I´m mostly work with companies of 20-200 people. Many of these have dedicated server rooms. We are not talking server farms or DC. They do not have own employed staff to do the IT but instead hire Windows and Mac consultants to do the job. It is these kind of companies that the Mac as a platform will get kicked out because of this. It´s not just a Apple branded 1U server that is at stake here. It is the Mac in medium business / enterprise. I could not care less about a server with an Apple logo on but I DO CARE about being able to run Mac OS X Server on server grade hardware. Let it be HP, Sun, Acer or even Dell.
This is just a few things that come to my mind. I could use a Mac Pro in some companies but most of the 100 or so companies I support would not allow a MP in the server room. And our own hosting service will have to be redone from now on.
You could of course do most things with Linux but it would take quite a bit more time (money) and you would not have a Apple supported solution.
That doesn't make sense. For a company with 20-200 employees, you probably don't need more power than a single Mac Pro. If they would allow an xserve into their server room, why not a Mac Pro server?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson
Yes, there are a lot of posters who've gine Chicken Little, and with good cause. There are a surprising number of R&E institutions, biopharma companies, and production houses that have considerable reliance on OS X Server, on Xserve. The sysdmins that have spent years convincing their coworkers that Apple was a good bet now look like idiots, right when Apple actiually had a chance to penetrate the deeper IT realm to some extent. Now, the sysadmins, and the bosses, will NEVER trust anything Apple while Jobs is here, and probably never after.
If there were very many people like that, Apple would have been selling enough xserves to stay in the market. As it is, the number of xserves sold was miniscule - so there just weren't that many people like you're claiming.
I think you will find that any company worth its salt would NEVER put its private data in 'the cloud' - i.e. on someone else's SERVER (insert sarcasm here). The only companies putting data in the cloud are putting other peoples data there, not their own. Cloud may have convenience, but there are huge latency and bandwith issues, as well as privacy/security, and the comfort of knowing exactly where your data is and how it's managed. If I was running a 500+ employee company, and I saw my data in the cloud, heads would roll in a microsecond. And no IT admin will tell me where to put my data, thank you.
Thousands of them already do. 75% of oracle installs. Approaching 30% of exchange. 20 % of ticketing systems. Where have you been? Clouds are everywhere. Hosted is everywhere. Am I talking to a 50 y/o? So many posters on here are over the IT hill.
Exactly. Same here. No sane individual would put their most personal data into the cloud (it can really cost them a lot in the future, like getting health insurance or car insurance or even that new exciting job), let alone a company. Some companies are in highly regulated industries that require them to store their data securely and small breach would leave them out of business.
5% of gmail users have sent a ssn or credit card #.
Thousands of them already do. 75% of oracle installs. Approaching 30% of exchange. 20 % of ticketing systems. Where have you been? Clouds are everywhere. Hosted is everywhere. Am I talking to a 50 y/o? So many posters on here are over the IT hill.
You are indeed talking to a 50 y/o. Over the hill means I've at least had a chance to see the view from the top; hey, how's the pimple cream working out?
Those are interesting numbers - could you state your sources? Is that trial installs, or $ cost of software, or $ under management, or TB of data, or what? Last article I've seen, from Forrester in 2009, said 18% of enterprises are _looking_ at cloud databases.
So, what exactly does Apple bring to the server market? I can understand the frustrations of those who have a vested interest in the Xserve feeling abandoned by Apple on this, but why should Apple continue to use their resources on something that makes up well below 1% of their revenues and earnings and which will continue to become even more insignificant as iPhone and iPad sales grow at an exponential rate in the years ahead? It's just business reality. Apple won't be getting into the backend enterprise computing business. Apple has absolutely no interest in it because they'd get slaughtered trying to compete in it. They have their hands full enough dealing with Google/Android, Samsung, Microsoft/WP7, Sony, Nokia, RIM, Amazon and other companies in the CE client side of the tech industry.
I also understand the frustrations of folks who make their living supporting Xserve servers. It would be horrible to have sold management on apple server products and then have the rack mountable server pulled. At the end of the day though there are remote management and power appliances like raritan. Nonredundant power does stink but if you truly want a highly available environment you really need more than one server anyway. If you were only supporting a few Xserves is an extra 10U for a pair really that big a deal?
You are indeed talking to a 50 y/o. Over the hill means I've at least had a chance to see the view from the top; hey, how's the pimple cream working out?
Those are interesting numbers - could you state your sources? Is that trial installs, or $ cost of software, or $ under management, or TB of data, or what? Last article I've seen, from Forrester in 2009, said 18% of enterprises are _looking_ at cloud databases.
