or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Why Apple axed Xserve, and how it can reenter the sever market
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Apple axed Xserve, and how it can reenter the sever market - Page 2

post #41 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by filburt View Post

This really says it all. Aside from pretty hardware and Mac OS X Server's configuration tool, there's nothing particularly unique about Xserve. A competent admin can put together a Linux rack with necessary tools for significantly less.

Comparing Xserve to Windows Server is rather silly. Most organizations don't need Xserve's spec and you can build very capable server for about $1000 (minus software), such as Dell PowerEdge R-series (and you can buy RAM and hard disk for much less elsewhere). Although CAL for Windows and related products are very pricey, most of Mac OS X Server's features are based on free open source apps that runs on Linux (and installed on many Linux server distros, minus pretty admin UI).

And you can shop around for MS CAL's, and you could buy a Enterprise copy of windows and then use the free Hyper V to virtualize up to 4 more copies of windows server on that hardware, or you could run a teminal server and your clients could use cheap thin devices from wyse, hp, etc and save tons of money over the cost of Mac desktops or laptops.

The comparison is nothing but BS bias from AI. SSDD. Xserver failed because its not needed and Apple never really got behind it. Mobile Email is a effing epic failure, or was up to July when I closed my account. It was slow as hell, and unreliable as well....and that is running on Solaris boxes. Xserver would have been crushed even worse.
post #42 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by irv999 View Post

The management ad deployment breaks into a few categories.
1. File services
2. and management

File services for the avg small business, the mac mini is fine but it will not serve the needs of the other part of this market.

1. Video production (Which you mentioned)
2. LArge file IO design / print..
iSCSI doesn't work because its throughput won't work for either application. Even if you decide that a mac pro is a good idea, everyone's infrastructure is rack based systems. 19" wide.. the mac pro because if its incompatible size and monitoring ability cant be hosted anywhere at a reasonable cost (19 U is expensive to lease), it can't be monitored.. IT is a terrible idea.

You need a server to fit inside a rack and be monitor able. The mac mini works for the rack system sorta, but has no mass storage, and the mac pro just fits neither application.


This is one of the reasons why the Apple store is a bad idea. Some guy walks in and says "I have a business and I need a server". before they would send them to a xserve.. IT was server class, it had a warranty which was better than most, and fit inside a rack.. Apple came out with a mac mini, and now the apple store says .. "buy this it is perfect". The turned a 4K sale into a 1K sale..

So what does one do?

If you are a design firm, and you have large files.. you buy a windows server with extreme ZIP. IF you are a video client and you use XsAN... you are in TROUBLE! Good luck. Take you rack which used to hold 48 servers and now it holds 6.. AWESOME!.. And if your master controller for XSAN breaks.. cross your fingers and hope someone comes down to fix your machine.. because there are no user installable parts OR guarantee on part deliver time...

apple this was a dumb move..

I'd argue that for XSAN its not as big of a problem as you mention. XSAN is an apple branded version of the Stornext file system. Stornext has clients for a multitude of platforms. The Mac Pros that editors use can still run the Apple client, and the MDCs can be migrated to Linux when the Xserve hardware finally gives out. The lower cost of a stripped down 1U from Dell or HP would probably offset the increased cost of a Stornext license key for Linux. (Apple's charged less for XSAN keys than is typically charged on other platforms).
post #43 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Market_Player View Post

I am running OS X Server inside Oracle VM VirtualBox on a Dell Power Edge as you are reading this.

http://dlc.sun.com/virtualbox/vboxdownload.html
http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Guest_OSes

Enjoy

Shame on you, that not allowed according to the OS X Server licensing terms - i.e. illegal.
post #44 of 102
If Apple OEM'd OSX Server edition it would not cost a mere $500. Server support is expensive. Apple would quickly up that to be more in-line with MS.
post #45 of 102
I don't think there's any money to be made in server software. Remember when people thought open source was going to take over the world? Well in the server space they were kind of right. The kind of apps that open source produces -- highly configurable, no documentation, designed to be used by geeks, very basic GUI or command line only -- are very suited to this space.

Hardware vendors of course can make money through support, but software vendors will just be in a fight to the bottom with OSS. Apple are financially sensible to get out of this market.
post #46 of 102
What have Apple got to lose by discontinuing the Xserve? As small as 10,000 units is, it's 10,000 units. They would have announced Xsan's demise and probably Final Cut Server at the same time if they were abandoning the data centre completely.

