or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › RIM's enterprise server now manages Apple's iOS devices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RIM's enterprise server now manages Apple's iOS devices

post #1 of 35
Thread Starter 
Research in Motion on Tuesday launched its new BlackBerry Mobile Fusion mobile device management software for enterprise customers, adding the ability to manage Apple's iOS devices, in addition to those running BlackBerry OS and Google Android.

Built on the foundation of BlackBerry Enterprise Server, the new BlackBerry Mobile Fusion will allow enterprise customers to manage smartphones and tablets based on a variety of platforms beyond its own BlackBerry OS. The software provides a single, unified wed-based console for managing devices.

"For businesses and government, managing a mix of mobile devices on any scale is chaotic. Organizations face pressure to allow employees to bring their own devices into the workplace, and they are looking to RIM as the global leader in the enterprise mobility space to solve that problem,” said Alan Panezic, Vice President, Enterprise Product Management and Marketing at Research In Motion.

"BlackBerry Mobile Fusion allows organizations to manage a mixed environment of devices in the most secure, simple, and cost efficient manner possible. It also means that businesses and government do not have to move to the lowest common denominator on security for all the devices they need to manage."

Managing iOS and Android devices with BlackBerry Mobile Fusion software grants companies the following capabilities:

Support for multiple devices per user

Application and software management

Connectivity management (Wi-Fi, VPN, certificates)

Centralized, easy to use, unified web-based console

Security and policy definition and management

Asset management

Configuration management

Security and protection for lost or stolen devices (remote lock, wipe)

User- and group-based administration

High scalability



BlackBerry Mobile Fusion is a free download, and usage is priced based on the number of devices being managed. Licenses start at $99 per user or $4 per month annually, while volume discounts are available.

iOS and Android devices require RIM's Mobile Fusion Client application to be installed. The software is available for the iPhone and iPad on Apple's App Store.

RIM first announced in May of 2011 that it planned to update its BlackBerry Enterprise server to support iOS devices. The product was initially expected to debut in late 2011, but was pushed back until Tuesday's launch.

The release of the new enterprise server software comes less than a week after RIM reported dismal earnings in which it saw a billion-dollar sequential drop in quarterly revenues. The Canadian smartphone maker sold 11.1 million handsets and a half-million PlayBook tablets in the last quarter.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 35
Quote:
iOS and Android devices require RIM's Mobile Fusion Client application to be installed. The software is available for the iPhone and iPad on Apple's App Store.

Why is a client necessary? That's ridiculous. iOS's MDM API and capabilities should be more than sufficient to manage the device. Every other MDM solution vendor uses it (AirWatch, MobileIron, Maas360) but RIM cannot?

They really can't go out of business fast enough. Not that they aren't trying.
post #3 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

Why is a client necessary? That's ridiculous. iOS's MDM API and capabilities should be more than sufficient to manage the device. Every other MDM solution vendor uses it (AirWatch, MobileIron, Maas360) but RIM cannot?

They really can't go out of business fast enough. Not that they aren't trying.

Well, the fact that they charge $99 per user or $4 per month annually (to start) is more than sufficient to kill their platform. Apple Configurator is free and alternative solutions to BlackBerry Enterprise Server are less expensive as well.
post #4 of 35
So, if I have more than 5 users (assuming a Mini Server lasts at least two years, which is low-balling), I am cheaper off buying an Mini and managing thousands of users (if needed) for far less with the same capabilities (based on the list of features in the article)? And I get a real interface, not a Web-based one? That will work.

I really think the only potential biggie here is the "Support for multiple devices per user" part. That could finally allow them to have PlayBooks being managed (if they ever get the required OS update before RIM closes the doors)...
post #5 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

So, if I have more than 5 users (assuming a Mini Server lasts at least two years, which is low-balling), I am cheaper off buying an Mini and managing thousands of users (if needed) for far less with the same capabilities (based on the list of features in the article)? And I get a real interface, not a Web-based one? That will work.

I really think the only potential biggie here is the "Support for multiple devices per user" part. That could finally allow them to have PlayBooks being managed (if they ever get the required OS update before RIM closes the doors)...

That's true of a lot of things. Look at the price for Windows Server client licenses, as well. Apple's unlimited client license Mini Server is an incredible deal.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #6 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's true of a lot of things. Look at the price for Windows Server client licenses, as well. Apple's unlimited client license Mini Server is an incredible deal.

