These were actually pretty good servers. But Apple never seemed to have a lot of interest in the line. It was said for a long time that they needed to have more than a one rack height version so companies would be able to expand into more powerful models, but they never did that. In addition, blade models would have been popular, but Apple never had an interest in those either.
Really, they kicked themselves in their own foot. What does this mean for their new enterprise push? It doesn't look good to me.
As I said earlier, perhaps Steve and Larry have a Sun / Apple concept for Enterprise cooking?
Yeah - like they have to downsize and keep control of their spendings like they had to 8 years ago when the intruduced the first Xserve.
Death of Apple in enterprise
EPIC F...ING FAIL!!!
'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!
'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!
Apple is set to dominate consumer tech this decade. Easily.
What are talking about?? Apple never really had an enterprise presence. Why start now? What's the point, when their consumer divisions alone are changing the face of tech almost monthly.
- The new Mac Mini with Leopard Server is close to the same specs for 1/3rd the price.
Please explain to me how a single processor Core 2 Duo is the "same specs" as a Gainestown rig.
Quote:
- You don't really need the faster processors in a server.
That's like saying, "You don't really need steamships to cross the Atlantic; you can do it with wind."
Quote:
- You can get external raid storage if you need it (Mac Mini has FireWire 800)
I've never read a more ignorant comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry
Apple helped pioneer the f****** pc industry little boy.
Stop this. You look like a fool. This sentence has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
Quote:
They make their own world class OS and they design their own godd**** hardware.
They make their own OS and they design their own circuit boards (based on a universal spec) and cases. Everything else is the same as the Dell in Best Buy.
Quote:
You better thank god Apple is pulling out and not really putting their full force behind servers.Why? Don't you know? Your job security!!!!
Toy maker? Ha ha ha ha!
Okay, now you're just a troll. Not even a troll, because generally they know what they're actually talking about.
My first reaction... Hey, Apple -- look at my sig!
OK!
I have heard/read where the XServe was a pretty good piece of hardware.
I have also heard/read that Apple never had the desire, commitment or infrastructure to sell into and support this business -- Apple is just not driven that way!
Likely, with the way they approached the market, it was a money-losing or marginally profitable business.
Apple does not like that, and it is not good at that,
So what to do?
Discontinue the product, do the best damage control you can -- then move on!
As a shareholder, I applaud the decision.
Now, what to do to satisfy Apple's ever-expanding need for servers?
AFAICT, the big server suppliers are Dell, HP, IBM, Sun.
Now here's the interesting part.
What if Apple cuts a deal with one or more of these companies to supply Apple with servers?
What if part of that deal requires the server provided to run OS X Server Software -- AFAICT, the OS X Server software still lives and is capable of running on any of the above servers.
What if further deals are cut to allow these server manufacturers to license OS X Server and market it into enterprise along with their own server solutions.
Unless I am mistaken, this would offer existing XServe customers a long term solution.
This could also open up new potential for OS X Server in enterprises where Apple is not able to compete (for the reasons better known to others than me).
What would be the incentive, say, for IBM to sell an OSX Server solution? For Apple to promote an OS X Server IBM solution?
- The new Mac Mini with Leopard Server is close to the same specs for 1/3rd the price.
- You don't really need the faster processors in a server.
- You can get external raid storage if you need it (Mac Mini has FireWire 800)
And mostly.. Apple is pushing "going green"
- Mac Mini's use 10W of power when idling. (max of 80W) XServe does max of 750W??
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
The Mac Mini has been THE choice for Mac servers for a long time now. I've actually been under the impression that the Xserve was on it's way out, and I was more right than I thought. If your processing needs are beyond the Mac Mini, which is not likely, the Mac Pro is your answer, especially for it's expandability. You can buy it it bear bones and upgrade at your convenience.
An Xserve has always just been the most expensive option, both initially and in power consumption. Period. In the last year, sales must have finally reached a point where it was no longer cost effective to produce the product.
The choice for small business and home users. NO (read carefully now) NO replacement for Xserves in a server location (may it be in enterprise of like our own hosted services in a server hall).
'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!