I'm 36 and I think those numbers are preposterous as well. I can barely get approval from programmers to connect to databases across dark fiber let alone to a database externally hosted. The time to encrypt and decrypt the data alone would push us past our response sla's. The 75% of oracle databases in the cloud number is way off.
Autodesk would disagree with you there. As would I.
Smoke, Flame, Inferno Luster, Burn, Wiretap all run on Linux. These apps and systems are pretty much at the top of the video/image editing, coloring and manipulation industry. I don't see the sucking.
Yeah, I'm aware of the high end pro stuff that runs on Linux. I'm talking about easy to use end user applications for non-pros.
I shoot Nikon dSLRs and currently there isn't anything good to process those RAW NEF files on Linux. Nikon caputure for example (which kind of sucks from usability perspective) is available for OS X and Windows but not for any Linux distro.
I also understand the frustrations of folks who make their living supporting Xserve servers. It would be horrible to have sold management on apple server products and then have the rack mountable server pulled. At the end of the day though there are remote management and power appliances like raritan. Nonredundant power does stink but if you truly want a highly available environment you really need more than one server anyway. If you were only supporting a few Xserves is an extra 10U for a pair really that big a deal?
Raritan and other power management only work if you can set your server to turn on when power is applied. MP and MM don't do this. 10U can be a very big deal, costing as much as a server per month in some DCs.
Isn't Apple a for-profit business? Or are my shares that have increased over 2000% not actually worth real money?
Given that, what percentage of Apple's revenues and profits do you (critics of the move and non-critics alike) believe that the Xserve represented?
I can't *prove* this, but I would be willing to guess it's no more than a rounding error.
Why then should they continue to produce it? This is a serious question.
I think the issue for many of us isn't the loss of the Xserve per se, but the lack of a migration path from Apple. MM and MP are laughable alternatives, it's an astoundingly stupid move on Apple's part to even suggest it - they look like fools to any IT pros. The profit from Xserve is no doubt a blip on Apples radar, but it showed a committment to professional users, and that is now not just gone, but likely irreparably damaged. Apple has burned bridges where it wasn't necessary.
I think the issue for many of us isn't the loss of the Xserve per se, but the lack of a migration path from Apple. MM and MP are laughable alternatives, it's an astoundingly stupid move on Apple's part to even suggest it - they look like fools to any IT pros. The profit from Xserve is no doubt a blip on Apples radar, but it showed a committment to professional users, and that is now not just gone, but likely irreparably damaged. Apple has burned bridges where it wasn't necessary.
Well, I don't see that Xserve, or the environments that you are talking about, are worth Apple's expenditure of resources.
You are basically saying, "Look, guys, I know this doesn't make any money for you. And I realize that it didn't have much in the way of public mind-share. And I realize that you had to devote resources, at your expense, to continuing it. But you really HAD to continue it because there are like 8 of us out here who were interested in it!"
So, how is Apple supposed to justify stuff like that to shareholders? They aren't a charity. And they aren't a company aimed at IT professionals. And you keep acting as if they actually are.
Well, I don't see that Xserve, or the environments that you are talking about, are worth Apple's expenditure of resources.
You are basically saying, "Look, guys, I know this doesn't make any money for you. And I realize that it didn't have much in the way of public mind-share. And I realize that you had to devote resources, at your expense, to continuing it. But you really HAD to continue it because there are like 8 of us out here who were interested in it!"
So, how is Apple supposed to justify stuff like that to shareholders? They aren't a charity. And they aren't a company aimed at IT professionals. And you keep acting as if they actually are.
The Xserve was a loss-leader product that could easily have been a gateway into serious enterprise business, which is slightly more than 8 people, had Apple had the savvy to think different about its business clientele than its iDevice consumers.
I have not said discontinuing the Xserve was a bad idea (although I personally do think it was, Apple has a right to its choices, of course). Apple however _did_ aim a product at IT professionals, and then let them down by way of a ridiculous and impractical migration plan when they decided to pull out. Most amateur. Most large organizations have planning windows of 1-3 years for IT - Apple's given 2 months; you will never see IBM or HP abusing any customer that way, or even Dell.
The Xserve was a loss-leader product that could easily have been a gateway into serious enterprise business, which is slightly more than 8 people, had Apple had the savvy to think different about its business clientele than its iDevice consumers.
A gateway? Really?
Why would Apple even *want* to enter "serious enterprise business" with this sort of approach? That's not their business. And there's absolutely no reason, that I can see, that they would benefit from making it their business.