Yes, why not just get a MacMini Server with Lion Server and you can manage your iOS devices that way...much cheaper. I guess if you have people who use Blackberries you can do both with one app, but you may have to purchase more licenses to manage iOS devices. I think the Mac server is the better route. You can also manage Macs if you so happen to have them.

I work in IT at a school and we are telling people to please not get another Blackberry. Most if not all can't wait for their contracts to expire so they can get either an iPhone or Android device anyways. RIM is ever so slowly dying. I think even if someone buys them, they're so far behind and bleeding money and customers so fast no one is going to stop it.
post #7 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Yes, why not just get a MacMini Server with Lion Server and you can manage your iOS devices that way...much cheaper. I guess if you have people who use Blackberries you can do both with one app, but you may have to purchase more licenses to manage iOS devices. I think the Mac server is the better route. You can also manage Macs if you so happen to have them.

You can also use it as a file server for all platforms. With "Back to my Mac", it's a great way to remotely access your data, as well.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #8 of 35
So much of this story and the talk back reminds me of the "Beleaguered Apple" stories we Apple users had to endure in the 90's. Hard to imagine Apple is the most valuable company in the world today and how many of their peers they have blown away in the last 10 years.

The difference between Apple then and RIM today however, RIM doesn't have a Steve Jobs to come and save them and whereas Jobs was decades ahead of his time in some respects, RIM's ex CEO's & co-founders are a decade behind.
post #9 of 35
Sigh! Too little, and too late. This doesn't even manage the devices to the level that it manages BB devices.

And here we go again with sales numbers. Even RIM didn't announce sales numbers. They announced shipped numbers. While I can't speak for their phone shipments, it's a different story when talking about Playbook numbers. Last year, we saw those shipments dwindle from 500,000 to less than 150,000 in three quarters. And then, after having several fire sales, they took a $483 million write off on those tablets. They just took a write off on BB7 phones too.

So when I read something that not only doesn't bother to question the reality of shipments, but somehow translates them to sales, I wonder if the writer is paying as much attention to it as (s)he should.
post #10 of 35
I had to chime in here, too many people who don't work in a real IT department commenting...

While I agree that RIM is dying a slow death, everyone has to realize that a lot of IT departments have invested fully into RIM's ecosystem. Most companies have a 3-5 year rotations on technologies, and therefore (usually because of tax purposes) cannot just "get rid" of their current equipment. I'm sure a lot of IT pro's are relieved to know that they don't need to implement further technologies to manage multiple handsets for the time being.

That being said, I believe RIM knows that their PHONE platform is a dinosaur. Like all dinosaurs it's going to become extinct sooner rather than later. It's smart to get into a platform as a SERVICE, but the way they're implementing it is complete nonsense. An extra app on the phone just to access features that the iPhone provides natively is ridiculous. Saying that users will be reluctant to use it is an understatement, especially when Exchange already offers ActiveSync to interface with said native features - directly, without additional licensing.

My company is one of the lucky ones that refused (well I refused) to deploy BES servers (I hate RIM's business model). BUT our exchange server is on a real server, which brings me to my next point. A lot of you are comparing Mac Mini "server" pricing to the real deal. No IT department (well a competent one) would deploy a Mac Mini in a production environment with "thousands of users hitting it" (as another poster said). It's unfortunate that Apple has deprecated their main server line that utilized real server grade parts. Sorry, but throwing a SATA RAID 1 array in a small enclosure and calling it a day doesn't equal a production grade machine that I'd be confident to deploy.

Real servers use SAS in more complex RAID arrays to ensure faster performance (than RAID 1) and better data redundancy and up time (spare drives, RAID 6, etc). They also offer things like ECC memory, multi-socket system boards, redundant power supplies, etc. These machines start at the $2,000 range and only go up in price if you wish to scale out. Our Exchange server cost $10,000, but I can sleep at night knowing that the beast will never go down - ever. I couldn't do the same for a Mac Mini.

/rant
post #11 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarcoot View Post

So much of this story and the talk back reminds me of the "Beleaguered Apple" stories we Apple users had to endure in the 90's. Hard to imagine Apple is the most valuable company in the world today and how many of their peers they have blown away in the last 10 years.