Mac OS X Server certified HP server configurations will be announced some time before January 31.
post #47 of 102
Quote:
Apple does however have the capability to relax its Mac OS X Server licensing to allow partners to install it on third party hardware, which would be a bigger win at lower costs for the company than continuing to develop unique hardware at a loss.


Licensing is the way forward. Take a page from Microsoft's recipe for success. License software and make $$$.


post #48 of 102
This article was one of the wackiest I have skimmed over.

I concur with filburt's posts on page 1; he has his head screwed on.
Quote:
Aside from pretty hardware and Mac OS X Server's configuration tool, there's nothing particularly unique about Xserve. A competent admin can put together a Linux rack with necessary tools for significantly less.

Quote:
Mac OS X Server's features are based on free open source apps that runs on Linux (and installed on many Linux server distros, minus pretty admin UI).

Outside of Final Cut Server type software, there is literally no reason to go with OS X Server, and countless reasons not to go with it. Cost, performance, speed of patches and security updates, the fact that virtually all the software is FLOSS (open source, runs on Linux, BSD, Windows as well), etc etc.

$3000 starting price for a $1000 PC is Apple's 'new' server. Nuff said. Apple's server hardware has failed because there is quite literally no reason to buy it.

Apple is better off focusing on gadgets and consumer-space servers for media.
post #49 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

.

IMO, Apple needs a Home Server Solution with RAID, local TimeMachine backup, co-ordinated with cloud backup.

Something to Store iTunes and iLife content and serve it tp AppleTV -- ultimately to be replaced with modstly cloud stouage of your content and the home server being used as fast-access staged storage from the cloud.

.

I have been looking at a DataRobotics DROBO box to hold my photos, music and other critical files securely, but I would prefer the Apple solution you are proposing.
post #50 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel001 View Post

Interesting article, although Apple have probably already determined their server strategy, and it's probably not this.

Absolutely agree. Apple will not sell OS X server as a software only package and will not partner up with other hardware vendor. The logistics for a software licensing are not in place and the overhead and restructuring that a move like that would take will eat up the supposed $500 licensing fees. Plus a licence for OS X Server is $499 because it is actually an upgrade license.

What is a lot more likely is that Apple is rapidly moving into the Cloud space and that NC data centre is about to become the largest competitor to AWS. Certain companies will still like to have an in house server and those would get a Mac Pro or Mac Mini but for the really large enterprise ones having Apple taking care of data security and availability would probably prove to be a much more cost effective solution provided that Apple manages to convince them that the NC centre is indeed secure, reliable, accessible, and cheap to hire.
post #51 of 102
Like I said before, the best way to do this would be to create a wholly owned subsidiary for business sales outside the reach of jobs and Ive. This company would be able to create types of computers that the enterprise markets want, but does not fit within the typical Apple schemes.
post #52 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

ZFS would be a better solution than RAID for home users...




Hell yeah x10. I've been going on and on about this one for ages and to be honest I can't believe they haven't announced something!

I'm not sure about calling it Home Server though (more on that below), maybe more like iHub or iHome.

Cloud storage is certainly the future, but we aren't quite there yet. A far better solution is to have a local device that manages content, allows the synchronization of content between devices, and then have parts of that content synced to the cloud.

Microsoft already have similar product called Windows Home Server which, after a couple of service packs, was bloody awesome. I've played with the WHS Vail preview as well which is even better.

Microsoft are missing out on a few key features IMO.

Storage isn't transparent enough. One needs to be very specific about where things are being saved to ensure everything works the way it is suppose to.

It doesn't handle the synchronization of multiple users data to the cloud. It will act as a central file store, and it can sync that file store to one SkyDrive account, but it can't sync the data from different users to different SkyDrive accounts (although this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that users can connect to the server remotely and access their files)

The most important feature that it is missing is that it is still a PC and is treated like one. It needs to be more like an appliance. This is going to sound silly, but a PC server at home isn't sexy enough for mainstream users.

I agree with almost everything you say -- except ZFS.

I played around with the "pre-release" a while back! ZFS is great from a feature/capability perspective -- but while I was playing I tried to imagine how ZFS could be explained so that a non-tech user could use it, and what a GUI would look like. IMO, this would be a major undertaking.

