This is one case where I would be all for licensing OS X Lion server . If Apple would put the resources into tightening the Kernel and maybe going with a ZFS or other modern file system. In this case, Apple is more than competitive in price for the software with unlimited users. They could strip out most of the multimedia features to make the OS fairly usless on a PC.
As mentioned, the mini or Mac Pro are not realistic alternatives for the XServe. It is obviously, Apple doesn't understand the enterprise hardware market (Beautiful, thin, elegant, and sexy don't really send a tingle up the legs of IT professionals). To chase the UNIX Enterprise software market would seem like a good deal at this time.
Exactly
I have no need for an Apple logo on the server - BUT I need rack mounted hardware to run Mac OS X Server on. Apples or somebody elses...
You said "What is the desktop? It's no longer "the desktop". It's now smartphones and tablets. Both of them are having a far greater sales growth than are "computers"
That simply is not a true statement. Anyone in their right mind who believes that PC's are going to be replaced by iPhones, iPad, and other iToys need to get their hand out of Jobs' punch bowl.
I like my iPhone, I like my iPad, put please, don't try to compare these toys to an XServe or a Mac. They do exactly what Jobs said they did, "we can enjoy our photographs" (Not a technically correct statement, but you get the idea), music, surf the web, listen to music, and check email. Thats what they are good at. Yes I know, there is iWork for the iPad and iPhone. It's ok for lightly touching up a spreadsheet, but I (or any other pro) who needs to get real work done will always turn towards my Mac..
The Mac's not going anywhere, neither are servers, and neither are trucks.
I totally disagree!
Within 5 years the solutions being sold to enterprise will consist of:
1) Back office servers storing the bulk content and running the apps that do the heavy lifting.
2) front office iPads at central drops -- the registrar/receptionist/secretary desks, the nurses station, lunch/meeting/board rooms.
3) The iPad will be a combination of some standalone computing/content and network-accessed computing/content
You walk in, grab an iPad, you automatically finger/voice/eye scan via NFC to identify yourself to the iPad. Within seconds the iPad customizes itsellf to your needs, apps, content and access privileges.
When you leave (or the iPad is out of your NFC range) it self wipes. You can drop/leave it anywhere or take it with you.
The iPad will be inexpensive, ubiquitous and expendable,
Desktops? DESKTOPS? We don't need no stinkin' desktops!
Then there are those of us who DO understand the server market and aren't too upset with this decision. It's a simple market segmentation thing.
What's the value of an xserve server? Not the hardware - you can buy comparable hardware from HP or IBM (or, you can buy cheaper stuff from a bunch of people). In fact, with HP's business model, you're going to get the newer technologies SOONER than with Apple. The value that Apple brings to the table is OS X.
What's the value proposition for OS X? Ease of use, consistency, and security. (It's also very reliable and efficient, but it would be hard to prove a significant edge in reliability compared to something like Solaris).
Now, very simplistically, let's break the server market down into enterprise server (characterized by rack after rack of rack-mounted servers) and departmental server (standalone servers used by small businesses, departments in larger businesses, etc).
Enterprise market: These are run by geeks who couldn't care less about the ease of use. They're buying on the basis of performance per dollar because they can admin ANY server in their sleep. Apple is going to struggle to compete on that basis - even if they can do it upon the launch of a new system, their slow refresh cycle means that they're not going to have an edge for long. So, the admin isn't going to save much money (if any) in the grand scheme of things, but they have to increase their skill set to add a new OS to their repertoire. Not much of an incentive for them to buy from Apple.
Departmental market: These servers are often run by non-geeks, often people with other responsibilities (marketing, engineering, R&D, finance). For them, the server is nothing more than a pain in the rear. The less energy they have to spend on the server, the better. If the company has to spend a couple of dollars more, it's irrelevant if it saves them time (although most companies won't be spending much, if any, more because of the high cost of Windows unlimited licenses). For those people, a rackmounted server is a waste - and vaguely threatening. The success of the Mini seems to support this - for this market, it's not about performance per dollar. It's about getting the job done in the EASIEST way.
I wish it were otherwise. I'd like for Apple to compete everywhere from cell phones to big iron. But the market isn't interested in what they offer for big server rooms, so Apple was wise enough to walk away.
