'xactly. They have tons of cash to address the corporate market seriously for a change, and they shrink away. This move is a CLEAR indicator of Apple's direction, and I think it's a phenomenal mistake that will come back to kill them.
BTW, for those of you who think a Mac Pro or Mac Mini can work as a server, get out of your living room and come visit a server farm. Not even close.
This goes hand-in-hand with Apple's DC - if they won't use their own servers in it, they sure as hell won't sell any to enterprises.
I said 'fail' last post.. I'm upgrading to 'Epic F...ing Fail' too!
Well, Apple is doing very well in the consumer space, but I do see that people are missing the news that Android and now Microsoft's Windows Mobile are gaining popularity at a faster rate than Apple's products are and if Apple slips up and loses marketshare, after alienating yet another portion of their customers, they might well very much regret having left the server space.
My company decided tonight that we're going to move our entire design company over to Windows, server and clients. We're aware of the problems and pains of Windows deployments but we simply can't rationally go through yet another Apple enforced hardware/software change.
It pains us terribly to do this, but Apple just doesn't seem to value its long term customers whereas Microsoft and even Adobe certainly do.
Bingo. Apple used to actually give a crap about their consumers because with their small market share and the beating they were taking at the hands of Intel/MS they had to. People held them to a higher standard. Now with them moving to be the next Sony they just don't give a crap - "Hey you over there! look at the pretty lights!"
Apple + very modest installed user base of Xserves: robust, forward looking computer company of serious adults with a legitimate toe-hold in the enterprise and track record of excellent customer service.
Apple - very modest installed user base of Xserves: puerile toy company of capricious children who have nothing but contempt for their woefully misdirected customers and who shortly plan to cease production of everything but glorified Tamagotchi.
Well, Apple is doing very well in the consumer space, but I do see that people are missing the news that Android and now Microsoft's Windows Mobile are gaining popularity at a faster rate than Apple's products are and if Apple slips up and loses marketshare, after alienating yet another portion of their customers, they might well very much regret having left the server space.
Every disapproving comment on this decision by Apple seems to carry the unspoken assumption that Apple had/has a very large number of customers using, buying and asking for this product. I suspect this assumption is incorrect and, thus, the arguments built upon this edifice crumble when the truth of this assumption vanishes.
I doubt we've heard all of this story yet. Combined with Apple's recent discontinuation of Java distribution, this may point to some sort of new alliance with Oracle/Sun. What if that big North Carolina data center was full of Sun boxes running a version of OS X server. Once its capabilities are established Oracle/Sun could ultimately distribute licensed versions of it to enterprise customers within their sphere of influence, probably reaching customers more easily than Apple. Apple could achieve better sales of OS X server software without the burden of actually having to manufacture the hardware. Among other things Oracle would benefit by Apple becoming a rather large customer. The collaboration would probably have other benefits for each as well.
(I can just hear Steve now: "Oh by the way, we've been running OS X server on all these Sun boxes in our data center for a while now and the performance is just remarkable. We think IT departments are really going to want this.")
The recent Apple/Unisys deal seems similar, but on its face is more about advancing mobile (iPhone, iPad, Powerbook) to the enterprise, a market where Oracle/Sun has no competing products.
So let's wait and see what Steve and Larry are up to. This is an area where they could partner to advance both their causes.
It seemed neat at first but, yes, odd. Apple has definitely changed since that time. They recognize this and are adjusting accordingly.
Exactly! Just like every other large (Fortune 500 or 1000) corporation. I don't know why people don't get this. Fundamentally this is an issue of comparative advantage. These other companies have a comparative advantage in creating, delivering, maintaining and selling enterprise systems. This is not Apple's core competency. Apple's management is being very wise in recognizing their core competencies and focusing on those. Enterprise and data center servers are not it.
Apple is a consumer electronics company. Let's accept this fact. They do it incredibly well. Could their skills in making life easier also be applied to the corporate IT arena? Sure. But nobody in that arena really cares. I work in IT and this is my experience. Sad? Sure. True? Mostly.
It seems this is another good case of people seeing some trees but not the forest.
As you said, Apple will continue to offer the server on Mac Pro and Mini for small businesses, but what's the server market like for companies that do $100 million or more per year in revenues? At that point, something like IBM's AS/400 can more than do the job for in-house app development and scale up to much higher volume levels as the company grows. Or Wintel or Linux or low-end Solaris servers can do just as well at lower cost with "off-the-shelf" third party apps.