The difference between Apple then and RIM today however, RIM doesn't have a Steve Jobs to come and save them and whereas Jobs was decades ahead of his time in some respects, RIM's ex CEO's & co-founders are a decade behind.

That point about SJ is one I make as well. I'm sure Heins is well intentioned. But that isn't enough. A leader not only has to be able to see through everything that is there to the essential elements, which SJ did, to our consternation after he came back and discontinued major lines that were very popular, and doing well financially, but he needs to be able to convince people that he truly does see into the future, and that what (s)he sees is the truth.

SJ could do that, even when he made mistakes. There isn't anyone at RIM who can claim that. RIM's direction is backwards. They are now trying to catch the horse after it ran out of the barn, and they're on foot. It won't happen.
post #12 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraSPARC View Post

I had to chime in here, too many people who don't work in a real IT department commenting...

While I agree that RIM is dying a slow death, everyone has to realize that a lot of IT departments have invested fully into RIM's ecosystem. Most companies have a 3-5 year rotations on technologies, and therefore (usually because of tax purposes) cannot just "get rid" of their current equipment. I'm sure a lot of IT pro's are relieved to know that they don't need to implement further technologies to manage multiple handsets for the time being.

That being said, I believe RIM knows that their PHONE platform is a dinosaur. Like all dinosaurs it's going to become extinct sooner rather than later. It's smart to get into a platform as a SERVICE, but the way they're implementing it is complete nonsense. An extra app on the phone just to access features that the iPhone provides natively is ridiculous. Saying that users will be reluctant to use it is an understatement, especially when Exchange already offers ActiveSync to interface with said native features - directly, without additional licensing.

My company is one of the lucky ones that refused (well I refused) to deploy BES servers (I hate RIM's business model). BUT our exchange server is on a real server, which brings me to my next point. A lot of you are comparing Mac Mini "server" pricing to the real deal. No IT department (well a competent one) would deploy a Mac Mini in a production environment with "thousands of users hitting it" (as another poster said). It's unfortunate that Apple has deprecated their main server line that utilized real server grade parts. Sorry, but throwing a SATA RAID 1 array in a small enclosure and calling it a day doesn't equal a production grade machine that I'd be confident to deploy.

Real servers use SAS in more complex RAID arrays to ensure faster performance (than RAID 1) and better data redundancy and up time (spare drives, RAID 6, etc). They also offer things like ECC memory, multi-socket system boards, redundant power supplies, etc. These machines start at the $2,000 range and only go up in price if you wish to scale out. Our Exchange server cost $10,000, but I can sleep at night knowing that the beast will never go down - ever. I couldn't do the same for a Mac Mini.

/rant

While you can't easily mount it into a rack, the Mac Pro offers everything you mention, except one. Up to 128GB ECC RAM, 16TB SAS RAID, multi socket system board. The only thing they don't have is a redundant power supply. But I can replace mine in two minutes. I know of few companies who don't have redundant servers, so that isn't the biggest problem. The machine is also extremely reliable.
post #13 of 35
when they say they can manage my iOS device using their software? Where are the details or the analysis of the details that tells me what my 99 per seat USD annually gets me. Where are the details about synching between multiple devices. Who controls the synch and where does my mac at home fit into their equation. Come to think of it, where does iCloud fit into it? Apologies to this forum audience if I missed those details by not reading TFA carefully....
post #14 of 35
Funny that no reference of another OS was mentioned in that ad. It said multiple OS's but didn't say iOS or Android, nor did they show it running on another device other than RIM's. I know it was a RIM commercial but you'd think they would at least show you, or mention devices that it actually supports. Just an observation.
post #15 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

While you can't easily mount it into a rack, the Mac Pro offers everything you mention, except one. Up to 128GB ECC RAM, 16TB SAS RAID, multi socket system board. The only thing they don't have is a redundant power supply. But I can replace mine in two minutes. I know of few companies who don't have redundant servers, so that isn't the biggest problem. The machine is also extremely reliable.