And, for the past 10 years, they've demonstrated an incredible ability to understand the markets, so anyone claiming they're wrong better have a LOT of evidence on their side.
I agree with all except the last bit. And I will take my upset back once I hear Apple will allow OS X Server on someone else's hardware. Even if so, there may be a lot of compatibility restrictions as Apple's closed systems approach means a paucity of drivers.
Re incredible ability to understand the markets, that certainly applies to consumer markets, but I would posit that Apple has likewise showed an incredible _dis_ability to understand the enterprise market.
The real issue is, do you really want to run Apple kit in your server room, or do you only need to run OS X Server ?
I fully expect OS X Server to be available under virtualization (on non-Apple hardware). That actually reduces the number of rack units you need in the server room.
Bingo. If XServe doesn't support a hypervisor on its bare metal, it's an irrelevant piece of hardware in a server closet these days.
Many people and companies are using the mac mini's as servers. There are companies that have hundreds of them on racks connected together. The mini probably was stealing the X-serve's business. You can get almost three mini's configured to be servers for the price of an x-serve. Further, there is software that let's you hook them up to work as a single unit.
Within 5 years the solutions being sold to enterprise will consist of:
1) Back office servers storing the content and running the apps that do the heavy lifting.
2) front office iPad at central drops -- the registrar/receptionist/secretary desks, the nurses station, lunch/meeting/board rooms.
3) The iPad will be a combination of some standalone computing/content and network-accessed computing/content
You walk in, grab an iPad, you automatically finger/voice/eye scan via NFC to identify yourself to the iPad. Within seconds the iPad customizes itsellf to your needs, apps, content and access privileges.
When you leave (or the iPad is out of your NFC range) it self wipes. You can drop/leave it anywhere or take it with you.
The iPad will be inexpensive, ubiquitous and expendable,
Desktops? DESKTOPS? We don't need no stinkin' desktops!
.
You're not totally disagreeing. You're also saying servers will be needed. Apple's dropping their only serious server. Apple will not be able to supply a turnkey enterprise solution. Unless Apple has something more up their sleeve, they get an enterprise fail from me...
Hmm, Apple drops Xserve, stock may go down. Apple announces OS X Server licensing on vendor X or on virtualization, stock goes up. Makes sense not to announce the two together perhaps.
You're not totally disagreeing. You're also saying servers will be needed. Apple's dropping their only serious server. Apple will not be able to supply a turnkey enterprise solution. Unless Apple has something more up their sleeve, they get a fail...
Hmm, Apple drops Xserve, stock may go down. Apple announces OS X Server licensing on vendor X, stock goes up. Makes sense not to announce the two together perhaps.
I agree... servers are definitely part of the picture.
I just don't see desktop computers at the workstation -- why tether productivity?
FWIW, AAPL has been trading even to down, $0.50 -- so the "bad news" hasn't hurt.
Apple could announce licensing of OS X Server -- or just do it!
I don't think that it will affect AAPL price much.
If they do license OS X Server then they potentially have 3rd party reps that can build Apple solutions from the back office out, and the front office in.
Apple could increase sales and enterprise penetration by taking advantage of the expertise and established "inside" relationships of companies such as Unisys.
I hope they have a plan to run OS X Server on some other hardware that can be rack mounted.
Xsan: How are we to run an Xsan now? Waste 12U on 2 metadata controllers?? Fuck that. When one of our Xserves MDC die, what are we to do?
iPhone enterprise management. What major enterprises are going to run this service on a mini? it has zero redundancy on the hardware. No dual ethernet, no dual PSU, no LOM. Only 8GB of RAM.
Our current DAM system uses 2 servers (8 cores and 32GB RAM), taking up 2U, not including the Xsan space. When the time comes to replace the hardware, we also have to account for migrating to Windows Server. I hope they have a Linux solution in 2 years fleshed out. I'm sure they are working on it now.
Apple better have a plan similar to the plan they had with the Xserve RAID (migrating to Promise hardware). Only this time it'll involve running Mac OS X Server on Dell or HP or IBM hardware, even if it's only a select few systems.
Apple could announce licensing of OS X Server -- or just do it!
I don't think that it will affect AAPL price much.
If they do license OS X Server then they potentially have 3rd party reps that can build Apple solutions from the back office out, and the front office in.
