Apple to discontinue Xserve after Jan. 31, 2011 - Page 8

Originally Posted by alexkhan2000

Exactly. It's kind of funny to see so many (although it's actually a tiny number in the big scheme of things) in denial about the fact that Apple has no interest whatsoever in the backend of enterprise computing, i.e. servers. Hardware on the backend has very thin to virtually no margins anymore. Money in the enterprise computing market (what I'd define for companies doing at least $100 million in annual revenues) is in software and services, not the hardware. Why are some people so stubbornly in denial about this?

Even Apple doesn't use the OS X Server for the great majority of their own internal data center needs. Why would Oracle use it and sell it when Apple is actually using Oracle's Solaris and Enterprise Linux along with IBM/AIX, Red Hat Linux and even Windows server software? Companies competing in the real large-enterprise computing market make their money with software and services like consulting and systems integration. Hardware is now a small part of IBM's revenues and even less of their profits. HP acquired EDS specifically to compete with IBM in services. Dell is moving in the same direction because they just can't make enough money selling servers.

Also, large-scale storage and networking equipment have much better margins than servers. It's why HP and Dell recently went into a bidding war for little-known storage technology company. It's why HP acquired 3Com as well. Servers don't make money because most IT departments can cobble together their own server farms with cheap generic blade servers running the free open-source Linux server software from various companies. And then there are also a horde of Wintel servers that a lot of IT geeks can put together themselves.

Why would Apple want to compete in this kind of cutthroat space where no one cares about UI, ease-of-use, the ecosystem or industrial design? CIOs and IT directors care about computing power for each buck spent. Specs and how cheap the hardware is does matter an awful lot here. Consumers are willing to pay more to be shielded from the complexities of using technology and that's where Apple's expertise is and where Apple adds value and have the ability to charge a premium. That won't go over with the IT departments and Apple knows it, so Apple is getting out.

Consider it Apple throwing up their hands, if you must. Apple can't win here. Sun lost big-time in this market because their servers were way too overpriced during the dot com era but when the bubble burst, no one wanted to pay the premium for Sun servers when there were much cheaper servers based on Linux and Wintel. Sun ended up losing billions and billions of dollars over the past decade and ultimately got snatched up by Oracle at a bargain basement price of $7 billion. Please remember that Sun's market cap was once well over $100 billion during its heydays. There's no guarantee that Oracle will do well with Sun's hardware business. Oracle was primarily interested in Sun's software IP's.

So, what exactly does Apple bring to the server market? I can understand the frustrations of those who has a vested interest in the Xserve feeling abandoned by Apple on this, but why should Apple continue to use their resources on something that makes up well below 1% of their revenues and earnings and which will continue to become even more insignificant as iPhone and iPad sales grow at an exponential rate in the years ahead? It's just business reality. Apple won't be getting into the backend enterprise computing business. Apple has absolutely no interest in it because they'd get slaughtered trying to compete in it. They have their hands full enough dealing with Google/Android, Samsung, Microsoft/WP7, Sony, Nokia, RIM, Amazon and other companies in the CE client side of the tech industry.

Originally Posted by wooster101

I´m mostly work with companies of 20-200 people. Many of these have dedicated server rooms. We are not talking server farms or DC. They do not have own employed staff to do the IT but instead hire Windows and Mac consultants to do the job. It is these kind of companies that the Mac as a platform will get kicked out because of this. It´s not just a Apple branded 1U server that is at stake here. It is the Mac in medium business / enterprise. I could not care less about a server with an Apple logo on but I DO CARE about being able to run Mac OS X Server on server grade hardware. Let it be HP, Sun, Acer or even Dell.

This is just a few things that come to my mind. I could use a Mac Pro in some companies but most of the 100 or so companies I support would not allow a MP in the server room. And our own hosting service will have to be redone from now on.

You could of course do most things with Linux but it would take quite a bit more time (money) and you would not have a Apple supported solution.

Originally Posted by kwatson

Yes, there are a lot of posters who've gine Chicken Little, and with good cause. There are a surprising number of R&E institutions, biopharma companies, and production houses that have considerable reliance on OS X Server, on Xserve. The sysdmins that have spent years convincing their coworkers that Apple was a good bet now look like idiots, right when Apple actiually had a chance to penetrate the deeper IT realm to some extent. Now, the sysadmins, and the bosses, will NEVER trust anything Apple while Jobs is here, and probably never after.