I suspect the middle ground for servers is vanishing as we enter the second decade of the 21st Century. It's going to be either the small end (accomplished with a Mac Mini) or something a hell of a lot larger and more powerful than an XServe. Which is why I think Apple and Sun may be in talks. I have no fears what so ever Steve knows what he is doing.
What other things have happened which show that Apple had a new enterprise push? I thought that they announced at some public presentation that they had little interest in the enterprise.
What new enterprise push?
Do you pay attention to the news? Perhaps you missed the news about Unisys? That was just the latest.
Could this be a prelude to a deal between Steve and Larry? Maybe an Apple / Sun deal may be coming ... just a thought.
Long ago, in a different computing universe, I suggested thst a merger between Apple, Google and Sun would be the perfect storm. Solaris uses, as its base, FreeBSD, just as OS X does, and has other simularities. A merger of the two would have brought the OS X GUI, ZFS, and other merged technologies such as the ownership of Java. It would also have brought the enterprise staff of Sun to Apple, as well as high end hardware.
Google would have supplied the internet/cloud portion of the deal.
This combo would have been the only major competitor to MS that would have had a good chance of knocking them off. It's too bad everyone went their own ways.
- The new Mac Mini with Leopard Server is close to the same specs for 1/3rd the price.
- You don't really need the faster processors in a server.
- You can get external raid storage if you need it (Mac Mini has FireWire 800)
And mostly.. Apple is pushing "going green"
- Mac Mini's use 10W of power when idling. (max of 80W) XServe does max of 750W??
You're not a server guy/gal, are you? Let's see, no redundant power supplies, a dicky little magnetic power connector, no LOM, no RAS, no RAID 10, no accessible and hot-swap drive bays, one (and a half) Ethernet ports, no I/O slots for Infiniband, FC, external SAS, or other interconnects,...no 19" rackmount.
FireWire 800 for external storage? Wow. I just don't know what to say to that. Think that will hook up to my 48TB array?
And don't say I don't need faster processors in a server, you don't know what I do. Maybe _you_ don't need them.
As someone else said above, no sane admin would consider a Mac Mini in a serious server role.
I have a MM server for my business and while it has done well I'm actually thinking of getting an x-serve. I actually had a HDD go out on my mini and repairing it was a PIA. Having a more robust server is something I am giving serious thought to.
BTW what are all the Final Cut people going to do who use FC server? They aren't using a MM. I guess they can use a tricked out Mac Pro but the x-serve is a better tool for that job. I hope digital clips is right and Steve works out a deal with Sun.
Would you buy a server from a cell phone company? Exactly.
Next will be Mac Pros. Because Apple sold so many cell phones they now think desktop computers should be like cell phones (when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail).
Watch the desktop line disappear in a 5 - 10 years.
Apple is set to dominate consumer tech this decade. Easily.
What are talking about?? Apple never really had an enterprise presence. Why start now? What's the point, when their consumer divisions alone are changing the face of tech almost monthly.
Apple has never really tried to have an enterprise presence - they go in, try a little, then pull out without warning and shaft everyone. Consistency is key to enterprise, and Apple's little hissy fits and 'surprise announcements' just don't work.
Why start now? Uh, because they have a little cash in pocket, and could, if they could take off their gadget-goggles, change enterprise computing the same way they're changing consumer devices. But no.
They already use Linux and Solaris. Mac OS X is just not up to the task (and I'm not joking here). Real servers need way better I/O than what Mac OS X has. It's kernel is too slow and its file system is ancient.
Apple has never really tried to have an enterprise presence - they go in, try a little, then pull out without warning and shaft everyone. Consistency is key to enterprise, and Apple's little hissy fits and 'surprise announcements' just don't work.
Why start now? Uh, because they have a little cash in pocket, and could, if they could take off their gadget-goggles, change enterprise computing the same way they're changing consumer devices. But no.
Long ago, in a different computing universe, I suggested thst a merger between Apple, Google and Sun would be the perfect storm. Solaris uses, as its base, FreeBSD, just as OS X does, and has other simularities. A merger of the two would have brought the OS X GUI, ZFS, and other merged technologies such as the ownership of Java. It would also have brought the enterprise staff of Sun to Apple, as well as high end hardware.
Google would have supplied the internet/cloud portion of the deal.