Quote:
I have not said discontinuing the Xserve was a bad idea (although I personally do think it was, Apple has a right to its choices, of course). Apple however _did_ aim a product at IT professionals, and then let them down by way of a ridiculous and impractical migration plan when they decided to pull out. Most amateur. Most large organizations have planning windows of 1-3 years for IT - Apple's given 2 months; you will never see IBM or HP abusing any customer that way, or even Dell.
All Apple said was that they would stop selling the things in 2 months. They said that support would continue. Or did I misread that?
Also, I don't think the migration plan was really for people with racks of Xserves. I think the idea is that for people that would have no problem using Minis or Pros, here ya' go. If you're looking into much more serious situations, then yeah, you're better off going to IBM or HP.
I don't see why that's a problem, when Apple is a consumer-oriented business.
Let me ask you a Yes or No question, ok? Do you think if Apple had gone down the road that you apparently believe they should have, that they would have seen large profits from doing so?
I've been reading comments here and elsewhere that Apple discontinuing the Xserve is a harbinger of them abandoning the enterprise market and even the Mac itself altogether. Please... Let's try to look at the bigger picture. From what I've seen, Apple is dead serious about getting into the enterprise and we're talking about Fortune 500 companies that do many billions in revenues on an annual basis. It's just that Apple is focusing on mobile usage of these companies' employees with the iPhone and the iPad, not the backend.
Macs can be added as well for client usage but let's be honest here: Macs are not the first choice for a bank's credit card payment data processing and other mundane tasks of number crunching by people in Accounts Payable departments. We don't expect to find Macs being used at a local auto mechanic's shop or at the Department of Motor Vehicles or on the front desk of a hotel. In a way, I think most of us are glad that we don't see Macs everywhere.
The Mac is gaining serious market share in the PC market and growing much faster than the growth of PC sales of competitors like HP, Dell, Acer, Toshiba, etc. Also, both for Apple and the rest of the PC makers, laptops account for much larger chunk of all PC sales than the desktops. The Windows crowd will say that the Mac is still a "niche" product but it is a very profitable one for Apple. As I'm sure some of you are aware, the Mac has a share of 90% for all PC's that are over $1000. Even though Apple's global market share in PC shipments is less than 5%, it is estimated that Apple makes 35% of the profits. Now why would Apple abandon such a profitable business?
Remember Tim Cook at the last earnings call pointing out that the Mac accounts for $22 billion in annual sales and that this business alone would be #65 on the Fortune 500? And it continues to grow fast at 25%+ rate. Apple has more than doubled the market share in the US PC market over the past decade and is now at a respectable 10.6%. If that's still a "niche," it's a very profitable one and the envy of the industry. Even Microsoft takes notice and has a section on their site dedicated to prevent the Windows-to-Mac defections.
And then there's the halo effect of the sales of the iOS devices all around the world. Certainly, most of these iPhone and other iOS device buyers are not Mac owners - especially overseas. This means a great opportunity to sell more Macs to these iOS customers and getting them fully integrated into the Apple ecosystem. Now all these people (especially the ones in Asia where Mac usage is virtually non-existent) who would have never considered a Mac are at least open to getting one for their next PC purchase.
Now how is this a bad thing for the Mac platform? There's a good reason to make future Macs have iOS features as well as the look-and-feel. There'll be many tens of millions of Windows users with iPhones, iPads and iPod touches who will now seriously consider getting an iOS-like Mac in the years ahead. Sure things are all going mobile in the future but, in the meantime, 300 million PC's will be sold per year and Apple can get a much bigger chunk of that than they're getting now.
As for the Xserve, how does it fit in to this grand strategy that Apple has for the future? It's not even a profitable niche. To even call it a "niche" is stretching it in the big scheme of things when the entire Mac market is still considered as such. And Apple is hellbent on making sure that the iOS platform will not become a niche. Let's face it: that's Apple's top priority right now. Apple's focus is making iOS the dominant mobile platform (although no one expects any platform to achieve Windows-like dominance in the PC market). The Xserve and the backend enterprise market just isn't something that Apple could focus on nor should it be.
Raritan and other power management only work if you can set your server to turn on when power is applied. MP and MM don't do this.
Apparently you have to have "Start up automatically after a power failure" checked in System Preferences > Energy Saver to have your mac turn on after power is reapplied after a dirty shutdown.
In instances where you want to shut the server down in a controlled manner you do so with a shutdown -u. Then you turn the power off remotely after the shutdown completes within 5 minutes to simulate a dirty shutdown.
From the shutdown man page
-u The system is halted up until the point of removing system power,
but waits before removing power for 5 minutes so that an external
UPS (uninterruptible power supply) can forcibly remove power.