I envision a home server as providing: mass storage, consolidation, staging, streaming and serving files/content to multiple computers, iPads, iPods, iPhones and AppleTVs in the home or small business.. It would also provide TimeMachine style backup locally and to the cloud (syncing and staging).

i kinda' do this now, with a Mini with 2 2-Terabyte external FW drives (soon to increased if no home server solution is offered).

The Mini is headless and in the den ethernet-connected to my main computer for fast file exchange,

Its main job is a media center and streams A/V content to the AppleTV and iPads (StreamToMe).

As a file server, most of the things on the Mini are overkill or not used -- 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, GPU, 320 GB HDD, ODD, BT, USB, etc.

Basically, all it does is retrieve files from the external HDDs and serve them over WiFi -- along with occasional addition of new files, TimeMachine Backup and syncing.

So, I look at this $800 "media server" (excluding external HDDs) and this $100 AppleTV...

Hmmm... The AppleTV gets rid of all the things I don't need/use on the Mini.

I wonder If I got another one, hacked it and hooked the external HDDs to it via USB...

Obviously, I am not going to do that -- I want less fiddle-work, not more.


But, Apple could!

How about:
-- the guts of the AppleTV on a pluggable card, all solid-state - we'll call it a server module
-- pluggable HDDs and/or SSDs
-- pluggable power supplies
-- an enclosure that accepts multiple of the above
-- OS X Server Home (yech, sorry) -- to control it all
---- Cluster, load-balancing, fail over (under the covers)
---- Remote notifications / Admin via Mac, iPad, iPhone
---- Use OpenCL to exploit the GPU on the Server Modules

What we'd have is something like:

$150 - 2 Server Modules @ $75 each
$400 - 2 2TB HDDs @ 200 each
$100 - 4 Power supplies @ $25 each
$100 - 1 Enclosure
====
$750 4 TB Home Server

Everything would be hot-swappable -- The Server Modules and Power Supplies would be expendable (recycle or Green dispose).

This would be better, cheaper, greener than the Mini, and cost $50 less --with the HDDs thrown in free!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #53 of 102
I haven't read all the comments but Apple and Intel have invented two Light Peaks!
1 light peak
2 Intel's propitiatory Ethernet/sata light bus ( name?) that will change all computers and servers and by extension supercomputers. When it enters the market I believe that servers will shrink even more than Xservers. Intel's buying of virus software company is taking over Microsoft's responsibilities and doing a "Apple" in leading PC users to the promised land of virus freedom. The first product I predict will be a super fast and super small server.
The 40 (48?) core CPU is perfect for a server, with multi light buses to many hard drives.
So Jobs with his inside running has seen the writing on the wall. and stopped making its server.
post #54 of 102
He-he. The third page of the piece clearly shows Daniel's vocation is office automation and network administration, which everyone knows it is. Then how come Daniel presents pictures, which explain the evolution of iLife and iWork products in connection with server architectures? ``From your training and experience' ', Daniel, could you recall one single chance to meet that software in your professional life?

There goes a commonplace which everyone and their dog know. Everything was crystal clear at the time of dropping cluster-grade file system support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Another App Store…

Which leads to what Apple likely may be doing with Mac OS X Server (beyond simply paring it with the Mac Pro and Mac mini): taking a lesson from iOS and creating a Server App Store. By setting up a secure market for server applications, Apple could bring its successful experiment in creating a market for mobile software to the server realm.

Businesses don't go buy servers in supermarkets; much less to any boot camps. They prefer close intimate relations with suppliers. Which in particular means maintaining a mob of office automators and help desk officers. Steve & Tim are long sniffing each single productive engineer before hiring. Investors will kill them for that gang of idlers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Lots of open source server software already exists, but faces difficult problems related to installation, maintenance and updating for security. By converting this software into easy to manage modules that are easy to buy and install, Apple could revolutionize server software,...
Rather than bundling all of the company's server related projects into a general purpose Mac OS X Server package, Apple could sell its Wiki Server, Podcast Producer and Xgrid as installable modules...
It could allow anyone to build custom packages...

Delegating server hardware
...

Apple is not software company.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #55 of 102
Nice idea with the server app store, although MS have already done this with windows.

Nice chart showing how much cheaper the OSX server would be, except it's left out the fact Linux would still be cheaper.
post #56 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I agree with almost everything you say -- except ZFS.

I played around with the "pre-release" a while back! ZFS is great from a feature/capability perspective -- but while I was playing I tried to imagine how ZFS could be explained so that a non-tech user could use it, and what a GUI would look like. IMO, this would be a major undertaking.