It's funny that some people imagine Apple's internal IT departments and data centers having rooms full of X-Serves powered by the OS X Server. It couldn't be further from the truth. Apple will soon become a $100 billion company in annual revenues. This is serious high-volume business and their internal systems wouldn't look much different from those of Exxon, Walmart, GM, Chevron, Ford, AT&T, GE, Verizon, Bank of America, and other mega $100 billion+ corporations. That generally means IBM, HP, Oracle/Sun and SAP. But it's obvious Apple wouldn't be buying servers from HP and Dell!
Also, when companies are that large, it's important to not put everything in one basket. Jobs and Ellison may be buddies but Apple will use ERP systems that make the most sense for Apple and they are using SAP, not Oracle's E-Business Suite although it seems obvious that Apple is using Oracle's database. And it's quite apparent that Apple also does its own custom enterprise-scale UNIX development along with AIX, Solaris, Linux, and Apache. Sorry, but OS X Server and FileMaker just won't do for the size that Apple is.
And I really wonder if Oracle knows what it's doing with Sun. And I'm sure glad that Apple didn't buy Sun and try to get into that business when Sun got crushed in the middle by high-end IBM mainframes/AIX servers and HP/UX servers from the top and by dirt cheap Wintel and Linux servers from the bottom by the likes of Dell, HP and other generic server makers. The server market has become like the worlds of Windows PC's and Android phones - a vast horizontal sea of commodity modular gear from dozens of manufacturers and DIY kits.
Apple will focus on what they do best and what the brand represents - consumer electronics with increasingly thin yet powerful and stylish mobile clients that access info, rich content, apps and services from the cloud. Apple shouldn't be in the business of providing the mega engines (farms of servers and storage) and plumbing pipes (networking equipment) pushing that stuff out but they will manage the cloud itself (like the NC data center). Much more money to be made elsewhere than doing all that grunt work!
I doubt we've heard all of this story yet. Combined with Apple's recent discontinuation of Java distribution, this may point to some sort of new alliance with Oracle/Sun. What if that big North Carolina data center was full of Sun boxes running a version of OS X server. Once its capabilities are established Oracle/Sun could ultimately distribute licensed versions of it to enterprise customers within their sphere of influence, probably reaching customers more easily than Apple. Apple could achieve better sales of OS X server software without the burden of actually having to manufacture the hardware. Among other things Oracle would benefit by Apple becoming a rather large customer. The collaboration would probably have other benefits for each as well.
(I can just hear Steve now: "Oh by the way, we've been running OS X server on all these Sun boxes in our data center for a while now and the performance is just remarkable. We think IT departments are really going to want this.")
The recent Apple/Unisys deal seems similar, but on its face is more about advancing mobile (iPhone, iPad, Powerbook) to the enterprise, a market where Oracle/Sun has no competing products.
So let's wait and see what Steve and Larry are up to. This is an area where they could partner to advance both their causes.
Here are some typical IT job listings at Apple's site for both their HQ and the data center in NC:
I use OSX server on a MM so I'm not directly affected, but Apple's commitment to OSX server is now a concern in my mind. People can say I'm fretting over nothing but lets be honest, Apple are waaay more committed to iOS devices than Macs and Apple is a company that has no qualms about abandoning segments of its customer base if it sees greener pastures elsewhere.
IMO, a strength of Apple is that it offers a product that spans from home to office and from the desktop to mobile devices. No one can match that scope besides MS. This move only seems to weaken that scope and advantage.
2. Connect a display if you have to see anything before the OS starts. Not very often this happens
ARD - Apple Remote Desktop - the "server" has been installed in Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server by default since around 2003
The "server" (providing the connection for the controlling software) in all Mac OS X computers, the controlling software is Apple Remote Desktop and since 10.5 you can also use the built in VNC client for "lite" remote control.
I have used another software called TeamViewer controlling servers with the iPad but this calls for the software to be started on the computer to be controlled. Apples ARD server starts by default before the user logs in.
Ahh... Thanks.
I am familiar with ARD, and use Screen Sharing to control other Macs (some headless0 to update software, reboot, etc.
In fact I am entering this from the iPad VNDd to an iMac. I even rebooted, and re-logged in via VNC (took 2 sessions)
Enough of that!
I guess I [basically] understand what goes on in the Apple OS X world!
What about server farms running other OSes:
!) I see all those KVM switches -- are they ever used?