This simulates a dirty shutdown to permit a later automatic power
on. OS X uses this mode automatically with supported UPSs in
emergency shutdowns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson
R10U can be a very big deal, costing as much as a server per month in some DCs.
In the real world I'm not seeing colocation costs for a tower computer costing much more than $100 a month even if someone doesn't own their own datacenter.
I've only worked for companies that have owned their own data centers and the costs of an additional 10U has never been that high. The companies I've worked for have even had a special area in the data center reserved for non-rackable servers in small quantities. I personally have never been in a situation where 10U here or there was that big of a deal. I suppose there must be a few data center exceptions where this would be an issue, but I can't imagine it being the rule. I'm only talking about companies that have one or two xserves.
That doesn't make sense. For a company with 20-200 employees, you probably don't need more power than a single Mac Pro. If they would allow an xserve into their server room, why not a Mac Pro server?
If there were very many people like that, Apple would have been selling enough xserves to stay in the market. As it is, the number of xserves sold was miniscule - so there just weren't that many people like you're claiming.
And you of course know me and my customers needs...?
Easy to sit behind your iToy and write things that you have no clue about.
As I said before - I do not need a server with and Apple logo on - I need a rack mountable server I can run Mac OS X Server on. Apple must provide us with some real alternatives not this marketing BS that the transition guide is.
Why would Apple even *want* to enter "serious enterprise business" with this sort of approach? That's not their business. And there's absolutely no reason, that I can see, that they would benefit from making it their business.
Apple _did_ enter serious enterprise business. If you recall, they made the Xserve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ
Also, I don't think the migration plan was really for people with racks of Xserves. I think the idea is that for people that would have no problem using Minis or Pros, here ya' go. If you're looking into much more serious situations, then yeah, you're better off going to IBM or HP.
So, what _is_ the migration plan for people with racks of Xserves? Remember, we run (and bought) OS X Server. If I bought Windows, I can migrate my license to Dell, HP, IBM, whatever; with OS X, I'm SOL on my purchase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ
Let me ask you a Yes or No question, ok? Do you think if Apple had gone down the road that you apparently believe they should have, that they would have seen large profits from doing so?
Yes. In my opinion. Not right away, mind you, but Apple had the cash to keep the enterprise happy with Xserve for, oh, a thousand years without feeling it, until the Xserve and the iDevices met in the middle and Apple owned the enterprise as well as consumers. Now they don't just have slow adopters on the enterprise side, they have actively pissed ex-customers. Not just ex-customers, but the few faithful insiders who stuck their necks out for Apple, and got chopped by them instead.
'rcfa', in a previous post, said: "Why is it, that each time a company is in the position that they could rule the entire market from small to big iron, they don't realize that position and focus on the currently most profitable market and destroy that strategic advantage in the process? Quarterly results are good and important, but the long term vision is equally important." That's my perspective, as well.
And you of course know me and my customers needs...?
Easy to sit behind your iToy and write things that you have no clue about.
As I said before - I do not need a server with and Apple logo on - I need a rack mountable server I can run Mac OS X Server on. Apple must provide us with some real alternatives not this marketing BS that the transition guide is.
I never said I know your customers' needs.
All I said was that Apple has found that they weren't selling enough rack mounted servers to justify staying in the business. So the number of people who were willing to pay for Xserve wasn't significant.
As for your demands, too bad. Apple has no obligation to give YOU what you want. They are a business and their job is to participate in markets where they can make money. Your whining is the same as the people who used to demand that Apple give them a $399 computer - or let them install OS X on generic hardware. You have no such right - and Apple has no such obligation.
All I said was that Apple has found that they weren't selling enough rack mounted servers to justify staying in the business. So the number of people who were willing to pay for Xserve wasn't significant.
As for your demands, too bad. Apple has no obligation to give YOU what you want. They are a business and their job is to participate in markets where they can make money. Your whining is the same as the people who used to demand that Apple give them a $399 computer - or let them install OS X on generic hardware. You have no such right - and Apple has no such obligation.
Ding! You are correct on both counts, IMHO.
Apple's out of the business because of no profits, and no long-term vision (for the enterprise market). Apple's enterprise team has been very consistent at not 'getting it'.
And on the second, consumers don't expect rights and obligations - but enterprise users _do_. One of the points Apple, and many here, don't 'get'. It's not about buying an Xserve, it's about committing to Apple, and Apple committing to the buyer, for a long-term relationship with a continuum of product and support, as these kind of devices lie at the heart of the company's infrastructure, doing important work, and can't be changed easily. iDevices are disposable, and so is the relationship between producer and consumer that accompanies them.
