Actually, it’s related. And I have the impression nobody mentioned that already.
The new backup system is:
It’s not far from reality, that new users will jump into this feature, assuming this is the only available backup method. I suppose that there will be no advertisement of alternatives on the backup page.
Reasonably low prices could help them to not bother more.
See the pattern?
I think the ideal scenario would be a backup system where core simply supports the basic backup functionality, and then anyone can create a service that enables storing that backup in any location they desire. Maybe we could call that service a “backup agent”.
Now, upon first release of the changes to core, it would make sense to have a couple “backup agents” already created to demonstrate the capability and so developers could use them as references for when they make their own. I suppose it would make sense to have local network storage as one, and probably a cloud one as well. Since Nabu Casa pays the salary of some of these developers, it probably makes sense for the initial cloud “backup agent” be the one for Nabu Casa.
Anyway, that’s just my own thoughts. I sure wish that would have been what happened.
I don’t know was the intention for changing backup solution just to get more money from subscriptions.
But I have to tell you one thing. I’m paying subscribtion to nabu casa. Not that I have to. I’m paying it because I want to, backup or no backup.
Although home assistant is based on open soource software to get it on the scale like this you need to have people working on it daily. You have to pay those people as they also have a bills to pay.
For me paying a subscription is just a way to finance this project that I’m using daily, like many others. If there isn’t for a people who are financing this project there wouldn’t be any home assistant to begin with.
I think that subscription is reasonable, it’s not high, and was priced that majority of people can afford it.
It might be good for you to go back and read the blog posts about the new backup. You have some of the basic facts wrong.
It’s fine if you want to be mad about the new offering, but you should make sure you’re mad about things that are actually true.
No, I’m not mad.
I’m pointing out to another questionable thing (besides many others mentioned in release thread).
The “monopoly” argument, I mentioned in OP has similarities to IE back in day.
Installing Firefox or other browsers was still an available option for a user. but authorities have forced MS to give a user an option to choose a browser on the first OS start.
I just see an analogy to this situation.
how new user has to get know that there are alternatives? he runs HA, and sees a backup to the cloud. He Sees that local backup is encrypted, at this point useless for other tasks (because of encryption). So he will likely pick up the first option he sees: backup to NC cloud.
It’s naive to think it’s impossible and not gonna happen. With thousands of installations, and the number is growing, it’s an obvious source of income.
But hey, maybe NC doesn’t think this way.
You can use the new backup system and backup to a local drive or local network source with no subscription
Then enforced encryption wouldn’t be in place. Or at least would be enabled only for purpose of uploading to NC cloud.
So far, the encryption is a pretty strong argument for, that built-in backup is developed mainly for use with NB cloud.
What are you smoking?
Currently local, SMB/NFS and Nabu Casa Cloud location is supported, but the API and everything to make another integration is already available. Only for the Nabu Casa Cloud location you’d need a subscription.
If you check the PR’s on GitHub, Google Drive, OneDrive, Microsoft Azure, Amazon S3 and Backblaze integrations are already being worked on. Anyone can make one themselves and offer it to the core maintainers for checkup of the code.
It will be a lot easier for developers to add multiple extra options for the ‘Cloud’ locations as they don’t need to develop the whole system like with the add-ons but just the connection to the (Cloud) storage provider.
Add-ons cannot be used when running Core or Container versions of HA, so the integration in core is very logical.
Then what “equality” you are talking about?
It makes the built-in, encrypted, and Nabu-Casa only backup the only one possible.
And this is the point of OP.
There should be either:
Both ways are technically possible.
BTW I’m not smoking. My mind is clear. What 'bout you?
Again, as said, this NOT TRUE. Local backup, Samba backup, plugin system for any other cloud service you want are ALL possible. Nabu Casa is just the first. They built it for others to reap the fruits of too, and now that other parties have what they need to add their service, they are building other options as we speak.
If the feature request would have been granted, there would be NO backup option for core and container Home assistant installs, also not for other cloud providers because it would be hard to enable other cloud providers to integrate the proposed backup addon.
Then maybe you should be, just sayin’.
You opened with saying it has to be paid for, that is false. You then say a new user won’t know the difference, that’s an assumption that new users are too stupid to know the difference. Then you round that out with that they’ll see backups are encrypted and therefore useless as if they’re the advanced users who’ll need to access the files?!?
You’re spinning in circles buddy. Seriously sit back and chew on some gummy bears already, it’ll do you some good.
OK. will see how it will evolve. Or how it will work with this plugin system.
Especially in the case of those stripped-down installations like core one. In this case the only way available today is to include those alternate solutions to the core. Which has its cons.
Let me condense that for you.
“I’m saying I see it like this”
Seriously… gummies.
And why then on earth you want to save them?
All of this is just a a storm in a teacup.
If you don’t want to use implement nabu casa solution don’t use it. It’s simple like that. I never was using it, don’t using it now and probably will not using it in the future.
Set up your own backup solution. There are tons solutions for backup especially on linux.
Just because it came to my mind.
Dozens of other points about the new backup solution have been discussed in the release thread. It is just another one.
And with the proposal mentioned in OP, I would see it as just an extension.
Being a developer/architect I can see that the most serious backup solutions are those external ones. Not built-in. It would be a good step toward modularity.
Yes, I’m aware about arguments about core installation
That’s all.
FYI
I can see several PRs, either in the pipeline or already merged into dev, that enhance the Backup integration.
For example, there are backup agents for Synology, One Drive, Google Drive, S3, Backblaze, Azure, etc. Users will have more than just Nabu Casa for remote storage.
I didn’t see anything about disabling encryption for local backups, but it’s still early days so I won’t speculate on the matter.
Ok you made your point. But it is not up to me or you. It’s their decision.
You can agree or disagree with it.
But the fact is that everyone can set up their own backup if they want to and don’t use something that someone else made for them, thinking that this is the best thing. At the end of the day you have to think for your self and make decision. This is how life works.
And a step backward for the currently seamless restore functionality. Because if backups are not made from core, then restore isn’t in core either. So you need to install HA, then HACS, then your backup solution, and then overwrite it all with something else?
Then you are smart enough to run HA under Proxmox or similar and backup completely from the outside, as you prefer. And let us dumb folks use the easy way out.
This is how I use it. Because I don’t backup just home assistant.
That is not true! You can call the action: backup.create to get an unencrypted backup.
Or you can trigger it, by calling that action from the developer tools.
Your reasoning for 2. and 3. are based on your false statemant no.1
Your facts are wrong, so are your conclusions,
(Garbage in, garbage out)
Actually it’s not true.
For example HA Google Backup uses built-in core/supervisor funcitonality. The add-on provide extended functionality to given interface.
The mentioned modularity is present today for old backup mechanism.
I admit modularity has cons and pros. But for certain cases (ie complexity of the system) pros outweigh cons.