's the whole point! Why shouldn't it work as a Time Machine disk, network throughput issues being equal?

Is there honestly any significantly different hardware in the Time Capsule compared to an Exteme and attached disk? I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. And that's why I'm surprised as a relatively well-informed consumer when my existing hardware doesn't work with a much-touted feature for an operating system I've paid good money for.

You don't expect to have to buy a new printer with every OS release, for instance, right? The functionality comes from the OS, not the hardware.

Hopefully this'll get fixed, and per my earlier comment, there's always the hacks.

[smi1ey @ Jan 21st 2008 4:28PM]

i suppose my comment was aimed more at consumerism in general that with this specific issue. as i said before, i would assume apple would "unlock" the NAS functionality with future updates (i think it would be suicide for them not to). but i guess my main point is, at launch when you buy a product, it does what the apple site/box says it's supposed to do... AT LAUNCH. there are plenty of products that change or have features removed/added before the final product. once again, it's just how technology works.

i can see how people think the original airport SHOULD have support NAS. the fact is, when it was released, it didn't, and that was made known for anyone who spent 30 seconds looking into it. (that's why i didn't buy the extreme when it came out)

[Kyle P. @ Jan 21st 2008 9:20PM]

@Max:

Listen, Apple did not remove the feature. It is still listed in Apple's Radar issue and bug tracking system as open, which means it is being worked on and should be released in 10.5.2, if not then sometime soon thereafter.

Thanks for your patience.

[Kelmon @ Jan 22nd 2008 6:03AM]

Absolute drivel. The damned product was advertised as being the perfect way to backup using Time Machine and then it never happened. Worse, the product itself just doesn't work properly and they've never fixed it. We're currently up to firmware 7.2.1 and the unit still won't enable reliable access to a powered USB drive for transferring files of a reasonable size. I don't care if Apple releases new products that make mine obsolete as long as what I bought does what it says it should do. Now, is that too much to ask for?

[jason carlin @ Feb 22nd 2008 6:33PM]

"You get what you paid for."

EXACTLY. I paid a premium for a router that advertised supporting backups to an attached USB drive. Then, one day, without mention, they release an update that takes away that very important feature. This is NOT what I paid for.

[John Welle @ Jan 21st 2008 3:19PM]

For those who don't quite get the issue, there's a thread in the Apple forums with more detail
feed://discussions.apple.com/rss/rssmessages.jspa?threadID=1342133

[mcg @ Jan 21st 2008 3:19PM]

I'm not inclined to believe that Apple pulled support for Airport Extreme disks from Time Machine at the last minute because some marketing genius walked into Steve's office with the idea for Time Capsule. It seems more likely to me that they found some bug in the Airport Extreme/USB disk combo that they have been unable to fix. Long before Time Machine I had considerable difficulty getting an Airport Extreme attached disk to work with SuperDuper.

[Ruben @ Jan 21st 2008 3:52PM]

I doubt it. They are trying to figure out how to "not" allow a user to use a NAS device as a backup device, but somehow allow the AirportExtreme Only (since its just a router paired with NAS capability) as well as the Time Capsule.

Keep those doors closed, Apple.