Apple could increase sales and enterprise penetration by taking advantage of the expertise and established "inside" relationships of companies such as Unisys.
I certainly hope so. This would actually be even better than what they currently offer. For MDCs all I need are 1U servers, but for doing some of our other services, we need lots of RAM, many cores, and internally RAID'd storage with several PCIe cards. It's not uncommon to need 4 ethernet ports. 2 bonded (2Gb) for AFP/SMB traffic, 2 bonded (1Gb fail over) for the Xsan private network.
The X-Serve was a competitive product for small businesses, not so much for enterprise. For Enterprise... I start to think about an acquisition of Unisys. Just having a 1U server doesn't create a great offering. You need at least a 2U and a blade as well. Just so happens that Unisys makes blades and 2U servers...
Unfortunately, that doesn't do much to address the SMB market, nor does replacing your server rack with metro shelves to go with MacPro's. The mini, even in failover configurations fails to address the gap as well, at least without a big bump in design, kind of like a cube...
Many people and companies are using the mac mini's as servers. There are companies that have hundreds of them on racks connected together. The mini probably was stealing the X-serve's business. You can get almost three mini's configured to be servers for the price of an x-serve. Further, there is software that let's you hook them up to work as a single unit.
Oh really. Where is this software? Or are you just talking out of your ass? What you are talking about is distributed computing and it's nothing like "hooking them up to work as a single unit". How many do I have to hook up to get a fiber connection?
Seriously, this is crazy. If you are going to admit finical defeat, in the realms of server-side platforms, then OPEN UP OS X Server to HP or Dell servers.
I can understand dropping the hardware. It's overpriced (for what you get), it's TCO is crazy (in comparison to what you're getting and what other options are). But the software... the software is money.
Comments
This is one case where I would be all for licensing OS X Lion server . If Apple would put the resources into tightening the Kernel and maybe going with a ZFS or other modern file system. In this case, Apple is more than competitive in price for the software with unlimited users. They could strip out most of the multimedia features to make the OS fairly usless on a PC.
As mentioned, the mini or Mac Pro are not realistic alternatives for the XServe. It is obviously, Apple doesn't understand the enterprise hardware market (Beautiful, thin, elegant, and sexy don't really send a tingle up the legs of IT professionals). To chase the UNIX Enterprise software market would seem like a good deal at this time.
Exactly
I have no need for an Apple logo on the server - BUT I need rack mounted hardware to run Mac OS X Server on. Apples or somebody elses...
could this be a prelude to a deal between steve and larry? Maybe an apple / sun deal may be coming ... Just a thought.
bingo!
- Jasen.[/QUOTE]
That's what I was thinking.
Yes, I will now spell my point out.
You said "What is the desktop? It's no longer "the desktop". It's now smartphones and tablets. Both of them are having a far greater sales growth than are "computers"
That simply is not a true statement. Anyone in their right mind who believes that PC's are going to be replaced by iPhones, iPad, and other iToys need to get their hand out of Jobs' punch bowl.
I like my iPhone, I like my iPad, put please, don't try to compare these toys to an XServe or a Mac. They do exactly what Jobs said they did, "we can enjoy our photographs" (Not a technically correct statement, but you get the idea), music, surf the web, listen to music, and check email. Thats what they are good at. Yes I know, there is iWork for the iPad and iPhone. It's ok for lightly touching up a spreadsheet, but I (or any other pro) who needs to get real work done will always turn towards my Mac..
The Mac's not going anywhere, neither are servers, and neither are trucks.
I totally disagree!
Within 5 years the solutions being sold to enterprise will consist of:
1) Back office servers storing the bulk content and running the apps that do the heavy lifting.
2) front office iPads at central drops -- the registrar/receptionist/secretary desks, the nurses station, lunch/meeting/board rooms.
3) The iPad will be a combination of some standalone computing/content and network-accessed computing/content
You walk in, grab an iPad, you automatically finger/voice/eye scan via NFC to identify yourself to the iPad. Within seconds the iPad customizes itsellf to your needs, apps, content and access privileges.
When you leave (or the iPad is out of your NFC range) it self wipes. You can drop/leave it anywhere or take it with you.
The iPad will be inexpensive, ubiquitous and expendable,
Desktops? DESKTOPS? We don't need no stinkin' desktops!