2) Are other OSes accessible after boot, before login?
3) if so what software do they use on the server? On the laptop or iPad?
4) Do you try to recover in place or just assume the server is failing and take it offline for component replacement repair?
I use OSX server on a MM so I'm not directly affected, but Apple's commitment to OSX server is now a concern in my mind. People can say I'm fretting over nothing but lets be honest, Apple are waaay more committed to iOS devices than Macs and Apple is a company that has no qualms about abandoning segments of its customer base if it sees greener pastures elsewhere.
IMO, a strength of Apple is that it offers a product that spans from home to office and from the desktop to mobile devices. No one can match that scope besides MS. This move only seems to weaken that scope and advantage.
Honestly, you are fretting over nothing. Apple is dropping Xserve, something that was assumed to eventually occur after they stopped making Xserve RAID and replaced it with Promise VTrak. They simply aren’t focused on the Enterprise nor should they be as they can’t compete at that level until they choose to license their OS to other HW vendors, unless they don’t want to make desktops, but compete directly with IBM et al. It’s really that simple.
These are rack servers, these aren’t part of Apple’s primary business: consumer sales. You can’t buy them in Apple Stores. I’d say anout half the Apple Stores I’ve been in are are devoted to Macs.
On top of that they just had a Mac event that shows Apple’s consumer PC business is not only strong, but financially dominate [among the PC industry in regards to profit]. It’s a huge chunk of their revenue and profit per quarter that would tank the stock if dropped. But why would they when it’s growing faster than the industry? They sell more Macs in a quarter than then they did for an entire year about 3 years ago, if I recall correctly.
They also demoed a new Mac OS X that will bring many of the iOS innovations that made it popular back to the Mac. It should be crystal clear they are doing all this to increase the crossover from iDevice to Mac by bringing the ease-of-use and familiarity of iOS to the Mac OS X. I bet you’ll see a lot more integration that makes the Mac even more indispensable to the iDevice user.
I doubt we've heard all of this story yet. Combined with Apple's recent discontinuation of Java distribution, this may point to some sort of new alliance with Oracle/Sun. What if that big North Carolina data center was full of Sun boxes running a version of OS X server. Once its capabilities are established Oracle/Sun could ultimately distribute licensed versions of it to enterprise customers within their sphere of influence, probably reaching customers more easily than Apple. Apple could achieve better sales of OS X server software without the burden of actually having to manufacture the hardware. Among other things Oracle would benefit by Apple becoming a rather large customer. The collaboration would probably have other benefits for each as well.
(I can just hear Steve now: "Oh by the way, we've been running OS X server on all these Sun boxes in our data center for a while now and the performance is just remarkable. We think IT departments are really going to want this.")
The recent Apple/Unisys deal seems similar, but on its face is more about advancing mobile (iPhone, iPad, Powerbook) to the enterprise, a market where Oracle/Sun has no competing products.
So let's wait and see what Steve and Larry are up to. This is an area where they could partner to advance both their causes.
Good points!
Larry also likes thin clients -- maybe even mobile thin clients...
Spot on mate, I was thinking the same thing exactly
Could not agree with you more, the MacPro belongs under a desk and not in a server hall.
We ( the company I work for ) recently installed 250 Xserves for a mission critical project in the Oil Sands of Alberta; we could not be happier with the results.
Security of the OS is second to non right now, and the labour cost was cut 77% after replacing Windows Server and our systems have been on an unprecedented 100% up time from where we were before.
I sure hope that Apple will licence out OS X Server after this fiasco is over with.
wow 6 pages. I finally made to this point in the thread.
Apple will probably use very traditional hardware and software in the new data center. My guess is 80% IBM or HP blades. 20% or less Macs. All storage will be SAN, mostly iSCSI and some fiber.
For server software the blades will be running mostly RedHat Linux with some Windows and even a little Solaris. Macs, OS X. Nothing radical, just good solid infrastructure.
wow 6 pages. I finally made to this point in the thread.
Apple will probably use very traditional hardware and software in the new data center. My guess is 80% IBM or HP blades. 20% or less Macs. All storage will be SAN, mostly iSCSI and some fiber.
For server software the blades will be running mostly RedHat Linux with some Windows and even a little Solaris. Macs, OS X. Nothing radical, just good solid infrastructure.
That sounds exactly like the Apple I've observed for 32 years...
