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

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.


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.

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.

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.

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 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!

.

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.

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.


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.


Apple is not software company.

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.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm nearly positive "iWorks" is actually called "iWork."

-=|Mgkwho

deleted

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!

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.


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.

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.

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.

Apple just signed an agreement with Unisys to provide enterprise sales and support. I wonder if that is relevant?

If you are a legitimate business, then you don't run your server infrastructure illegally. This is not an option until Apple allows it.

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).

Agreed. Nice machine, priced too high.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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!


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.


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.


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...


I agree! maybe: iGotIt


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


When can I place my order?

.

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

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/

Not illegal, just not supported.

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.

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

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.

.

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?"

.

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.

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.