.
Then there are those of us who DO understand the server market and aren't too upset with this decision. It's a simple market segmentation thing.
What's the value of an xserve server? Not the hardware - you can buy comparable hardware from HP or IBM (or, you can buy cheaper stuff from a bunch of people). In fact, with HP's business model, you're going to get the newer technologies SOONER than with Apple. The value that Apple brings to the table is OS X.
What's the value proposition for OS X? Ease of use, consistency, and security. (It's also very reliable and efficient, but it would be hard to prove a significant edge in reliability compared to something like Solaris).
Now, very simplistically, let's break the server market down into enterprise server (characterized by rack after rack of rack-mounted servers) and departmental server (standalone servers used by small businesses, departments in larger businesses, etc).
Enterprise market: These are run by geeks who couldn't care less about the ease of use. They're buying on the basis of performance per dollar because they can admin ANY server in their sleep. Apple is going to struggle to compete on that basis - even if they can do it upon the launch of a new system, their slow refresh cycle means that they're not going to have an edge for long. So, the admin isn't going to save much money (if any) in the grand scheme of things, but they have to increase their skill set to add a new OS to their repertoire. Not much of an incentive for them to buy from Apple.
Departmental market: These servers are often run by non-geeks, often people with other responsibilities (marketing, engineering, R&D, finance). For them, the server is nothing more than a pain in the rear. The less energy they have to spend on the server, the better. If the company has to spend a couple of dollars more, it's irrelevant if it saves them time (although most companies won't be spending much, if any, more because of the high cost of Windows unlimited licenses). For those people, a rackmounted server is a waste - and vaguely threatening. The success of the Mini seems to support this - for this market, it's not about performance per dollar. It's about getting the job done in the EASIEST way.
I wish it were otherwise. I'd like for Apple to compete everywhere from cell phones to big iron. But the market isn't interested in what they offer for big server rooms, so Apple was wise enough to walk away.
And, for the past 10 years, they've demonstrated an incredible ability to understand the markets, so anyone claiming they're wrong better have a LOT of evidence on their side.
I agree with all except the last bit. And I will take my upset back once I hear Apple will allow OS X Server on someone else's hardware. Even if so, there may be a lot of compatibility restrictions as Apple's closed systems approach means a paucity of drivers.
Re incredible ability to understand the markets, that certainly applies to consumer markets, but I would posit that Apple has likewise showed an incredible _dis_ability to understand the enterprise market.
The real issue is, do you really want to run Apple kit in your server room, or do you only need to run OS X Server ?
I fully expect OS X Server to be available under virtualization (on non-Apple hardware). That actually reduces the number of rack units you need in the server room.
Bingo. If XServe doesn't support a hypervisor on its bare metal, it's an irrelevant piece of hardware in a server closet these days.
I totally disagree!
Within 5 years the solutions being sold to enterprise will consist of:
1) Back office servers storing the content and running the apps that do the heavy lifting.
2) front office iPad at central drops -- the registrar/receptionist/secretary desks, the nurses station, lunch/meeting/board rooms.
3) The iPad will be a combination of some standalone computing/content and network-accessed computing/content
You walk in, grab an iPad, you automatically finger/voice/eye scan via NFC to identify yourself to the iPad. Within seconds the iPad customizes itsellf to your needs, apps, content and access privileges.
When you leave (or the iPad is out of your NFC range) it self wipes. You can drop/leave it anywhere or take it with you.
The iPad will be inexpensive, ubiquitous and expendable,
Desktops? DESKTOPS? We don't need no stinkin' desktops!
.
You're not totally disagreeing. You're also saying servers will be needed. Apple's dropping their only serious server. Apple will not be able to supply a turnkey enterprise solution. Unless Apple has something more up their sleeve, they get an enterprise fail from me...
Hmm, Apple drops Xserve, stock may go down. Apple announces OS X Server licensing on vendor X or on virtualization, stock goes up. Makes sense not to announce the two together perhaps.
You're not totally disagreeing. You're also saying servers will be needed. Apple's dropping their only serious server. Apple will not be able to supply a turnkey enterprise solution. Unless Apple has something more up their sleeve, they get a fail...