Maybe... but I think Apple would be able to hide the underlying implementation from the user.

Then again, the main idea I was thinking of for ZFS was swapping out drives with drives of greater capacities (WHS or Drobo style) which on further thought is actually something that would confuse mainstream users.

i.e. It would make more sense if your iHome 2TB Module failed that it would direct you to purchase another iHome 2TB Module from the Apple Store.


Although I like your idea of a modular server (like your own personal Blade Server!) I'm not sure non-tech types could get their heads around it. They need to be able to replace HDD modules, so they should be able to add server modules as well... I'm just not sure I like the idea of needing to buy certain components to make features work properly.

It might be better to simply include the hardware needed to provide a list of functionality to a certain number of devices and leave it at that.

Then again I change my mind on how they should do the hardware weekly!

That said, the list of functionality is pretty much agreed upon by everyone I talk to. Media/iTunes storage and streaming, shared TimeMachine and data sync between all devices and the cloud.

If Apple can nail that functionality (regardless of the hardware ) they'll have a wining product on their hands.

Personally I'd love to see iHome manage profile synchronization between iPads as well - so if I pick up any iPad in the house it has my configuration. Same goes for the wife and kids. That's more of a v2 thing though.

Finally I really really hope they don't call it a "server". iHub, iCenter, iHome, Apple Unity, iCentral, iPivot, iCasa, iMesh, whatever... just not "Apple Home Server" or "iServer".



EDIT: I forgot to mention the ability to activate/sync iDevices over Wifi. The iHome should allow for the possibility of a desktop/laptop free home.
post #57 of 102
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm nearly positive "iWorks" is actually called "iWork."

-=|Mgkwho
post #58 of 102
deleted
post #59 of 102
I have to agree with DED on this. An iOS Server App Store is not difficult to setup, especially with it right around the corner on Lion. It would disrupt and revolutionize the Enterprise level marketplace, and since Apple has everything to gain from it, you bet they're going to change everything, again. (Sheesh I just sound like a real fanboi right now)
post #60 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilogic View Post

I have to agree with DED on this. An iOS Server App Store is not difficult to setup, especially with it right around the corner on Lion. It would disrupt and revolutionize the Enterprise level marketplace, and since Apple has everything to gain from it, you bet they're going to change everything, again. (Sheesh I just sound like a real fanboi right now)

Maybe... however the homicide rate would go up.

I personally would strangle people if they started cruising the App Store and downloading and trying out applications on a production server. I'm sure the sentiment would be widespread.

An App Store for a personal home-based server... now that's a whole different story!
post #61 of 102
The Cube didn't fail because of the economy, it was just an ill-conceived product that got the fate it deserved. It probably would have sold great at half the price, but it was extremely uncompetitive in terms of value, it either needed to be much cheaper or much more powerful. Basically, the price was jacked way up because it prioritized form (aesthetics) over function.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Like I said before, the best way to do this would be to create a wholly owned subsidiary for business sales outside the reach of jobs and Ive. This company would be able to create types of computers that the enterprise markets want, but does not fit within the typical Apple schemes.

I'm skeptical that such a company could make a profit. Seems pretty likely that the xserve line's poor sales were being subsidized by macs and ipods.
post #62 of 102
There's an easy answer why it happened: they weren't selling well.

If that's the only explanation, then the MacPro is next to go. Our university bookstore sold less than 5 last year, and they had record sales of Macs.
post #63 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I agree with almost everything you say -- except ZFS.
I envision a home server as providing: mass storage, consolidation, staging, streaming and serving files/content to multiple computers, iPads, iPods, iPhones and AppleTVs in the home or small business.. It would also provide TimeMachine style backup locally and to the cloud (syncing and staging).
What we'd have is something like:

$150 - 2 Server Modules @ $75 each
$400 - 2 2TB HDDs @ 200 each
$100 - 4 Power supplies @ $25 each
$100 - 1 Enclosure
====
$750 4 TB Home Server

Everything would be hot-swappable -- The Server Modules and Power Supplies would be expendable (recycle or Green dispose).

Uhm... perhaps you and I have a different idea of what the "Home" means in Home Server, but the average home does not run their computers like an IT department. This will never sell as a "Home" product. Only geeks who like to play IT at home will buy this. The Mac mini server is as close as what the average consumer needs, and even that's overkill.