This combo would have been the only major competitor to MS that would have had a good chance of knocking them off. It's too bad everyone went their own ways.
Actually, maybe not!
Apple has always been very careful of "what businesses they are in";
Who would have run the AGS Conglomerate?
Would AGS or any of the other of the existing staid companies have had the stones to enter the CE business?
Would Android still look like the original BlackBerry ripoff?
The choice for small business and home users. NO (read carefully now) NO replacement for Xserves in a server location (may it be in enterprise of like our own hosted services in a server hall).
Firstly, I've never managed a server farm....
I understand that MacMinis are able to be fitted to standard racks with adaptive kit.
One can buy three MacMinis for the same price as one Xserve. What are the implications of this in terms of providing performance to the end User and maintenance by the server technician?
These were actually pretty good servers. But Apple never seemed to have a lot of interest in the line. It was said for a long time that they needed to have more than a one rack height version so companies would be able to expand into more powerful models, but they never did that. In addition, blade models would have been popular, but Apple never had an interest in those either.
Really, they kicked themselves in their own foot. What does this mean for their new enterprise push? It doesn't look good to me.
For some reason, Apple still insists on minimizing, to an extreme, the options they offer. Trimming their product line made perfect sense when their market share was nearly non-existent in the late 90's and even into the early 2000s. They needed to streamline for efficiency. But as their business has grown they should be able to offer options without affecting their overall economies of scale. But they still offer no mid-range headless Mac, only one form-factor of phone, and all info suggests they only plan on one iPad model for the foreseeable future.
The iPod really exploded when they began offering multiple models. They recognized that one model would not meet everyone's needs, and they offered a choice. Lack of iPhone choice, I think, is one of the reasons Android has gotten the sales it has.
I suspect (I don't work with server room guys) that lack of choice, to get the exact hardware to meet their requirements, is one of the reasons Xserve didn't get more traction with IT guys. In the case of servers, it's NOT about the software (as much as it is for us consumers).
Comments
These were actually pretty good servers. But Apple never seemed to have a lot of interest in the line. It was said for a long time that they needed to have more than a one rack height version so companies would be able to expand into more powerful models, but they never did that. In addition, blade models would have been popular, but Apple never had an interest in those either.
Really, they kicked themselves in their own foot. What does this mean for their new enterprise push? It doesn't look good to me.
As I said earlier, perhaps Steve and Larry have a Sun / Apple concept for Enterprise cooking?
Yeah - like they have to downsize and keep control of their spendings like they had to 8 years ago when the intruduced the first Xserve.
Death of Apple in enterprise
EPIC F...ING FAIL!!!
'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!
'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!
Apple is set to dominate consumer tech this decade. Easily.
What are talking about?? Apple never really had an enterprise presence. Why start now? What's the point, when their consumer divisions alone are changing the face of tech almost monthly.
- The new Mac Mini with Leopard Server is close to the same specs for 1/3rd the price.
Please explain to me how a single processor Core 2 Duo is the "same specs" as a Gainestown rig.
- You don't really need the faster processors in a server.
That's like saying, "You don't really need steamships to cross the Atlantic; you can do it with wind."
- You can get external raid storage if you need it (Mac Mini has FireWire 800)
I've never read a more ignorant comment.
Apple helped pioneer the f****** pc industry little boy.
Stop this. You look like a fool. This sentence has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
They make their own world class OS and they design their own godd**** hardware.
They make their own OS and they design their own circuit boards (based on a universal spec) and cases. Everything else is the same as the Dell in Best Buy.
You better thank god Apple is pulling out and not really putting their full force behind servers.Why? Don't you know? Your job security!!!!
Toy maker? Ha ha ha ha!
Okay, now you're just a troll. Not even a troll, because generally they know what they're actually talking about.
My first reaction... Hey, Apple -- look at my sig!
OK!
I have heard/read where the XServe was a pretty good piece of hardware.
I have also heard/read that Apple never had the desire, commitment or infrastructure to sell into and support this business -- Apple is just not driven that way!
Likely, with the way they approached the market, it was a money-losing or marginally profitable business.
Apple does not like that, and it is not good at that,
So what to do?
Discontinue the product, do the best damage control you can -- then move on!
As a shareholder, I applaud the decision.