Comments
I´m mostly work with companies of 20-200 people. Many of these have dedicated server rooms. We are not talking server farms or DC. They do not have own employed staff to do the IT but instead hire Windows and Mac consultants to do the job. It is these kind of companies that the Mac as a platform will get kicked out because of this. It´s not just a Apple branded 1U server that is at stake here. It is the Mac in medium business / enterprise. I could not care less about a server with an Apple logo on but I DO CARE about being able to run Mac OS X Server on server grade hardware. Let it be HP, Sun, Acer or even Dell.
This is just a few things that come to my mind. I could use a Mac Pro in some companies but most of the 100 or so companies I support would not allow a MP in the server room. And our own hosting service will have to be redone from now on.
You could of course do most things with Linux but it would take quite a bit more time (money) and you would not have a Apple supported solution.
That doesn't make sense. For a company with 20-200 employees, you probably don't need more power than a single Mac Pro. If they would allow an xserve into their server room, why not a Mac Pro server?
Yes, there are a lot of posters who've gine Chicken Little, and with good cause. There are a surprising number of R&E institutions, biopharma companies, and production houses that have considerable reliance on OS X Server, on Xserve. The sysdmins that have spent years convincing their coworkers that Apple was a good bet now look like idiots, right when Apple actiually had a chance to penetrate the deeper IT realm to some extent. Now, the sysadmins, and the bosses, will NEVER trust anything Apple while Jobs is here, and probably never after.
If there were very many people like that, Apple would have been selling enough xserves to stay in the market. As it is, the number of xserves sold was miniscule - so there just weren't that many people like you're claiming.
I think you will find that any company worth its salt would NEVER put its private data in 'the cloud' - i.e. on someone else's SERVER (insert sarcasm here). The only companies putting data in the cloud are putting other peoples data there, not their own. Cloud may have convenience, but there are huge latency and bandwith issues, as well as privacy/security, and the comfort of knowing exactly where your data is and how it's managed. If I was running a 500+ employee company, and I saw my data in the cloud, heads would roll in a microsecond. And no IT admin will tell me where to put my data, thank you.
Thousands of them already do. 75% of oracle installs. Approaching 30% of exchange. 20 % of ticketing systems. Where have you been? Clouds are everywhere. Hosted is everywhere. Am I talking to a 50 y/o? So many posters on here are over the IT hill.
Exactly. Same here. No sane individual would put their most personal data into the cloud (it can really cost them a lot in the future, like getting health insurance or car insurance or even that new exciting job), let alone a company. Some companies are in highly regulated industries that require them to store their data securely and small breach would leave them out of business.
5% of gmail users have sent a ssn or credit card #.
Thousands of them already do. 75% of oracle installs. Approaching 30% of exchange. 20 % of ticketing systems. Where have you been? Clouds are everywhere. Hosted is everywhere. Am I talking to a 50 y/o? So many posters on here are over the IT hill.
You are indeed talking to a 50 y/o. Over the hill means I've at least had a chance to see the view from the top; hey, how's the pimple cream working out?
Those are interesting numbers - could you state your sources? Is that trial installs, or $ cost of software, or $ under management, or TB of data, or what? Last article I've seen, from Forrester in 2009, said 18% of enterprises are _looking_ at cloud databases.
Given that, what percentage of Apple's revenues and profits do you (critics of the move and non-critics alike) believe that the Xserve represented?
I can't *prove* this, but I would be willing to guess it's no more than a rounding error.
Why then should they continue to produce it? This is a serious question.
So, what exactly does Apple bring to the server market? I can understand the frustrations of those who have a vested interest in the Xserve feeling abandoned by Apple on this, but why should Apple continue to use their resources on something that makes up well below 1% of their revenues and earnings and which will continue to become even more insignificant as iPhone and iPad sales grow at an exponential rate in the years ahead? It's just business reality. Apple won't be getting into the backend enterprise computing business. Apple has absolutely no interest in it because they'd get slaughtered trying to compete in it. They have their hands full enough dealing with Google/Android, Samsung, Microsoft/WP7, Sony, Nokia, RIM, Amazon and other companies in the CE client side of the tech industry.
I also understand the frustrations of folks who make their living supporting Xserve servers. It would be horrible to have sold management on apple server products and then have the rack mountable server pulled. At the end of the day though there are remote management and power appliances like raritan. Nonredundant power does stink but if you truly want a highly available environment you really need more than one server anyway. If you were only supporting a few Xserves is an extra 10U for a pair really that big a deal?
You are indeed talking to a 50 y/o. Over the hill means I've at least had a chance to see the view from the top; hey, how's the pimple cream working out?