What Apple needs is to make Home Server software - iTunes, and iPhoto server. Store all the media there, and let the clients use it from various machines, user accounts from around the house. Right now keeping iTunes and iPhoto in sync across multiple machines and user accounts is a nightmare.
post #64 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekCurrie View Post

Much as I like Dan Dilger, I don't agree with this one at all.

Apple has just wiped out its credibility selling Mac OS X Server into the Enterprise market. Having wiped out their Enterprise efforts now on two occasions, it's over for good this time.

There is no way Apple is letting Mac OS X Server loose on gawd-knows-what 100s of different 'PC' hardware combinations unless they can conjure up a license with either a virtualization software vendor or a hardware vendor whereby Apple provides NO hardware issue support, ever. Good luck seeing that happen.

Apple just signed an agreement with Unisys to provide enterprise sales and support. I wonder if that is relevant?
post #65 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

It runs fine in vCenter on a Cisco Blade Server as well. Does Apple Support it? No, but do I need them to support it? No.

If you are a legitimate business, then you don't run your server infrastructure illegally. This is not an option until Apple allows it.
post #66 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmac View Post

There's an easy answer why it happened: they weren't selling well.

If that's the only explanation, then the MacPro is next to go. Our university bookstore sold less than 5 last year, and they had record sales of Macs.

And how many xserves did they sell? MP sales must be much much higher than xserve sales, not to mention that MP is the logical choice for many users running pro apps (unless they're planning on abandoning those too, which I don't think is likely either). Not to mention that few if any college students would want or need a MP, they are a box for people doing professional work (and probably some rich hobbyists).
post #67 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

The Cube didn't fail because of the economy, it was just an ill-conceived product that got the fate it deserved. It probably would have sold great at half the price, but it was extremely uncompetitive in terms of value, it either needed to be much cheaper or much more powerful. Basically, the price was jacked way up because it prioritized form (aesthetics) over function.

Agreed. Nice machine, priced too high.
post #68 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel001 View Post

Interesting article, although Apple have probably already determined their server strategy, and it's probably not this.

Yeah, I doubt Jobs will let them go this route anytime soon. It also wouldn't make any waves without licensing for virtualization, most people only like the idea of an OS X server to compliment a larger corporate environment, if they are a smaller shop they'll just opt for a Mac Mini.

My hope is that Apple will really start taking some of the business side of things seriously & really improve their server tools for management. Right now if you do anything beyond basic management you have to buy 3rd party solutions and that is even for a fully Mac shop.
post #69 of 102
Seems to be a bit of confusion over what Mac OS X Server is and how it is different than XServe. XServe was merely the 1U Rackmount server from Apple. OS X Server is the server OS that can be installed on many Apple machines.

I'm confused how you can be so confused. Apple even said its biggest Server seller is the Mini Server. Killing the XServe in no way ends Apple's server offerings.
post #70 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmac View Post

There's an easy answer why it happened: they weren't selling well.

If that's the only explanation, then the MacPro is next to go. Our university bookstore sold less than 5 last year, and they had record sales of Macs.

Mac Pros are not typically sold to students. How many XServes did your university bookstore sell last year?

All of this is silly. Nobody outside of Apple knows how much it costs to maintain and upgrade the XServe product line, and nobody outside of Apple knows exactly how many units did sell.
post #71 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

Maybe... but I think Apple would be able to hide the underlying implementation from the user.

Well, If anyone could do it would be Apple. Hey, They are able to market TimeMachine/TimeCapsule and users don't feel they need to know how it works.

When Apple first announced TimeMachine, I assumed it used ZFS internally -- but it doesn't. I poked around a bit to see what it was doing, and how -- and was satisfied. I suspect most users don't go any farther than the settings and the app itself -- never looking at the file structure.

Quote:
Then again, the main idea I was thinking of for ZFS was swapping out drives with drives of greater capacities (WHS or Drobo style) which on further thought is actually something that would confuse mainstream users.

i.e. It would make more sense if your iHome 2TB Module failed that it would direct you to purchase another iHome 2TB Module from the Apple Store.

I think the way that could be handled is tell the user that the content manager:
-- uses HDDs in size-increments of 1 TB
-- moves your stuff around for speed and backup
-- always keeps enough free space, in its back pocket, to replace your biggest / or smallest drive
-- any time you (or the system) wants to replace a drive, you can use the same or bigger size-increment.

... Or just tell 'em it's magic!