... remember the day in 1979, watching an Apple employee walking out of Bandley 3 (AIR) with a removable IBM (MayTag) Disk Drive cartridge under his arm...
... to the day in the mid 80s when they got their Cray.
Apple knows which businesses it is in and which business it is not in!
For their IT needs Apple will get the best that money can buy!
.
No way will Apple bet the farm on their server farm!
Well.. Since everyone and their brother who wants to 'check out' OS X on non-Apple hardware can all pretty much get it working I'm quite sure Apple can utilize any rackable server they like and install OS X on it... After all the EULA is only for the lusers not Steve himself..
On top of that they just had a Mac event that shows Apple?s consumer PC business is not only strong, but financially dominate [among the PC industry in regards to profit]. It?s a huge chunk of their revenue and profit per quarter that would tank the stock if dropped. But why would they when it?s growing faster than the industry? They sell more Macs in a quarter than then they did for an entire year about 3 years ago, if I recall correctly.
They also demoed a new Mac OS X that will bring many of the iOS innovations that made it popular back to the Mac. It should be crystal clear they are doing all this to increase the crossover from iDevice to Mac by bringing the ease-of-use and familiarity of iOS to the Mac OS X. I bet you?ll see a lot more integration that makes the Mac even more indispensable to the iDevice user.
I know that the Mac consumer business is strong. Hoe does that re-afffirm Apple's commitment to OSX Server?
As someone who's brought Macs into their business this move is a bit unsettling.
I know that the Mac consumer business is strong. Hoe does that re-afffirm Apple's commitment to OSX Server?
As someone who's brought Macs into their business this move is a bit unsettling.
You’re right, you did start off mentioning OS X Server, but midway in the 2nd paragraph you stated "Apple are waaay more committed to iOS devices than Macs” which made me think you were implying Macs were at risk of “abandoning”, not OS X Server. If that isn’t what you meant then I retract my statement.
You?re right, you did start off mentioning OS X Server, but midway in the 2nd paragraph you stated "Apple are waaay more committed to iOS devices than Macs? which made me think you were implying Macs were at risk of being ?abandoning?. If that isn?t what you meant then I retract my statement.
I did say that in a bit of a confusing manner. My apologies.
Comments
'xactly. They have tons of cash to address the corporate market seriously for a change, and they shrink away. This move is a CLEAR indicator of Apple's direction, and I think it's a phenomenal mistake that will come back to kill them.
BTW, for those of you who think a Mac Pro or Mac Mini can work as a server, get out of your living room and come visit a server farm. Not even close.
This goes hand-in-hand with Apple's DC - if they won't use their own servers in it, they sure as hell won't sell any to enterprises.
I said 'fail' last post.. I'm upgrading to 'Epic F...ing Fail' too!
Well, Apple is doing very well in the consumer space, but I do see that people are missing the news that Android and now Microsoft's Windows Mobile are gaining popularity at a faster rate than Apple's products are and if Apple slips up and loses marketshare, after alienating yet another portion of their customers, they might well very much regret having left the server space.
My company decided tonight that we're going to move our entire design company over to Windows, server and clients. We're aware of the problems and pains of Windows deployments but we simply can't rationally go through yet another Apple enforced hardware/software change.
It pains us terribly to do this, but Apple just doesn't seem to value its long term customers whereas Microsoft and even Adobe certainly do.
Bingo. Apple used to actually give a crap about their consumers because with their small market share and the beating they were taking at the hands of Intel/MS they had to. People held them to a higher standard. Now with them moving to be the next Sony they just don't give a crap - "Hey you over there! look at the pretty lights!"
Apple + very modest installed user base of Xserves: robust, forward looking computer company of serious adults with a legitimate toe-hold in the enterprise and track record of excellent customer service.
Apple - very modest installed user base of Xserves: puerile toy company of capricious children who have nothing but contempt for their woefully misdirected customers and who shortly plan to cease production of everything but glorified Tamagotchi.
Christ, what a bunch of fucking lunatics.
Well, Apple is doing very well in the consumer space, but I do see that people are missing the news that Android and now Microsoft's Windows Mobile are gaining popularity at a faster rate than Apple's products are and if Apple slips up and loses marketshare, after alienating yet another portion of their customers, they might well very much regret having left the server space.
Every disapproving comment on this decision by Apple seems to carry the unspoken assumption that Apple had/has a very large number of customers using, buying and asking for this product. I suspect this assumption is incorrect and, thus, the arguments built upon this edifice crumble when the truth of this assumption vanishes.