Originally Posted by kwatson

I think you will find that any company worth its salt would NEVER put its private data in 'the cloud' - i.e. on someone else's SERVER (insert sarcasm here). The only companies putting data in the cloud are putting other peoples data there, not their own. Cloud may have convenience, but there are huge latency and bandwith issues, as well as privacy/security, and the comfort of knowing exactly where your data is and how it's managed. If I was running a 500+ employee company, and I saw my data in the cloud, heads would roll in a microsecond. And no IT admin will tell me where to put my data, thank you.

Originally Posted by Mario

Exactly. Same here. No sane individual would put their most personal data into the cloud (it can really cost them a lot in the future, like getting health insurance or car insurance or even that new exciting job), let alone a company. Some companies are in highly regulated industries that require them to store their data securely and small breach would leave them out of business.

Originally Posted by Not Unlike Myself

Thousands of them already do. 75% of oracle installs. Approaching 30% of exchange. 20 % of ticketing systems. Where have you been? Clouds are everywhere. Hosted is everywhere. Am I talking to a 50 y/o? So many posters on here are over the IT hill.

Originally Posted by alexkhan2000


So, what exactly does Apple bring to the server market? I can understand the frustrations of those who have a vested interest in the Xserve feeling abandoned by Apple on this, but why should Apple continue to use their resources on something that makes up well below 1% of their revenues and earnings and which will continue to become even more insignificant as iPhone and iPad sales grow at an exponential rate in the years ahead? It's just business reality. Apple won't be getting into the backend enterprise computing business. Apple has absolutely no interest in it because they'd get slaughtered trying to compete in it. They have their hands full enough dealing with Google/Android, Samsung, Microsoft/WP7, Sony, Nokia, RIM, Amazon and other companies in the CE client side of the tech industry.

Originally Posted by kwatson

You are indeed talking to a 50 y/o. Over the hill means I've at least had a chance to see the view from the top; hey, how's the pimple cream working out?

Those are interesting numbers - could you state your sources? Is that trial installs, or $ cost of software, or $ under management, or TB of data, or what? Last article I've seen, from Forrester in 2009, said 18% of enterprises are _looking_ at cloud databases.

Originally Posted by Not Unlike Myself

5% of gmail users have sent a ssn or credit card #.

Originally Posted by WelshDog

Autodesk would disagree with you there. As would I.
Smoke, Flame, Inferno Luster, Burn, Wiretap all run on Linux. These apps and systems are pretty much at the top of the video/image editing, coloring and manipulation industry. I don't see the sucking.

Originally Posted by veblen

I also understand the frustrations of folks who make their living supporting Xserve servers. It would be horrible to have sold management on apple server products and then have the rack mountable server pulled. At the end of the day though there are remote management and power appliances like raritan. Nonredundant power does stink but if you truly want a highly available environment you really need more than one server anyway. If you were only supporting a few Xserves is an extra 10U for a pair really that big a deal?

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Isn't Apple a for-profit business? Or are my shares that have increased over 2000% not actually worth real money?

Given that, what percentage of Apple's revenues and profits do you (critics of the move and non-critics alike) believe that the Xserve represented?

I can't *prove* this, but I would be willing to guess it's no more than a rounding error.

Why then should they continue to produce it? This is a serious question.

Originally Posted by kwatson

I think the issue for many of us isn't the loss of the Xserve per se, but the lack of a migration path from Apple. MM and MP are laughable alternatives, it's an astoundingly stupid move on Apple's part to even suggest it - they look like fools to any IT pros. The profit from Xserve is no doubt a blip on Apples radar, but it showed a committment to professional users, and that is now not just gone, but likely irreparably damaged. Apple has burned bridges where it wasn't necessary.

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Well, I don't see that Xserve, or the environments that you are talking about, are worth Apple's expenditure of resources.

You are basically saying, "Look, guys, I know this doesn't make any money for you. And I realize that it didn't have much in the way of public mind-share. And I realize that you had to devote resources, at your expense, to continuing it. But you really HAD to continue it because there are like 8 of us out here who were interested in it!"

So, how is Apple supposed to justify stuff like that to shareholders? They aren't a charity. And they aren't a company aimed at IT professionals. And you keep acting as if they actually are.

Originally Posted by kwatson

The Xserve was a loss-leader product that could easily have been a gateway into serious enterprise business, which is slightly more than 8 people, had Apple had the savvy to think different about its business clientele than its iDevice consumers.

I have not said discontinuing the Xserve was a bad idea (although I personally do think it was, Apple has a right to its choices, of course). Apple however _did_ aim a product at IT professionals, and then let them down by way of a ridiculous and impractical migration plan when they decided to pull out. Most amateur. Most large organizations have planning windows of 1-3 years for IT - Apple's given 2 months; you will never see IBM or HP abusing any customer that way, or even Dell.