Agreed, but in an age where consolidation and server density is key - would you opt for 1 4U server or 4 1U servers, where a 1U server could compete equally with the Mac Pro? Apple had great 1U servers (or was it 2U's...) but those are no more. Plus you don't get things like easy hot swapping. A real rack server can be pulled out on it's rails with most parts being hot swap-able (while the machine is on). With the Mac Pro, you must turn it off first to service it. That, right there, is a no-go for many IT departments. I had to replace a bad DIMM on one of our production servers just the other day (memory mirroring FTW!), and I was able to do all of this while the machine was on with NO downtime. Speaking of which, I think you underestimate the sheer lack of enterprise grade features the Mac Pro has.

No memory mirroring, no front facing hot swap HDD bays, no redundant PSU's, no baseboard management and monitoring chipsets, I mean the list really does go on...
post #16 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraSPARC View Post

Agreed, but in an age where consolidation and server density is key - would you opt for 1 4U server or 4 1U servers, where a 1U server could compete equally with the Mac Pro? Apple had great 1U servers (or was it 2U's...) but those are no more. Plus you don't get things like easy hot swapping. A real rack server can be pulled out on it's rails with most parts being hot swap-able (while the machine is on). With the Mac Pro, you must turn it off first to service it. That, right there, is a no-go for many IT departments. I had to replace a bad DIMM on one of our production servers just the other day (memory mirroring FTW!), and I was able to do all of this while the machine was on with NO downtime. Speaking of which, I think you underestimate the sheer lack of enterprise grade features the Mac Pro has.

No memory mirroring, no front facing hot swap HDD bays, no redundant PSU's, no baseboard management and monitoring chipsets, I mean the list really does go on...

I agree that the xServe was a great server - particularly when you consider the cost of Windows licenses compared to the unlimited client license of the xServe.

You're really talking about different markets, though. xServe was for the Enterprise, heavy iron server market. Mac Pro Server is more of a departmental server or for applications where the client only has one or two servers. Apple simply decided that they weren't selling enough to the enterprise market to make it worth keeping the xServe. Unfortunate, but I don't have any data that suggests that they made the wrong decision.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #17 of 35
I have to say, a lot of you are just plain mean, selling 11 million phones per quarter isn't chump change. RIM is a solid company that is simply being passed over in the consumer markets by Apple and iClones. They had the first successful smart phone though and they are number one in corporate security for their services. Regardless of what you guys may want/think, RIM is going to be a round for a long time.
post #18 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Yes, why not just get a MacMini Server with Lion Server and you can manage your iOS devices that way...much cheaper. I guess if you have people who use Blackberries you can do both with one app, but you may have to purchase more licenses to manage iOS devices. I think the Mac server is the better route. You can also manage Macs if you so happen to have them.

I work in IT at a school and we are telling people to please not get another Blackberry. Most if not all can't wait for their contracts to expire so they can get either an iPhone or Android device anyways. RIM is ever so slowly dying. I think even if someone buys them, they're so far behind and bleeding money and customers so fast no one is going to stop it.


Ever so slowly? I think they have been transferred to the ICU and are about to code! ;-)
post #19 of 35
It's not being mean talking about RIM the way people are - they've put themselves in the situation they're in. Yes, they still sell lots of phones (or give them away), but that doesn't mean that they're not in a world of hurt. They hung their hat on something they thought they'd always be the leader on - failing to recognize, even after Apple introduced the iPhone, that they no longer had a monopoly in the market. That's the biggest issue I have with RIM - the ridiculously arrogant and hopelessly stupid co-ceo's that instead of admitting they were caught with their pants down when the iPhone came out, pretended it wasn't real.

And they kept up the charade up to the very end. The new ceo is going to have to admit that what was promised for release later this year won't come to pass until maybe, and it's a big maybe, next year. But given he's already said they would face pressure through 2013, my guess is they don't have anything on the drawing boards that will save their sinking ship.

One would guess that they've got some serious brain drain happening too, which isn't going to be good for long-term viability, let alone short term.
post #20 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraSPARC View Post

Agreed, but in an age where consolidation and server density is key - would you opt for 1 4U server or 4 1U servers, where a 1U server could compete equally with the Mac Pro?