Now, what to do to satisfy Apple's ever-expanding need for servers?
AFAICT, the big server suppliers are Dell, HP, IBM, Sun.
Now here's the interesting part.
What if Apple cuts a deal with one or more of these companies to supply Apple with servers?
What if part of that deal requires the server provided to run OS X Server Software -- AFAICT, the OS X Server software still lives and is capable of running on any of the above servers.
What if further deals are cut to allow these server manufacturers to license OS X Server and market it into enterprise along with their own server solutions.
Unless I am mistaken, this would offer existing XServe customers a long term solution.
This could also open up new potential for OS X Server in enterprises where Apple is not able to compete (for the reasons better known to others than me).
What would be the incentive, say, for IBM to sell an OSX Server solution? For Apple to promote an OS X Server IBM solution?
Hmmm...
.
I don't know why everyone is freaking out...
- The new Mac Mini with Leopard Server is close to the same specs for 1/3rd the price.
- You don't really need the faster processors in a server.
- You can get external raid storage if you need it (Mac Mini has FireWire 800)
And mostly.. Apple is pushing "going green"
- Mac Mini's use 10W of power when idling. (max of 80W) XServe does max of 750W??
The Mac Mini has been THE choice for Mac servers for a long time now. I've actually been under the impression that the Xserve was on it's way out, and I was more right than I thought. If your processing needs are beyond the Mac Mini, which is not likely, the Mac Pro is your answer, especially for it's expandability. You can buy it it bear bones and upgrade at your convenience.
An Xserve has always just been the most expensive option, both initially and in power consumption. Period. In the last year, sales must have finally reached a point where it was no longer cost effective to produce the product.
The choice for small business and home users. NO (read carefully now) NO replacement for Xserves in a server location (may it be in enterprise of like our own hosted services in a server hall).
'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!
I suspect the middle ground for servers is vanishing as we enter the second decade of the 21st Century. It's going to be either the small end (accomplished with a Mac Mini) or something a hell of a lot larger and more powerful than an XServe. Which is why I think Apple and Sun may be in talks. I have no fears what so ever Steve knows what he is doing.
New enterprise push? I must have missed that.
What other things have happened which show that Apple had a new enterprise push? I thought that they announced at some public presentation that they had little interest in the enterprise.
What new enterprise push?
Do you pay attention to the news? Perhaps you missed the news about Unisys? That was just the latest.
Could this be a prelude to a deal between Steve and Larry? Maybe an Apple / Sun deal may be coming ... just a thought.
Long ago, in a different computing universe, I suggested thst a merger between Apple, Google and Sun would be the perfect storm. Solaris uses, as its base, FreeBSD, just as OS X does, and has other simularities. A merger of the two would have brought the OS X GUI, ZFS, and other merged technologies such as the ownership of Java. It would also have brought the enterprise staff of Sun to Apple, as well as high end hardware.
Google would have supplied the internet/cloud portion of the deal.
This combo would have been the only major competitor to MS that would have had a good chance of knocking them off. It's too bad everyone went their own ways.
Firewire 800 is a joke compared to Fibre
xserve doesn't have fibre channel connections...
http://www.fiercecio.com/story/apple...ses/2010-10-27
I don't know why everyone is freaking out...
- The new Mac Mini with Leopard Server is close to the same specs for 1/3rd the price.
- You don't really need the faster processors in a server.
- You can get external raid storage if you need it (Mac Mini has FireWire 800)
And mostly.. Apple is pushing "going green"
- Mac Mini's use 10W of power when idling. (max of 80W) XServe does max of 750W??
You're not a server guy/gal, are you? Let's see, no redundant power supplies, a dicky little magnetic power connector, no LOM, no RAS, no RAID 10, no accessible and hot-swap drive bays, one (and a half) Ethernet ports, no I/O slots for Infiniband, FC, external SAS, or other interconnects,...no 19" rackmount.
FireWire 800 for external storage? Wow. I just don't know what to say to that. Think that will hook up to my 48TB array?
And don't say I don't need faster processors in a server, you don't know what I do. Maybe _you_ don't need them.
As someone else said above, no sane admin would consider a Mac Mini in a serious server role.