(I can just hear Steve now: "Oh by the way, we've been running OS X server on all these Sun boxes in our data center for a while now and the performance is just remarkable. We think IT departments are really going to want this.")
The recent Apple/Unisys deal seems similar, but on its face is more about advancing mobile (iPhone, iPad, Powerbook) to the enterprise, a market where Oracle/Sun has no competing products.
So let's wait and see what Steve and Larry are up to. This is an area where they could partner to advance both their causes.
That's very kind. Thank you.
It seemed neat at first but, yes, odd. Apple has definitely changed since that time. They recognize this and are adjusting accordingly.
Exactly! Just like every other large (Fortune 500 or 1000) corporation. I don't know why people don't get this. Fundamentally this is an issue of comparative advantage. These other companies have a comparative advantage in creating, delivering, maintaining and selling enterprise systems. This is not Apple's core competency. Apple's management is being very wise in recognizing their core competencies and focusing on those. Enterprise and data center servers are not it.
Apple is a consumer electronics company. Let's accept this fact. They do it incredibly well. Could their skills in making life easier also be applied to the corporate IT arena? Sure. But nobody in that arena really cares. I work in IT and this is my experience. Sad? Sure. True? Mostly.
It seems this is another good case of people seeing some trees but not the forest.
As you said, Apple will continue to offer the server on Mac Pro and Mini for small businesses, but what's the server market like for companies that do $100 million or more per year in revenues? At that point, something like IBM's AS/400 can more than do the job for in-house app development and scale up to much higher volume levels as the company grows. Or Wintel or Linux or low-end Solaris servers can do just as well at lower cost with "off-the-shelf" third party apps.
It's funny that some people imagine Apple's internal IT departments and data centers having rooms full of X-Serves powered by the OS X Server. It couldn't be further from the truth. Apple will soon become a $100 billion company in annual revenues. This is serious high-volume business and their internal systems wouldn't look much different from those of Exxon, Walmart, GM, Chevron, Ford, AT&T, GE, Verizon, Bank of America, and other mega $100 billion+ corporations. That generally means IBM, HP, Oracle/Sun and SAP. But it's obvious Apple wouldn't be buying servers from HP and Dell!
Also, when companies are that large, it's important to not put everything in one basket. Jobs and Ellison may be buddies but Apple will use ERP systems that make the most sense for Apple and they are using SAP, not Oracle's E-Business Suite although it seems obvious that Apple is using Oracle's database. And it's quite apparent that Apple also does its own custom enterprise-scale UNIX development along with AIX, Solaris, Linux, and Apache. Sorry, but OS X Server and FileMaker just won't do for the size that Apple is.
And I really wonder if Oracle knows what it's doing with Sun. And I'm sure glad that Apple didn't buy Sun and try to get into that business when Sun got crushed in the middle by high-end IBM mainframes/AIX servers and HP/UX servers from the top and by dirt cheap Wintel and Linux servers from the bottom by the likes of Dell, HP and other generic server makers. The server market has become like the worlds of Windows PC's and Android phones - a vast horizontal sea of commodity modular gear from dozens of manufacturers and DIY kits.
Apple will focus on what they do best and what the brand represents - consumer electronics with increasingly thin yet powerful and stylish mobile clients that access info, rich content, apps and services from the cloud. Apple shouldn't be in the business of providing the mega engines (farms of servers and storage) and plumbing pipes (networking equipment) pushing that stuff out but they will manage the cloud itself (like the NC data center). Much more money to be made elsewhere than doing all that grunt work!
I doubt we've heard all of this story yet. Combined with Apple's recent discontinuation of Java distribution, this may point to some sort of new alliance with Oracle/Sun. What if that big North Carolina data center was full of Sun boxes running a version of OS X server. Once its capabilities are established Oracle/Sun could ultimately distribute licensed versions of it to enterprise customers within their sphere of influence, probably reaching customers more easily than Apple. Apple could achieve better sales of OS X server software without the burden of actually having to manufacture the hardware. Among other things Oracle would benefit by Apple becoming a rather large customer. The collaboration would probably have other benefits for each as well.
(I can just hear Steve now: "Oh by the way, we've been running OS X server on all these Sun boxes in our data center for a while now and the performance is just remarkable. We think IT departments are really going to want this.")