Originally Posted by kwatson

Raritan and other power management only work if you can set your server to turn on when power is applied. MP and MM don't do this.

Originally Posted by kwatson

R10U can be a very big deal, costing as much as a server per month in some DCs.

Originally Posted by jragosta

That doesn't make sense. For a company with 20-200 employees, you probably don't need more power than a single Mac Pro. If they would allow an xserve into their server room, why not a Mac Pro server?



If there were very many people like that, Apple would have been selling enough xserves to stay in the market. As it is, the number of xserves sold was miniscule - so there just weren't that many people like you're claiming.

Originally Posted by AaronJ

A gateway? Really?

Why would Apple even *want* to enter "serious enterprise business" with this sort of approach? That's not their business. And there's absolutely no reason, that I can see, that they would benefit from making it their business.

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Also, I don't think the migration plan was really for people with racks of Xserves. I think the idea is that for people that would have no problem using Minis or Pros, here ya' go. If you're looking into much more serious situations, then yeah, you're better off going to IBM or HP.

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Let me ask you a Yes or No question, ok? Do you think if Apple had gone down the road that you apparently believe they should have, that they would have seen large profits from doing so?

Originally Posted by wooster101

And you of course know me and my customers needs...?

Easy to sit behind your iToy and write things that you have no clue about.

As I said before - I do not need a server with and Apple logo on - I need a rack mountable server I can run Mac OS X Server on. Apple must provide us with some real alternatives not this marketing BS that the transition guide is.

Originally Posted by jragosta

I never said I know your customers' needs.

All I said was that Apple has found that they weren't selling enough rack mounted servers to justify staying in the business. So the number of people who were willing to pay for Xserve wasn't significant.

As for your demands, too bad. Apple has no obligation to give YOU what you want. They are a business and their job is to participate in markets where they can make money. Your whining is the same as the people who used to demand that Apple give them a $399 computer - or let them install OS X on generic hardware. You have no such right - and Apple has no such obligation.

Originally Posted by jragosta

That doesn't make sense. For a company with 20-200 employees, you probably don't need more power than a single Mac Pro. If they would allow an xserve into their server room, why not a Mac Pro server?

Originally Posted by wooster101

And you of course know me and my customers needs...?

Originally Posted by wooster101

And you of course know me and my customers needs...?

Easy to sit behind your iToy and write things that you have no clue about.

As I said before - I do not need a server with and Apple logo on - I need a rack mountable server I can run Mac OS X Server on. Apple must provide us with some real alternatives not this marketing BS that the transition guide is.

Originally Posted by kwatson

Ding! You are correct on both counts, IMHO.

Apple's out of the business because of no profits, and no long-term vision (for the enterprise market). Apple's enterprise team has been very consistent at not 'getting it'.

And on the second, consumers don't expect rights and obligations - but enterprise users _do_. One of the points Apple, and many here, don't 'get'.

Originally Posted by screamingfist

Why do you think you 'need' an os x server? you are one of the few. servers don't get flashed around like phones and laptops so the reality field isn't so distorted around apples xserv and os x server product. IT shops tend to look at it with a more objective eye. and the truth is: it ain't worth it, no real reason to use it.

Originally Posted by screamingfist

Why do you think you 'need' an os x server? you are one of the few. servers don't get flashed around like phones and laptops so the reality field isn't so distorted around apples xserv and os x server product. IT shops tend to look at it with a more objective eye. and the truth is: it ain't worth it, no real reason to use it.

Originally Posted by wooster101

So Apple should abandon Mac OS X Server too? Is that what you mean?

I´m am not against using other server software and I do but for many things Mac Os X Server is the simplest and easiest / cheepest way to do it.

But try to setup a Open Directory Master with VPN, Radius, AFP portable home folders and Kerberos single sign on in less than two hours on Linux...

Yeah - I NEED Mac OS X Server to do my job fast and efficient and this let me do it.

Originally Posted by kwatson

Have you used one? The Xserve (more accurately: OS X Server)'s main problem is marketing and acceptance. For those of us that know them, they make a fantastically easy to use package for critical services like DNS, LDAP, AFS/CIFS, VPNs, collabware, and such. All this can be done on other machines/OSes, but as a back-end to a company full of Macs, they're perfect.

My take is, if Apple wants to fill a company with Macs, then having Xserve supports that initiative in spades. Unfortunately, this move tells me that's not what Apple wants. The Mac as we know it is on the way out, and closed iDevices are going to come in waves.

I think its absolutely hilarious that Apple is turning into a closed ecosystem, the polar opposite of what they promoted in their 1984 Superbowl ad. Apple does indeed want to be Big Brother.