Maybe, maybe not. Yes we see where you are coming from with your user name but your hot swapping RAM example is purely hypothetical because most OS tools would not be able to diagnose a bad DIMM to start with. With VM a 4U running 12 cores could potentially out perform 4 1U boxes because cooling and RAM limitations on the iUs may not equal 10+ VMs running on a 4U. Depends on the application environment. Anyway that is not how any of the big data centers do it now-a-days. Two words: Load balancing! For example Google data centers with 50,000 servers all load balanced running the exact same application with RAID 50s. You may have a big ass server but you only have the one. Never say never, especially when you have all your eggs in one basket.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #21 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

While you can't easily mount it into a rack, the Mac Pro offers everything you mention, except one. Up to 128GB ECC RAM, 16TB SAS RAID, multi socket system board. The only thing they don't have is a redundant power supply. But I can replace mine in two minutes. I know of few companies who don't have redundant servers, so that isn't the biggest problem. The machine is also extremely reliable.

Companies have already moved beyond that. Many use low cost server without HD in 1U cases connected to SAN drives. Small server farms are so cost effective now that many companies virtualize everything from processors to storage and allocate computing resources dynamacally. The fact that Apple does not allow non-Apple HW virtualization is truly out of touch in the corporate world. Apple is just not competitive in that space.

AS for RIM, I think Microsoft should just buy it, combine the market of Windows Phone and Blackberries.
post #22 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

With VM a 4U running 12 cores could potentially out perform 4 1U boxes because cooling and RAM limitations on the iUs may not equal 10+ VMs running on a 4U. Depends on the application environment. Anyway that is not how any of the big data centers do it now-a-days. Two words: Load balancing! For example Google data centers with 50,000 servers all load balanced running the exact same application with RAID 50s. You may have a big ass server but you only have the one. Never say never, especially when you have all your eggs in one basket.

People, seriously, we do not talk about a messaging server, a sales database, ERM, or anything like that. The starting point was deploying mobile profiles. A 2004 PowerBook could do that (if the software were compatible). And your hardware orgy notwithstanding, there are very few common systems really requiring such equipment. I was working as IT planner for a 40 million passengers per annum airport, and our entire airport database, schedule processing system and resource allocation management software were running in one cheap quad-core ProLiant garbage can with 16GB RAM, and a software RAID 1 on S-ATA disks, serving flight information to 15.000 users, approx. 600 flight information displays, information kiosks, the airport's Web site, the billing system and a situational awareness dashboard. Wait times: none. Problems: none. (Of course we had this twice, being connected to two separate Fiber backbones, etc.) And you want to throw 10 times the hardware at deploying mobile profiles? A task that is neither time critical nor resource intensive?

There is no need to put a machine for this purpose into a server room, as long as you have an IT back office that is access controlled. So, the form factor is highly irrelevant. The configuration data for thousands of iOS profiles fits on a memory stick (one configuration is normally less than 50kB and valid for hundreds of users). So, if a Mini should die, you put that stick into an iMac, a MacBook Air, or whatever, because there is almost no processing power involved - the wireless network is the bottleneck, not the hardware. As long as you have backups, there is no need to go wild with RAID etc.

Just because RIM wants $99 per seat, there is no need to think it is difficult.
post #23 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

And you want to throw 10 times the hardware at deploying mobile profiles? A task that is neither time critical nor resource intensive?

Sorry no, I was a bit off topic in replying to another slightly off topic post comparing 1 4U to 4 1Us and the capability of hot swapping. I have three cabinets in three different locations plus a few virtual servers in various countries so I tend to think of solutions along that scale. Not really addressing the hardware requirements of the profiles since I really don't know much about how BES works anyway.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #24 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraSPARC View Post

Agreed, but in an age where consolidation and server density is key - would you opt for 1 4U server or 4 1U servers, where a 1U server could compete equally with the Mac Pro? Apple had great 1U servers (or was it 2U's...) but those are no more. Plus you don't get things like easy hot swapping. A real rack server can be pulled out on it's rails with most parts being hot swap-able (while the machine is on). With the Mac Pro, you must turn it off first to service it. That, right there, is a no-go for many IT departments. I had to replace a bad DIMM on one of our production servers just the other day (memory mirroring FTW!), and I was able to do all of this while the machine was on with NO downtime. Speaking of which, I think you underestimate the sheer lack of enterprise grade features the Mac Pro has.

No memory mirroring, no front facing hot swap HDD bays, no redundant PSU's, no baseboard management and monitoring chipsets, I mean the list really does go on...

also no iLO or lights out cards......