Those are interesting numbers - could you state your sources? Is that trial installs, or $ cost of software, or $ under management, or TB of data, or what? Last article I've seen, from Forrester in 2009, said 18% of enterprises are _looking_ at cloud databases.
I'm 36 and I think those numbers are preposterous as well. I can barely get approval from programmers to connect to databases across dark fiber let alone to a database externally hosted. The time to encrypt and decrypt the data alone would push us past our response sla's. The 75% of oracle databases in the cloud number is way off.
5% of gmail users have sent a ssn or credit card #.
Well I did say "sane". I bet you more than 5% of users will install a virus on their computer if told by a script on a web page as well.
Autodesk would disagree with you there. As would I.
Smoke, Flame, Inferno Luster, Burn, Wiretap all run on Linux. These apps and systems are pretty much at the top of the video/image editing, coloring and manipulation industry. I don't see the sucking.
Yeah, I'm aware of the high end pro stuff that runs on Linux. I'm talking about easy to use end user applications for non-pros.
I shoot Nikon dSLRs and currently there isn't anything good to process those RAW NEF files on Linux. Nikon caputure for example (which kind of sucks from usability perspective) is available for OS X and Windows but not for any Linux distro.
These are the kinds of apps I'm talking about.
I also understand the frustrations of folks who make their living supporting Xserve servers. It would be horrible to have sold management on apple server products and then have the rack mountable server pulled. At the end of the day though there are remote management and power appliances like raritan. Nonredundant power does stink but if you truly want a highly available environment you really need more than one server anyway. If you were only supporting a few Xserves is an extra 10U for a pair really that big a deal?
Raritan and other power management only work if you can set your server to turn on when power is applied. MP and MM don't do this. 10U can be a very big deal, costing as much as a server per month in some DCs.
Isn't Apple a for-profit business? Or are my shares that have increased over 2000% not actually worth real money?
Given that, what percentage of Apple's revenues and profits do you (critics of the move and non-critics alike) believe that the Xserve represented?
I can't *prove* this, but I would be willing to guess it's no more than a rounding error.
Why then should they continue to produce it? This is a serious question.
I think the issue for many of us isn't the loss of the Xserve per se, but the lack of a migration path from Apple. MM and MP are laughable alternatives, it's an astoundingly stupid move on Apple's part to even suggest it - they look like fools to any IT pros. The profit from Xserve is no doubt a blip on Apples radar, but it showed a committment to professional users, and that is now not just gone, but likely irreparably damaged. Apple has burned bridges where it wasn't necessary.
I think the issue for many of us isn't the loss of the Xserve per se, but the lack of a migration path from Apple. MM and MP are laughable alternatives, it's an astoundingly stupid move on Apple's part to even suggest it - they look like fools to any IT pros. The profit from Xserve is no doubt a blip on Apples radar, but it showed a committment to professional users, and that is now not just gone, but likely irreparably damaged. Apple has burned bridges where it wasn't necessary.
Well, I don't see that Xserve, or the environments that you are talking about, are worth Apple's expenditure of resources.
You are basically saying, "Look, guys, I know this doesn't make any money for you. And I realize that it didn't have much in the way of public mind-share. And I realize that you had to devote resources, at your expense, to continuing it. But you really HAD to continue it because there are like 8 of us out here who were interested in it!"
So, how is Apple supposed to justify stuff like that to shareholders? They aren't a charity. And they aren't a company aimed at IT professionals. And you keep acting as if they actually are.
Well, I don't see that Xserve, or the environments that you are talking about, are worth Apple's expenditure of resources.
You are basically saying, "Look, guys, I know this doesn't make any money for you. And I realize that it didn't have much in the way of public mind-share. And I realize that you had to devote resources, at your expense, to continuing it. But you really HAD to continue it because there are like 8 of us out here who were interested in it!"
So, how is Apple supposed to justify stuff like that to shareholders? They aren't a charity. And they aren't a company aimed at IT professionals. And you keep acting as if they actually are.
The Xserve was a loss-leader product that could easily have been a gateway into serious enterprise business, which is slightly more than 8 people, had Apple had the savvy to think different about its business clientele than its iDevice consumers.
I have not said discontinuing the Xserve was a bad idea (although I personally do think it was, Apple has a right to its choices, of course). Apple however _did_ aim a product at IT professionals, and then let them down by way of a ridiculous and impractical migration plan when they decided to pull out. Most amateur. Most large organizations have planning windows of 1-3 years for IT - Apple's given 2 months; you will never see IBM or HP abusing any customer that way, or even Dell.
The Xserve was a loss-leader product that could easily have been a gateway into serious enterprise business, which is slightly more than 8 people, had Apple had the savvy to think different about its business clientele than its iDevice consumers.