I have a MM server for my business and while it has done well I'm actually thinking of getting an x-serve. I actually had a HDD go out on my mini and repairing it was a PIA. Having a more robust server is something I am giving serious thought to.
BTW what are all the Final Cut people going to do who use FC server? They aren't using a MM. I guess they can use a tricked out Mac Pro but the x-serve is a better tool for that job. I hope digital clips is right and Steve works out a deal with Sun.
Next will be Mac Pros. Because Apple sold so many cell phones they now think desktop computers should be like cell phones (when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail).
Watch the desktop line disappear in a 5 - 10 years.
Apple is set to dominate consumer tech this decade. Easily.
What are talking about?? Apple never really had an enterprise presence. Why start now? What's the point, when their consumer divisions alone are changing the face of tech almost monthly.
Apple has never really tried to have an enterprise presence - they go in, try a little, then pull out without warning and shaft everyone. Consistency is key to enterprise, and Apple's little hissy fits and 'surprise announcements' just don't work.
Why start now? Uh, because they have a little cash in pocket, and could, if they could take off their gadget-goggles, change enterprise computing the same way they're changing consumer devices. But no.
Fail.
.
What rill they use in Apple server farms?
.
They already use Linux and Solaris. Mac OS X is just not up to the task (and I'm not joking here). Real servers need way better I/O than what Mac OS X has. It's kernel is too slow and its file system is ancient.
Apple has never really tried to have an enterprise presence - they go in, try a little, then pull out without warning and shaft everyone. Consistency is key to enterprise, and Apple's little hissy fits and 'surprise announcements' just don't work.
Why start now? Uh, because they have a little cash in pocket, and could, if they could take off their gadget-goggles, change enterprise computing the same way they're changing consumer devices. But no.
Fail.
Unisys.
Long ago, in a different computing universe, I suggested thst a merger between Apple, Google and Sun would be the perfect storm. Solaris uses, as its base, FreeBSD, just as OS X does, and has other simularities. A merger of the two would have brought the OS X GUI, ZFS, and other merged technologies such as the ownership of Java. It would also have brought the enterprise staff of Sun to Apple, as well as high end hardware.
Google would have supplied the internet/cloud portion of the deal.
This combo would have been the only major competitor to MS that would have had a good chance of knocking them off. It's too bad everyone went their own ways.
Actually, maybe not!
Apple has always been very careful of "what businesses they are in";
Who would have run the AGS Conglomerate?
Would AGS or any of the other of the existing staid companies have had the stones to enter the CE business?
Would Android still look like the original BlackBerry ripoff?
.
The choice for small business and home users. NO (read carefully now) NO replacement for Xserves in a server location (may it be in enterprise of like our own hosted services in a server hall).
Firstly, I've never managed a server farm....
I understand that MacMinis are able to be fitted to standard racks with adaptive kit.
http://www.macessitywebstore.com/Pro...tCode=MX4%2DV2
One can buy three MacMinis for the same price as one Xserve. What are the implications of this in terms of providing performance to the end User and maintenance by the server technician?
These were actually pretty good servers. But Apple never seemed to have a lot of interest in the line. It was said for a long time that they needed to have more than a one rack height version so companies would be able to expand into more powerful models, but they never did that. In addition, blade models would have been popular, but Apple never had an interest in those either.
Really, they kicked themselves in their own foot. What does this mean for their new enterprise push? It doesn't look good to me.
For some reason, Apple still insists on minimizing, to an extreme, the options they offer. Trimming their product line made perfect sense when their market share was nearly non-existent in the late 90's and even into the early 2000s. They needed to streamline for efficiency. But as their business has grown they should be able to offer options without affecting their overall economies of scale. But they still offer no mid-range headless Mac, only one form-factor of phone, and all info suggests they only plan on one iPad model for the foreseeable future.
The iPod really exploded when they began offering multiple models. They recognized that one model would not meet everyone's needs, and they offered a choice. Lack of iPhone choice, I think, is one of the reasons Android has gotten the sales it has.
I suspect (I don't work with server room guys) that lack of choice, to get the exact hardware to meet their requirements, is one of the reasons Xserve didn't get more traction with IT guys. In the case of servers, it's NOT about the software (as much as it is for us consumers).