Quote:
Although I like your idea of a modular server (like your own personal Blade Server!) I'm not sure non-tech types could get their heads around it. They need to be able to replace HDD modules, so they should be able to add server modules as well... I'm just not sure I like the idea of needing to buy certain components to make features work properly.

It might be better to simply include the hardware needed to provide a list of functionality to a certain number of devices and leave it at that.

Then again I change my mind on how they should do the hardware weekly!

Well, you could do it either or both ways

What we'd have is something like:

$075 - 1 Valet (was server) Modules @ $75 each (without power supply)
$100 - 1 Valet (was server) Modules @ $100 each (with power supply)
$200 - 1 2TB HDDs @ 200 each (without power supply)
$225 - 1 2TB HDDs @ 200 each (with power supply)
$050 - 2 Power supplies @ $25 each
$100 - 1 Enclosure
====
$750 4 TB Home Server


Though, I have about 30 TB of LaCie HDDs: some 1-TBs, but mostly 2 TBs -- and the external brick power supplies fail on these all the time.


I didn't specify it, but the enclosure would have something like 8 bays (odd number). You might even allow 1u, 2u and 4u modules.

I assumed that the "Valet" (was server) module would be roughly equivalent to an AppleTV in CPU/GPU, RAM SSD storage -- less anything thing not needed (HDMI, USB, etc.)

You could add whatever number and types of modules that make sense to your needs.

This would include: SSD modules; Airport router modules; AppleTV modules; Home Control modules; Security modules, etc.

And, of course, you can have multiple enclosures.

As the kids grow up and play sports, you start making a lot of home movies -- you might want to add a "Processor" module (with whatever CPUs and GPUs that make sense).

Then processing and rendering of those home movies can be distributed among any free CPU, CPUs, RAM, SSDs within the system (including the Valets).

Apple already has most of this software running on Mac OS X and some of it on iOS OS X.

Quote:
That said, the list of functionality is pretty much agreed upon by everyone I talk to. Media/iTunes storage and streaming, shared TimeMachine and data sync between all devices and the cloud.

If Apple can nail that functionality (regardless of the hardware ) they'll have a wining product on their hands.

Yep! And anything purchased/provided through the iTunes store (apps, A/V, Movies, TV Shows, music, etc).. Wouldn't need to be backed up on the cloud -- the cloud already has a "single copy" that everyone shares. The cloud just needs to store a "token" for each user that says he has access to that item for his devices.

So, all the cloud-involved activity becomes very streamlined.

Quote:
Personally I'd love to see iHome manage profile synchronization between iPads as well - so if I pick up any iPad in the house it has my configuration. Same goes for the wife and kids. That's more of a v2 thing though.

Exactly! Except that feature has business/enterprise implications as well: doctors and nurses at the nurses station; students at a lecture; attendees at a meeting; waiters in a restauranrt...

Quote:
Finally I really really hope they don't call it a "server". iHub, iCenter, iHome, Apple Unity, iCentral, iPivot, iCasa, iMesh, whatever... just not "Apple Home Server" or "iServer".

I agree! maybe: iGotIt

Quote:
EDIT: I forgot to mention the ability to activate/sync iDevices over Wifi. The iHome should allow for the possibility of a desktop/laptop free home.

That's it! you also need a multiple-device recharging station.


When can I place my order?

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #72 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Thanks for the link, Solipsism. Dvorak - LOL. How can a man who's been wrong as frequently as he has remain in print all these years?

Back on topic, on the desktop nothing can compete with Apple's unique integration of hardware and software. But on the server? Like the article says, there style doesn't matter and Apple would be up against free Linux and cheap hardware - if it were up to me I'd rather not see them try to compete at the commodity level. It's not how they've been so successful, and even if they were is that what we want to see from Apple, a commodity machine?

I'm with the other posters who see greater opportunity in home servers. Now THAT's a place where Apple can compete, very well.

I mostly agree... except enterprise, as well as the home, needs a solution to manage its iDevices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firelly7475

Personally I'd love to see iHome manage profile synchronization between iPads as well - so if I pick up any iPad in the house it has my configuration. Same goes for the wife and kids. That's more of a v2 thing though.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #73 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

This year, slightly more than half of all Mac sales were desktops rather than portables. The majority of those machines were iMacs and to a lesser extent, Mac minis. The Mac Pro is a relatively small market, and the Xserve is even tinier.