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #25 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraSPARC View Post

A lot of you are comparing Mac Mini "server" pricing to the real deal. No IT department (well a competent one) would deploy a Mac Mini in a production environment with "thousands of users hitting it" (as another poster said). It's unfortunate that Apple has deprecated their main server line that utilized real server grade parts. Sorry, but throwing a SATA RAID 1 array in a small enclosure and calling it a day doesn't equal a production grade machine that I'd be confident to deploy.

...These machines start at the $2,000 range and only go up in price if you wish to scale out. Our Exchange server cost $10,000, but I can sleep at night knowing that the beast will never go down - ever. I couldn't do the same for a Mac Mini.

/rant

Want redundancy? Get two. Use external data store. Need extra capacity? Cluster. The minis just end up as front-end processors, even for an exchange box if you wish.

Not as elegant as it would be had the mini been provided with a second network port for iSCSI, but you can VLAN at the last switch for some improvement.

But, I can't say I would actually want my 25-30 person company doing it. it is a special solution for a special type of company. It is a slight improvement over a "prosumer" NAS appliance, at a disproportionately higher price.
post #26 of 35
A decade behind is putting it mildly- Worse than "has beens", those two "never were".

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarcoot View Post

The difference between Apple then and RIM today however, RIM doesn't have a Steve Jobs to come and save them and whereas Jobs was decades ahead of his time in some respects, RIM's ex CEO's & co-founders are a decade behind.
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #27 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

I have to say, a lot of you are just plain mean, selling 11 million phones per quarter isn't chump change. RIM is a solid company that is simply being passed over in the consumer markets by Apple and iClones. They had the first successful smart phone though and they are number one in corporate security for their services. Regardless of what you guys may want/think, RIM is going to be a round for a long time.

Sorry, even RIM's new management can see their blood in the water and can hear the Da-Dum, Da-Dum, Da-Dum music... There's going to be a food fight in the next 12 months and RIM is the chum.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #28 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraSPARC View Post

Agreed, but in an age where consolidation and server density is key - would you opt for 1 4U server or 4 1U servers, where a 1U server could compete equally with the Mac Pro? Apple had great 1U servers (or was it 2U's...) but those are no more. Plus you don't get things like easy hot swapping. A real rack server can be pulled out on it's rails with most parts being hot swap-able (while the machine is on). With the Mac Pro, you must turn it off first to service it. That, right there, is a no-go for many IT departments. I had to replace a bad DIMM on one of our production servers just the other day (memory mirroring FTW!), and I was able to do all of this while the machine was on with NO downtime. Speaking of which, I think you underestimate the sheer lack of enterprise grade features the Mac Pro has.

No memory mirroring, no front facing hot swap HDD bays, no redundant PSU's, no baseboard management and monitoring chipsets, I mean the list really does go on...

Not every company needs those features. If your talking about a server farm, even a small one, then yes. But if your talking about a few servers, then no. My experience is that rack and blade servers get much hotter than my Mac Pro does even when it's under a lot of strain. That heat is a killer, and causes problems I just don't have.

Apple's problem with its servers was that they had no interest in going higher. No 2R machines, no 3R machines. No blades. Companies had no way to move up, and so they lost interest. It's really too bad, because when Apple first came out with them, they were proving to be pretty popular and cost effective.
post #29 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

I have to say, a lot of you are just plain mean, selling 11 million phones per quarter isn't chump change. RIM is a solid company that is simply being passed over in the consumer markets by Apple and iClones. They had the first successful smart phone though and they are number one in corporate security for their services. Regardless of what you guys may want/think, RIM is going to be a round for a long time.

It isn't being mean. Go to the financial sites, and the enterprise computing sites, and you'll read the same thing. Go to the investment sites, and the same thing there. The fact is that RIM is done. They ignored reality for too long, and now they're way behind. Their sales were down 25%, their first loss in many years, and another write off, this time for BB7 phones, which are failing to sell.

Heins is taking the company in the wrong direction. He wants to go back to the business customer, which means the IT department. But that horse has galloped out of the barn and is lost in the distance. They can't go back. The consumer, who is the basis of smartphone sales today, is being thrown to "partners". No one knows what that means, or who they are.