Hmm, Apple drops Xserve, stock may go down. Apple announces OS X Server licensing on vendor X, stock goes up. Makes sense not to announce the two together perhaps.
I agree... servers are definitely part of the picture.
I just don't see desktop computers at the workstation -- why tether productivity?
FWIW, AAPL has been trading even to down, $0.50 -- so the "bad news" hasn't hurt.
Apple could announce licensing of OS X Server -- or just do it!
I don't think that it will affect AAPL price much.
If they do license OS X Server then they potentially have 3rd party reps that can build Apple solutions from the back office out, and the front office in.
Apple could increase sales and enterprise penetration by taking advantage of the expertise and established "inside" relationships of companies such as Unisys.
,
Xsan: How are we to run an Xsan now? Waste 12U on 2 metadata controllers?? Fuck that. When one of our Xserves MDC die, what are we to do?
iPhone enterprise management. What major enterprises are going to run this service on a mini? it has zero redundancy on the hardware. No dual ethernet, no dual PSU, no LOM. Only 8GB of RAM.
Our current DAM system uses 2 servers (8 cores and 32GB RAM), taking up 2U, not including the Xsan space. When the time comes to replace the hardware, we also have to account for migrating to Windows Server. I hope they have a Linux solution in 2 years fleshed out. I'm sure they are working on it now.
Apple better have a plan similar to the plan they had with the Xserve RAID (migrating to Promise hardware). Only this time it'll involve running Mac OS X Server on Dell or HP or IBM hardware, even if it's only a select few systems.
...
Apple could announce licensing of OS X Server -- or just do it!
I don't think that it will affect AAPL price much.
If they do license OS X Server then they potentially have 3rd party reps that can build Apple solutions from the back office out, and the front office in.
Apple could increase sales and enterprise penetration by taking advantage of the expertise and established "inside" relationships of companies such as Unisys.
I certainly hope so. This would actually be even better than what they currently offer. For MDCs all I need are 1U servers, but for doing some of our other services, we need lots of RAM, many cores, and internally RAID'd storage with several PCIe cards. It's not uncommon to need 4 ethernet ports. 2 bonded (2Gb) for AFP/SMB traffic, 2 bonded (1Gb fail over) for the Xsan private network.
Unfortunately, that doesn't do much to address the SMB market, nor does replacing your server rack with metro shelves to go with MacPro's. The mini, even in failover configurations fails to address the gap as well, at least without a big bump in design, kind of like a cube...
By getting out of the server hardware business -- Apple is able to get into the server business.
This might be a very good thing!
.
That is wonderful.
By inserting the adjective "hardware", we can make "getting out of" and "getting into" mean the same thing.
So, for example, by getting out of the workstation hardware business, Apple could be able to get into the workstation business. I like it!
Many people and companies are using the mac mini's as servers. There are companies that have hundreds of them on racks connected together. The mini probably was stealing the X-serve's business. You can get almost three mini's configured to be servers for the price of an x-serve. Further, there is software that let's you hook them up to work as a single unit.
Oh really. Where is this software? Or are you just talking out of your ass? What you are talking about is distributed computing and it's nothing like "hooking them up to work as a single unit". How many do I have to hook up to get a fiber connection?
I can understand dropping the hardware. It's overpriced (for what you get), it's TCO is crazy (in comparison to what you're getting and what other options are). But the software... the software is money.
Open it up to HP or Dell.
You can Rack mount a Mac Pro, it's the same case they used at Virginia Tech before the Xserve even existed.
The Mac Pro has available 12 CPU cores and support for 64 GB of RAM now, I'd rather run it on that anyway.
Is this what Apple will run in its server farm?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-..._b_598539.html
Ok, that's what I've been saying. You are allowed to write in your posts you know. We'd like to read your own words as well.
Watch the desktop line disappear in a 5 - 10 years.
It is entirely reasonable for Apple to get out of the lines where they have lost, and get more heavily into lines where they make gobs of money.
I think that 5 years is too long.
Apple needs to OEM their Server OS so 3rd party hardware vendors can take the torch. This news is no surprise.
Mac OS X Server + Sun/Oracle hardware?
They would seem like the natural fit.
The iPod really exploded when they began offering multiple models. .
I think that the iPod really exploded when Windows users were given the ability to use it. Wasn't that when it really took off?