That doesn't sound right. Q3 2010, Mac sales were 3.472 million = 2.468 million laptops + 1.004 million desktops. So at least in the latest quarter, the ratio was >70% portable vs <30% desktop (same as the rest of the industry really) and that doesn't take into consideration the iOS devices which outsell the Mac line 3:1. XServe sales would be a minute fraction of the overall sales.

http://gigaom.com/apple/apple-q3-2010-record-mac-sales/
post #74 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson View Post

Shame on you, that not allowed according to the OS X Server licensing terms - i.e. illegal.

Not illegal, just not supported.
post #75 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

And how many xserves did they sell? MP sales must be much much higher than xserve sales, not to mention that MP is the logical choice for many users running pro apps (unless they're planning on abandoning those too, which I don't think is likely either). Not to mention that few if any college students would want or need a MP, they are a box for people doing professional work (and probably some rich hobbyists).

They had to sell 8,000 a year to make the division profitable, not once did they sell 8,000 a year, they largest sales year they had was 2006, the year Virginia Tech installed 1,100 cluster nodes in their System X Supercomputer.

There seems to be a lot of Chicken Little going on here, with a lot of the sky is falling, do you when they discontinued the Cluster Node? Do you remember when the Xserve RAID disappeared? Hardware is not where they want to be, we'll see this continue in Virtualization. Enterprise is not going away for them especially with a massive influx of iPhones and iPads being used in enterprise. Apple does not NEED to compete in the server hardware market. It seems like everyone thinks that with this announcement, Apple is somehow hurting.
post #76 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by filburt View Post

This really says it all. Aside from pretty hardware and Mac OS X Server's configuration tool, there's nothing particularly unique about Xserve. A competent admin can put together a Linux rack with necessary tools for significantly less.

Comparing Xserve to Windows Server is rather silly. Most organizations don't need Xserve's spec and you can build very capable server for about $1000 (minus software), such as Dell PowerEdge R-series (and you can buy RAM and hard disk for much less elsewhere). Although CAL for Windows and related products are very pricey, most of Mac OS X Server's features are based on free open source apps that runs on Linux (and installed on many Linux server distros, minus pretty admin UI).

I have seen this Linux argument over and over, but it is not a valid argument from a business perspective. I am an IT Director and have had to deal with cleaning up Linux Sys Admin nightmares more than once. Yes, the Linux OS is technically free, but Linux Sys Admins have a tendency to set up such wonky, customized, Rube Goldberg situations, that IT Departments are held hostage to the specific Admin that helped to architect their infrastructure. As a Director, would I rather spend $500 to have a standardized set of software architecture from which any reasonable Sys Admin can work, or to save that piddly amount, would I rather have to have my system maintained by the one person who has built an custom, one-of system that leaves that Sys Admin entrenched in my business. If only one person can run your system and that person gets hit by the proverbial bus, you're screwed. Linux rarely makes sense in real world view. That's why Sun still exists.

OS X Server NEEDS to be ported to other devices. It's a great move for Apple from a strategic business standpoint also. First, it keeps their existing clients happy. While admittedly not many in number, clients like the NFL and Stanford's new Med School, parts of eBay, etc. are big names that Apple should maintain positive relationships with. Second, this would give Apple a much better platform to be competative with MS in the workplace with. Make no mistake, Apple and everybody under the sun want iPads in the workplace. Their only major hinderence in that quest are excessively Windows-centric MSCE based Sys Admins who regularly fight with executives and users to keep Apple out of their little realm. If Apple discontinues OS X Server in the business community entirely, they are just adding fuel to the fire that they don't take businesses seriously. If Apple has HP and Dell offering OS X Server on on a 2950 etc., are they going to put Microsoft out of business? No. But, they send a message that they take business seriously, they give HP and Dell a strengthened position in their negotiations with MS over licensing, they give a vastly easier to use server system to small and medium businesses, and they avoid the inevitable MS Pad device that authenticates only to Windows servers and does not allow authentication to iPads.

Apple needs to continue to have a server offering that if it does absolutely nothing else, it must be able translate AD to OD for iPad authentications in the future. Maybe MS will play nice and allow iPad authentication on Windows Servers, or maybe they won't, but that's an awfully big maybe with a serious potential risk for the future of Apple.

And let's face it, MS, Google, and Adobe, even when it has been in their own best interest to support their Apple based clientele, they have still tried to screw Apple out of the business world. I doubt they have learned that this practice isn't good for them in the long term. Apple, and Steve specifically, you have been burned by these guys before, please don't put yourselves in the position to where they hold all of the enterprise cards.