A gateway? Really?
Why would Apple even *want* to enter "serious enterprise business" with this sort of approach? That's not their business. And there's absolutely no reason, that I can see, that they would benefit from making it their business.
I have not said discontinuing the Xserve was a bad idea (although I personally do think it was, Apple has a right to its choices, of course). Apple however _did_ aim a product at IT professionals, and then let them down by way of a ridiculous and impractical migration plan when they decided to pull out. Most amateur. Most large organizations have planning windows of 1-3 years for IT - Apple's given 2 months; you will never see IBM or HP abusing any customer that way, or even Dell.
All Apple said was that they would stop selling the things in 2 months. They said that support would continue. Or did I misread that?
Also, I don't think the migration plan was really for people with racks of Xserves. I think the idea is that for people that would have no problem using Minis or Pros, here ya' go. If you're looking into much more serious situations, then yeah, you're better off going to IBM or HP.
I don't see why that's a problem, when Apple is a consumer-oriented business.
Let me ask you a Yes or No question, ok? Do you think if Apple had gone down the road that you apparently believe they should have, that they would have seen large profits from doing so?
Macs can be added as well for client usage but let's be honest here: Macs are not the first choice for a bank's credit card payment data processing and other mundane tasks of number crunching by people in Accounts Payable departments. We don't expect to find Macs being used at a local auto mechanic's shop or at the Department of Motor Vehicles or on the front desk of a hotel. In a way, I think most of us are glad that we don't see Macs everywhere.
The Mac is gaining serious market share in the PC market and growing much faster than the growth of PC sales of competitors like HP, Dell, Acer, Toshiba, etc. Also, both for Apple and the rest of the PC makers, laptops account for much larger chunk of all PC sales than the desktops. The Windows crowd will say that the Mac is still a "niche" product but it is a very profitable one for Apple. As I'm sure some of you are aware, the Mac has a share of 90% for all PC's that are over $1000. Even though Apple's global market share in PC shipments is less than 5%, it is estimated that Apple makes 35% of the profits. Now why would Apple abandon such a profitable business?
Remember Tim Cook at the last earnings call pointing out that the Mac accounts for $22 billion in annual sales and that this business alone would be #65 on the Fortune 500? And it continues to grow fast at 25%+ rate. Apple has more than doubled the market share in the US PC market over the past decade and is now at a respectable 10.6%. If that's still a "niche," it's a very profitable one and the envy of the industry. Even Microsoft takes notice and has a section on their site dedicated to prevent the Windows-to-Mac defections.
And then there's the halo effect of the sales of the iOS devices all around the world. Certainly, most of these iPhone and other iOS device buyers are not Mac owners - especially overseas. This means a great opportunity to sell more Macs to these iOS customers and getting them fully integrated into the Apple ecosystem. Now all these people (especially the ones in Asia where Mac usage is virtually non-existent) who would have never considered a Mac are at least open to getting one for their next PC purchase.
Now how is this a bad thing for the Mac platform? There's a good reason to make future Macs have iOS features as well as the look-and-feel. There'll be many tens of millions of Windows users with iPhones, iPads and iPod touches who will now seriously consider getting an iOS-like Mac in the years ahead. Sure things are all going mobile in the future but, in the meantime, 300 million PC's will be sold per year and Apple can get a much bigger chunk of that than they're getting now.
As for the Xserve, how does it fit in to this grand strategy that Apple has for the future? It's not even a profitable niche. To even call it a "niche" is stretching it in the big scheme of things when the entire Mac market is still considered as such. And Apple is hellbent on making sure that the iOS platform will not become a niche. Let's face it: that's Apple's top priority right now. Apple's focus is making iOS the dominant mobile platform (although no one expects any platform to achieve Windows-like dominance in the PC market). The Xserve and the backend enterprise market just isn't something that Apple could focus on nor should it be.
Raritan and other power management only work if you can set your server to turn on when power is applied. MP and MM don't do this.
Apparently you have to have "Start up automatically after a power failure" checked in System Preferences > Energy Saver to have your mac turn on after power is reapplied after a dirty shutdown.
In instances where you want to shut the server down in a controlled manner you do so with a shutdown -u. Then you turn the power off remotely after the shutdown completes within 5 minutes to simulate a dirty shutdown.
From the shutdown man page
-u The system is halted up until the point of removing system power,
but waits before removing power for 5 minutes so that an external
UPS (uninterruptible power supply) can forcibly remove power.
This simulates a dirty shutdown to permit a later automatic power
on. OS X uses this mode automatically with supported UPSs in
emergency shutdowns.
R10U can be a very big deal, costing as much as a server per month in some DCs.