Originally Posted by NOFEER

so how do you stack a "pro" don't most server users "stack these" for efficient air flow and access, space efficiency??

i know a university made a super computer with a room full of g5's i guess room utilization isn't the end all be all

Originally Posted by Outsider

We don't use OS X Server for stuff like DNS DHCP VPN and other services that can be better served with lInux and Windows servers. What we do need it for is Software update server, OD, work group management, and special DAM software that needs Applescript support to interact with Adobe software and office. We can't do that stuff with Windows and Linux. We might have to look into having a Windows contingency plan that uses an alternate scripting, preserves extended attributes, serves AFP volumes to Mac clients well, and migrate to AD. I guess it's doable, but you bet it'll cost $$$.

Originally Posted by jragosta

I never said I know your customers' needs.

All I said was that Apple has found that they weren't selling enough rack mounted servers to justify staying in the business. So the number of people who were willing to pay for Xserve wasn't significant.

As for your demands, too bad. Apple has no obligation to give YOU what you want. They are a business and their job is to participate in markets where they can make money. Your whining is the same as the people who used to demand that Apple give them a $399 computer - or let them install OS X on generic hardware. You have no such right - and Apple has no such obligation.

Originally Posted by veblen

How many large enterprise customers does apple have with large scale xserve deployments? Their minuscule market share shows there can't be very many. The obstacles here for any savvy administrator with a few of these servers to transition to a Mac pro server are minor annoyances with simple work arounds. The only thing you can't overcome is the loss of redundant power and if it's mission critical it should be in a two node ha config anyway at the very least.

Originally Posted by theolein

I was going to post an insulting post in response to your extremely vapid claims of what should be in a server room, but instead I'll post a serious answer.

Why do we need 1u servers in a server room? You claim that one Mac Pro should be enough for anybody, even companies with 200 employees.

Let's look at why a typical company and what type of company will use XServes. A school district/college that serves a number of school that almost universally use Macs, for example, will need to provide web services, directory services, mail, file serving, calendaring, wiki and possibly netboot, user homes etc etc. The best system to use for this is OSX Server.

Now, that school district/college will need to host these servers somewhere locally, because they know that some cloud service will not handle the bandwidth or the specific needs for their institution. They need the reliability of the system being there for their students and they need to be able to tailor it to their needs.

They will usually have a server room, or more often their own servers hosted in a local co-location facility. No normal data-center will allow what are essentially home and desktop machines into a server room, for a number of reasons.

One reason is that these consumer machines do not have redundant power supplies, which means when the power supply dies, the spare automatically takes over.

Another reason is that consumer machines do not have remote management hardware built into them, in the XServe's case it's called a LOM board. This allows one to manage the machine's hardware remotely and will do things like send an email when a fan or a drive dies or restart a machine automatically and gracefully if there is a power outage, which happens very often.

You can't do that with consumer machines.

Yet another reason is the size and the ability to swap out drives and power supplies while the machine is running. Mac minis have nothing and once they die, everything that is dependent on them will die too. Mac Pros are far too large to fit into a server rack and cannot be serviced there.

Mac minis cannot fit fibre channel networking equipment, which you need for connecting to RAID systems. Mac Pros generate more heat than XServes and are not designed to channel heat to the back of the server rack like an XServe is.

Now what about another area where people use XServes heavily, video post production houses. A lot of these have server rooms full of XServes, upon which they use XSan in conjunction with large RAID systems for networked storage and Apple's Final Cut Pro Server. They cannot put Mac Pros in their server rooms for the simple fact that there is no space. They have a mission critical requirement that their servers are up and running 24/7. You can't do that with consumer grade machines.

You may think that because your small office has a Mac-mini or Mac Pro tucked away in a corner room that that is enough for everybody.

There are thousands of companies for whom this isn't the case.

In my company's particular case, we've had a long bitter weekend where we've decided that we've had enough of Apple's lack of commitment to its professional customers.
- No more Java updates, and no commitment from anyone yet as to whether there will ever be updates. You don't know how many people use OSX to develop Java on, tens of thousands.
- No more Xserve and only two months in which to do something about it.
- Apple's hysterical public fights with major software vendors like Adobe over trivial rubbish. There are literally millions of Mac users who use Adobe's products daily and upon which they depend for their livelihoods. We have no assurance that Apple won't try to kill off Adobe's products as well. We don't think so, but we have no confidence whatsoever in Apple any more.
- Supporting Apple's clients with Windows or Linux servers for even basic things like file or directory services is not easy or in many cases even practical.