The recent Apple/Unisys deal seems similar, but on its face is more about advancing mobile (iPhone, iPad, Powerbook) to the enterprise, a market where Oracle/Sun has no competing products.
So let's wait and see what Steve and Larry are up to. This is an area where they could partner to advance both their causes.
Here are some typical IT job listings at Apple's site for both their HQ and the data center in NC:
http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=...&CurrentPage=8
http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=...&CurrentPage=8
http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=...&CurrentPage=8
For SAP specialists:
http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=...&CurrentPage=6
http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=...&CurrentPage=6
http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=...&CurrentPage=7
Even a Windows specialist at the new NC data center:
http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=...CurrentPage=11
Here are some typical IT job listings at Apple's site for both their HQ and the data center in NC:
[?]
Nice list.
I use OSX server on a MM so I'm not directly affected, but Apple's commitment to OSX server is now a concern in my mind. People can say I'm fretting over nothing but lets be honest, Apple are waaay more committed to iOS devices than Macs and Apple is a company that has no qualms about abandoning segments of its customer base if it sees greener pastures elsewhere.
IMO, a strength of Apple is that it offers a product that spans from home to office and from the desktop to mobile devices. No one can match that scope besides MS. This move only seems to weaken that scope and advantage.
1. Yes correct
2. Connect a display if you have to see anything before the OS starts. Not very often this happens
ARD - Apple Remote Desktop - the "server" has been installed in Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server by default since around 2003
The "server" (providing the connection for the controlling software) in all Mac OS X computers, the controlling software is Apple Remote Desktop and since 10.5 you can also use the built in VNC client for "lite" remote control.
I have used another software called TeamViewer controlling servers with the iPad but this calls for the software to be started on the computer to be controlled. Apples ARD server starts by default before the user logs in.
Ahh... Thanks.
I am familiar with ARD, and use Screen Sharing to control other Macs (some headless0 to update software, reboot, etc.
In fact I am entering this from the iPad VNDd to an iMac. I even rebooted, and re-logged in via VNC (took 2 sessions)
Enough of that!
I guess I [basically] understand what goes on in the Apple OS X world!
What about server farms running other OSes:
!) I see all those KVM switches -- are they ever used?
2) Are other OSes accessible after boot, before login?
3) if so what software do they use on the server? On the laptop or iPad?
4) Do you try to recover in place or just assume the server is failing and take it offline for component replacement repair?
TIA
.
This move really makes me nervous.
I use OSX server on a MM so I'm not directly affected, but Apple's commitment to OSX server is now a concern in my mind. People can say I'm fretting over nothing but lets be honest, Apple are waaay more committed to iOS devices than Macs and Apple is a company that has no qualms about abandoning segments of its customer base if it sees greener pastures elsewhere.
IMO, a strength of Apple is that it offers a product that spans from home to office and from the desktop to mobile devices. No one can match that scope besides MS. This move only seems to weaken that scope and advantage.
Honestly, you are fretting over nothing. Apple is dropping Xserve, something that was assumed to eventually occur after they stopped making Xserve RAID and replaced it with Promise VTrak. They simply aren’t focused on the Enterprise nor should they be as they can’t compete at that level until they choose to license their OS to other HW vendors, unless they don’t want to make desktops, but compete directly with IBM et al. It’s really that simple.
These are rack servers, these aren’t part of Apple’s primary business: consumer sales. You can’t buy them in Apple Stores. I’d say anout half the Apple Stores I’ve been in are are devoted to Macs.
On top of that they just had a Mac event that shows Apple’s consumer PC business is not only strong, but financially dominate [among the PC industry in regards to profit]. It’s a huge chunk of their revenue and profit per quarter that would tank the stock if dropped. But why would they when it’s growing faster than the industry? They sell more Macs in a quarter than then they did for an entire year about 3 years ago, if I recall correctly.
They also demoed a new Mac OS X that will bring many of the iOS innovations that made it popular back to the Mac. It should be crystal clear they are doing all this to increase the crossover from iDevice to Mac by bringing the ease-of-use and familiarity of iOS to the Mac OS X. I bet you’ll see a lot more integration that makes the Mac even more indispensable to the iDevice user.