Thanks,

Traix
post #77 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by dec1994 View Post

The lack of a rack mountable and redundant hardware platform for OSX Server will most likely cause companies wishing to support OSX to look to other server platforms for network services that will run on those platforms. Fortunately, the cross platform integration ability of Mac OS X has only improved over time and is actually quite good these days. Directory integration, client management, and file sharing all work very well with other server platforms. It is a little less clear what will happen with the Mac specific server technologies such as netboot/netinstall and SUS.

Every time I look at the MacWindows.com website, I see postings related to Active Directory binding issues. And since 10.6 was released, I now see postings about slow SMB browsing issues. Furthermore, Mac clients still leave .DS_Store and other "dot files" when connecting to Windows servers. Those are some reasons why IT admins might want to set up separate Mac OS Servers for their Mac users.

Apple also touted the fact that by making both the hardware and software, finger pointing between different vendors would be reduced. So the desire by some IT admins for a complete hardware and software solution from Apple is legitimate.
post #78 of 102
.

Ya' know...

It wasn't too long ago (the era of mainframes) when the IBM's, Burroughs, RCAs, NCRs, GEs and ALWACs...



Note: The graphics display (oscilloscope), keyboard/printer (Friden FlexoWriter) and the special key/switch panel for God knows what!

The ALWAC III-e was one of the first computers to use an "8-bit Byte" and this weirdo numbering scheme called "Hexadecimal".

Everyone else used fixed binary words (usually with Octal or Bi-Quinary lights) to display data. Later, IBM used variable-length BCD (Binary-Coded Decimal) -- with WordMarks to delineate instructions and GroupMarks to delineate records. And GroupMark / WordMarks for -- I could tell you, but then I'd have to...



These computer manufacturers leased their computers to the customers for many thousands of dollars per month.

The Operating Systems and Applications like Databases, Communications, etc. also were leased.

The leases included 24/7 1-4 hour (or onsite) repair, maintenance, parts, installation of software updates, etc.

I remember in 1978, still working for IBM -- IBM offered an Application Programming Framework called CICS * -- roughly equivalent to PHP or ColdFusion. The Entry Version of CICS leased for $3,000 per month (about $15,000 in today's dollars). This version of CICS had over 30,000 installations world-wide. You do the math.

The inside IBM joke was that CICS stood for: Consistently Ignore Customer Satisfaction.


In 1979 , I was demonstrating VisiCalc running on an Apple ][ to someone in enterprise (AIR, Fairchild or Coherent).

He was quite impressed!

He asked: "How much does VisiCalc cost?"

I answered: "$99 Dollars"

He asked: "A month?"

That was the defining moment for me -- Within a few months, I quit my 16-plus-year Job at IBM and went into the microcomputer business full time.


Today, I guess, all that is changed. Maimframes [sp] are mostly history. Enterprise IT buys desktops, laptops and server hardware -- and sometimes contracts for installation, maintenance, repair, etc. services or does them in house.


Then, along comes this disruptive force -- this tablet.

Q: How much does it cost?

A: $500.

Q: What happens if it breaks or needs repair?

A: You throw it away and grab another one!


I wonder if the established ecosystem is about to change... "Again?"

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #79 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by l008com View Post

Who makes these absurd, confusing, impossible to comprehend timeline charts that keep showing up on ai? They are the worst visual references I think I've ever seen in my whole life. You'd be better off just listing off all the stats in text, than whipping up theses disasters.

I like the charts please keep making them appleinsider. They're very interesting and informative. I don't usually comment but thought i'd respond just to make sure you're not actually going to be influenced by this persons comments.
post #80 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In the market the Xserve was attempting to address (rack mounted servers), nobody cares too much about how the equipment looks or how attractive the server software it run is. Most servers in such an environment are managed remotely and collectively rather than being navigated using a standard desktop GUI.

Well… I am a designer who is asked to do IT work for a couple of small business and, being a Mac guy through-and-through, was glad to spec Xserves to do file sharing and host FileMaker files. We have an Xserve G5 and a newer one with an Intel processor.

I'll be the first to tell you that I don't really know how to manage a server, but from my experience, Apple gave me the best shot of being able to figure it out on my own.

I definitely appreciated the 1U form factor, the GUI interface, and the pretty hardware. It kind of sounds like I'm in the minority (when it comes to IT server people), but I was a fan.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Why Apple axed Xserve, and how it can reenter the sever market