So we've decided to migrate our entire company to Windows client and server over the next few years. We're doing this with a heavy heart, but Microsoft is simply far more reliable than Apple is - They have a very good product roadmap and they have very good legacy support for products they no longer make.

And judging form the comments on the various boards where IT administrators are talking about this, we're far from the only ones who're going down this path.

Sad, sad weekend, but I think it's been coming for a long time.

Originally Posted by theolein

Read my post further up. This simply isn't realistic or practical.

Another reason is that consumer machines do not have remote management hardware built into them, in the XServe's case it's called a LOM board. This allows one to manage the machine's hardware remotely and will do things like send an email when a fan or a drive dies or restart a machine automatically and gracefully if there is a power outage, which happens very often.

You can't do that with consumer machines.

Originally Posted by theolein

A school district/college that serves a number of school that almost universally use Macs, for example, will need to provide web services, directory services, mail, file serving, calendaring, wiki and possibly netboot, user homes etc etc. The best system to use for this is OSX Server.

One reason is that these consumer machines do not have redundant power supplies, which means when the power supply dies, the spare automatically takes over.

Originally Posted by theolein

Mac Pros are far too large to fit into a server rack and cannot be serviced there.

Mac Pros generate more heat than XServes and are not designed to channel heat to the back of the server rack like an XServe is.

Originally Posted by theolein

I was going to post an insulting post in response to your extremely vapid claims of what should be in a server room, but instead I'll post a serious answer.

Why do we need 1u servers in a server room? You claim that one Mac Pro should be enough for anybody, even companies with 200 employees.

Let's look at why a typical company and what type of company will use XServes. A school district/college that serves a number of school that almost universally use Macs, for example, will need to provide web services, directory services, mail, file serving, calendaring, wiki and possibly netboot, user homes etc etc. The best system to use for this is OSX Server.

Now, that school district/college will need to host these servers somewhere locally, because they know that some cloud service will not handle the bandwidth or the specific needs for their institution. They need the reliability of the system being there for their students and they need to be able to tailor it to their needs.

They will usually have a server room, or more often their own servers hosted in a local co-location facility. No normal data-center will allow what are essentially home and desktop machines into a server room, for a number of reasons.

One reason is that these consumer machines do not have redundant power supplies, which means when the power supply dies, the spare automatically takes over.

Another reason is that consumer machines do not have remote management hardware built into them, in the XServe's case it's called a LOM board. This allows one to manage the machine's hardware remotely and will do things like send an email when a fan or a drive dies or restart a machine automatically and gracefully if there is a power outage, which happens very often.

You can't do that with consumer machines.

Yet another reason is the size and the ability to swap out drives and power supplies while the machine is running. Mac minis have nothing and once they die, everything that is dependent on them will die too. Mac Pros are far too large to fit into a server rack and cannot be serviced there.

Mac minis cannot fit fibre channel networking equipment, which you need for connecting to RAID systems. Mac Pros generate more heat than XServes and are not designed to channel heat to the back of the server rack like an XServe is.

Now what about another area where people use XServes heavily, video post production houses. A lot of these have server rooms full of XServes, upon which they use XSan in conjunction with large RAID systems for networked storage and Apple's Final Cut Pro Server. They cannot put Mac Pros in their server rooms for the simple fact that there is no space. They have a mission critical requirement that their servers are up and running 24/7. You can't do that with consumer grade machines.

You may think that because your small office has a Mac-mini or Mac Pro tucked away in a corner room that that is enough for everybody.

There are thousands of companies for whom this isn't the case.

In my company's particular case, we've had a long bitter weekend where we've decided that we've had enough of Apple's lack of commitment to its professional customers.
- No more Java updates, and no commitment from anyone yet as to whether there will ever be updates. You don't know how many people use OSX to develop Java on, tens of thousands.
- No more Xserve and only two months in which to do something about it.
- Apple's hysterical public fights with major software vendors like Adobe over trivial rubbish. There are literally millions of Mac users who use Adobe's products daily and upon which they depend for their livelihoods. We have no assurance that Apple won't try to kill off Adobe's products as well. We don't think so, but we have no confidence whatsoever in Apple any more.
- Supporting Apple's clients with Windows or Linux servers for even basic things like file or directory services is not easy or in many cases even practical.

So we've decided to migrate our entire company to Windows client and server over the next few years. We're doing this with a heavy heart, but Microsoft is simply far more reliable than Apple is - They have a very good product roadmap and they have very good legacy support for products they no longer make.

And judging form the comments on the various boards where IT administrators are talking about this, we're far from the only ones who're going down this path.

Sad, sad weekend, but I think it's been coming for a long time.