In the real world I'm not seeing colocation costs for a tower computer costing much more than $100 a month even if someone doesn't own their own datacenter.
http://iweb.com/colocation/single-server/ <- medium tower colocation $89 a month
http://www.alwaysonline.net/products...ion-tower.html <- $99 a month
I've only worked for companies that have owned their own data centers and the costs of an additional 10U has never been that high. The companies I've worked for have even had a special area in the data center reserved for non-rackable servers in small quantities. I personally have never been in a situation where 10U here or there was that big of a deal. I suppose there must be a few data center exceptions where this would be an issue, but I can't imagine it being the rule. I'm only talking about companies that have one or two xserves.
That doesn't make sense. For a company with 20-200 employees, you probably don't need more power than a single Mac Pro. If they would allow an xserve into their server room, why not a Mac Pro server?
If there were very many people like that, Apple would have been selling enough xserves to stay in the market. As it is, the number of xserves sold was miniscule - so there just weren't that many people like you're claiming.
And you of course know me and my customers needs...?
Easy to sit behind your iToy and write things that you have no clue about.
As I said before - I do not need a server with and Apple logo on - I need a rack mountable server I can run Mac OS X Server on. Apple must provide us with some real alternatives not this marketing BS that the transition guide is.
A gateway? Really?
Why would Apple even *want* to enter "serious enterprise business" with this sort of approach? That's not their business. And there's absolutely no reason, that I can see, that they would benefit from making it their business.
Apple _did_ enter serious enterprise business. If you recall, they made the Xserve.
Also, I don't think the migration plan was really for people with racks of Xserves. I think the idea is that for people that would have no problem using Minis or Pros, here ya' go. If you're looking into much more serious situations, then yeah, you're better off going to IBM or HP.
So, what _is_ the migration plan for people with racks of Xserves? Remember, we run (and bought) OS X Server. If I bought Windows, I can migrate my license to Dell, HP, IBM, whatever; with OS X, I'm SOL on my purchase.
Let me ask you a Yes or No question, ok? Do you think if Apple had gone down the road that you apparently believe they should have, that they would have seen large profits from doing so?
Yes. In my opinion. Not right away, mind you, but Apple had the cash to keep the enterprise happy with Xserve for, oh, a thousand years without feeling it, until the Xserve and the iDevices met in the middle and Apple owned the enterprise as well as consumers. Now they don't just have slow adopters on the enterprise side, they have actively pissed ex-customers. Not just ex-customers, but the few faithful insiders who stuck their necks out for Apple, and got chopped by them instead.
'rcfa', in a previous post, said: "Why is it, that each time a company is in the position that they could rule the entire market from small to big iron, they don't realize that position and focus on the currently most profitable market and destroy that strategic advantage in the process? Quarterly results are good and important, but the long term vision is equally important." That's my perspective, as well.
And you of course know me and my customers needs...?
Easy to sit behind your iToy and write things that you have no clue about.
As I said before - I do not need a server with and Apple logo on - I need a rack mountable server I can run Mac OS X Server on. Apple must provide us with some real alternatives not this marketing BS that the transition guide is.
I never said I know your customers' needs.
All I said was that Apple has found that they weren't selling enough rack mounted servers to justify staying in the business. So the number of people who were willing to pay for Xserve wasn't significant.
As for your demands, too bad. Apple has no obligation to give YOU what you want. They are a business and their job is to participate in markets where they can make money. Your whining is the same as the people who used to demand that Apple give them a $399 computer - or let them install OS X on generic hardware. You have no such right - and Apple has no such obligation.
I never said I know your customers' needs.
All I said was that Apple has found that they weren't selling enough rack mounted servers to justify staying in the business. So the number of people who were willing to pay for Xserve wasn't significant.
As for your demands, too bad. Apple has no obligation to give YOU what you want. They are a business and their job is to participate in markets where they can make money. Your whining is the same as the people who used to demand that Apple give them a $399 computer - or let them install OS X on generic hardware. You have no such right - and Apple has no such obligation.
Ding! You are correct on both counts, IMHO.
Apple's out of the business because of no profits, and no long-term vision (for the enterprise market). Apple's enterprise team has been very consistent at not 'getting it'.
And on the second, consumers don't expect rights and obligations - but enterprise users _do_. One of the points Apple, and many here, don't 'get'. It's not about buying an Xserve, it's about committing to Apple, and Apple committing to the buyer, for a long-term relationship with a continuum of product and support, as these kind of devices lie at the heart of the company's infrastructure, doing important work, and can't be changed easily. iDevices are disposable, and so is the relationship between producer and consumer that accompanies them.