The practical thing to look at is where phones in business are coming from these days. It no longer dictates that in most companies. When "C" level executives bring in an iPhone and demand that it be supported, it is. Then others bring them in, and the BB moves out.

Right now, more iPhones are moving into business and government than BB's. Even Android phones are moving in.

There is very little confidence in RIM these days, which is why the stock is down more than 80% from 2010.

Sorry, but it's the truth.
post #30 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post

Companies have already moved beyond that. Many use low cost server without HD in 1U cases connected to SAN drives. Small server farms are so cost effective now that many companies virtualize everything from processors to storage and allocate computing resources dynamacally. The fact that Apple does not allow non-Apple HW virtualization is truly out of touch in the corporate world. Apple is just not competitive in that space.

AS for RIM, I think Microsoft should just buy it, combine the market of Windows Phone and Blackberries.

There are far more companies out there with a small handful of servers than there are with even small server farms. Not everything is server farms. Apple isn't looking to compete with server farms.

But even the Mini is beig used as servers in many businesses very successfully. They are being used as servers in casino's, hotels, cruise ships, small businesses, the education market, and so on. So are Mac Pro's, and even iMacs.

You guys have to get over your specialized interests and look at the rest of the world.
post #31 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Apple's problem with its servers was that they had no interest in going higher. No 2R machines, no 3R machines. No blades. Companies had no way to move up, and so they lost interest. It's really too bad, because when Apple first came out with them, they were proving to be pretty popular and cost effective.

In my experience they were only popular with Apple enthusiasts or people who needed to stream Quicktime video prior to the popularity of HTTP streaming being adopted in the browsers. Regular IT guys did not like them at all because they required a Mac to manage them. In most NOCs there are no Macs, only Windows and Linux. The Xserves were frustratingly difficult to manage on the command line like regular Linux and Solaris machines because Apple moved a lot of the standard config files and directory paths from their normal locations as they are found in other UNIX versions. They were well made machines though.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #32 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

In my experience they were only popular with Apple enthusiasts or people who needed to stream Quicktime video prior to the popularity of HTTP streaming being adopted in the browsers. Regular IT guys did not like them at all because they required a Mac to manage them. In most NOCs there are no Macs, only Windows and Linux. The Xserves were frustratingly difficult to manage on the command line like regular Linux and Solaris machines because Apple moved a lot of the standard config files and directory paths from their normal locations as they are found in other UNIX versions. They were well made machines though.

I knew of a lot of companies that had them. But they didn't usually sell to Windows and Linux shops. They went to Ad agencies, movie studios, etc.
post #33 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I knew of a lot of companies that had them. But they didn't usually sell to Windows and Linux shops. They went to Ad agencies, movie studios, etc.

Yes but the needs of most of those types of companies were not likely to grow into racks of servers which obviously a 1U box is designed to accommodate. I do know one guy who has a full 44U rack filled to the top with xserves. He is across the aisle from my data center cabinet. He mainly hosts for churches since apparently churches are very pro Apple because of their mutual anti-porn philosophy.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #34 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Yes but the needs of most of those types of companies were not likely to grow into racks of servers which obviously a 1U box is designed to accommodate. I do know one guy who has a full 44U rack filled to the top with xserves. He is across the aisle from my data center cabinet. He mainly hosts for churches since apparently churches are very pro Apple because of their mutual anti-porn philosophy.

Yes, that's what I was saying earlier. Companies that did need to move, couldn't, because Apple had no path for that. It's the chicken and the egg problem. Even a company that favored using Apple's product, might not have done so because of the limitations of the line.
post #35 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

Want redundancy? Get two. Use external data store. Need extra capacity? Cluster. The minis just end up as front-end processors, even for an exchange box if you wish.

Not as elegant as it would be had the mini been provided with a second network port for iSCSI, but you can VLAN at the last switch for some improvement.

But, I can't say I would actually want my 25-30 person company doing it. it is a special solution for a special type of company. It is a slight improvement over a "prosumer" NAS appliance, at a disproportionately higher price.

The best solution would be to get a Synology DiskStation DS1511+ with 6 TB at $700.00. There is still two slots empty to add an additional 6 TB when needed and the Synology software is fantastic. It includes everything that a normal server could do including LAMP and it costs less then a Mac Mini.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › RIM's enterprise server now manages Apple's iOS devices