I doubt we've heard all of this story yet. Combined with Apple's recent discontinuation of Java distribution, this may point to some sort of new alliance with Oracle/Sun. What if that big North Carolina data center was full of Sun boxes running a version of OS X server. Once its capabilities are established Oracle/Sun could ultimately distribute licensed versions of it to enterprise customers within their sphere of influence, probably reaching customers more easily than Apple. Apple could achieve better sales of OS X server software without the burden of actually having to manufacture the hardware. Among other things Oracle would benefit by Apple becoming a rather large customer. The collaboration would probably have other benefits for each as well.
(I can just hear Steve now: "Oh by the way, we've been running OS X server on all these Sun boxes in our data center for a while now and the performance is just remarkable. We think IT departments are really going to want this.")
The recent Apple/Unisys deal seems similar, but on its face is more about advancing mobile (iPhone, iPad, Powerbook) to the enterprise, a market where Oracle/Sun has no competing products.
So let's wait and see what Steve and Larry are up to. This is an area where they could partner to advance both their causes.
Good points!
Larry also likes thin clients -- maybe even mobile thin clients...
...Er, Ah... Agile clients!
.
Spot on mate, I was thinking the same thing exactly
Could not agree with you more, the MacPro belongs under a desk and not in a server hall.
We ( the company I work for ) recently installed 250 Xserves for a mission critical project in the Oil Sands of Alberta; we could not be happier with the results.
Security of the OS is second to non right now, and the labour cost was cut 77% after replacing Windows Server and our systems have been on an unprecedented 100% up time from where we were before.
I sure hope that Apple will licence out OS X Server after this fiasco is over with.
What company are you working for?
Apple will probably use very traditional hardware and software in the new data center. My guess is 80% IBM or HP blades. 20% or less Macs. All storage will be SAN, mostly iSCSI and some fiber.
For server software the blades will be running mostly RedHat Linux with some Windows and even a little Solaris. Macs, OS X. Nothing radical, just good solid infrastructure.
wow 6 pages. I finally made to this point in the thread.
Apple will probably use very traditional hardware and software in the new data center. My guess is 80% IBM or HP blades. 20% or less Macs. All storage will be SAN, mostly iSCSI and some fiber.
For server software the blades will be running mostly RedHat Linux with some Windows and even a little Solaris. Macs, OS X. Nothing radical, just good solid infrastructure.
That sounds exactly like the Apple I've observed for 32 years...
... remember the day in 1979, watching an Apple employee walking out of Bandley 3 (AIR) with a removable IBM (MayTag) Disk Drive cartridge under his arm...
... to the day in the mid 80s when they got their Cray.
Apple knows which businesses it is in and which business it is not in!
For their IT needs Apple will get the best that money can buy!
.
No way will Apple bet the farm on their server farm!
.
.
What rill they use in Apple server farms?
.
Well.. Since everyone and their brother who wants to 'check out' OS X on non-Apple hardware can all pretty much get it working I'm quite sure Apple can utilize any rackable server they like and install OS X on it... After all the EULA is only for the lusers not Steve himself..
On top of that they just had a Mac event that shows Apple?s consumer PC business is not only strong, but financially dominate [among the PC industry in regards to profit]. It?s a huge chunk of their revenue and profit per quarter that would tank the stock if dropped. But why would they when it?s growing faster than the industry? They sell more Macs in a quarter than then they did for an entire year about 3 years ago, if I recall correctly.
They also demoed a new Mac OS X that will bring many of the iOS innovations that made it popular back to the Mac. It should be crystal clear they are doing all this to increase the crossover from iDevice to Mac by bringing the ease-of-use and familiarity of iOS to the Mac OS X. I bet you?ll see a lot more integration that makes the Mac even more indispensable to the iDevice user.
I know that the Mac consumer business is strong. Hoe does that re-afffirm Apple's commitment to OSX Server?
As someone who's brought Macs into their business this move is a bit unsettling.
I know that the Mac consumer business is strong. Hoe does that re-afffirm Apple's commitment to OSX Server?
As someone who's brought Macs into their business this move is a bit unsettling.
You’re right, you did start off mentioning OS X Server, but midway in the 2nd paragraph you stated "Apple are waaay more committed to iOS devices than Macs” which made me think you were implying Macs were at risk of “abandoning”, not OS X Server. If that isn’t what you meant then I retract my statement.
You?re right, you did start off mentioning OS X Server, but midway in the 2nd paragraph you stated "Apple are waaay more committed to iOS devices than Macs? which made me think you were implying Macs were at risk of being ?abandoning?. If that isn?t what you meant then I retract my statement.
I did say that in a bit of a confusing manner. My apologies.