Evidence suggests Apple will make Mac OS X Lion Server a paid App Store add-on

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 42
    _hawkeye__hawkeye_ Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    If you read the damn thread



    I did.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    you can see that we know exactly what Server.app does and what its purpose. If you read the screenshot it tells you exactly what it does.



    But it doesn't tell you if it's essential to installing the Server portion, or if it might simply be something which facilitates installation.



    Which is what i said previously, if you had read my post a little more carefully.
  • Reply 22 of 42
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by _Hawkeye_ View Post


    I did.







    But it doesn't tell you if it's essential to installing the Server portion, or if it might simply be something which facilitates installation.



    Which is what i said previously, if you had read my post a little more carefully.





    It's been a while...



    But I have:



    1) Taken a standard OS X system and added the necessary bits to act as a Web Server, Web Application server, etc.



    2) Installed OS X Server



    The OS X Server automates everything in 1), (saving hours of work at the CLI level) -- then provides additional services and high-level GUI to manage the system.





    So, the answer is if you want to do all the low-level stuff, install/setup Apache, etc. -- the OS X Server Component is not necessary.



    But if you want the added function, management capabilities, and ease-of-use -- even a $499 price tag is a bargain for what you get including an unlimited numbr of client seats.





    There are rumors about the TimeMachine evolving into a iOS-based Home Server. I can visualize a later release adding general-purpose server capability to iOS -- similar to what they are doing with Lion.
  • Reply 23 of 42
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post


    How is all of this going to work in an enterprise environment? App stores don't really go with the way software is distributed in the enterprise world.



    I can visualize a use for an app store-like distribution/installation/update capability for enterprise.



    One way to think of it is :



    Big Enterprise Insurance has 500 branches world wide.



    Currently Headquarters IT configures all software centrally and then distributes by whatever means -- somehow monitoring install progress in the branches.





    Apple says to BEI: "Why don't you use the Apple Cloud Service to help you?"



    The Apple Cloud service would work just like a "Private App Store for BEI installations only!"



    You, BEI, decide what goes in, when and who, has access -- and get a record of every download and successful install.





    Yeah... that could work!
  • Reply 24 of 42
    stevehsteveh Posts: 480member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gustav View Post


    Linux is free if you have lots of free time.



    And not nearly so free if you're using it an enterprise environment with equivalent support.
  • Reply 25 of 42
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,031member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by steveH View Post


    And not nearly so free if you're using it an enterprise environment with equivalent support.



    What can be said about "Support" for OS X Server in the same context? Everything I read suggests Apple themselves are not really in tune with the expectations of enterprise support. A lot of organisations offer third party enterprise support for Windows and Linux (and AIX, 390, etc). Are there organisations which do the same with Apple's offerings?



    Genuine questions. I honestly don't know. I've never seem a Mac in a server room.
  • Reply 26 of 42
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Smiles77 View Post


    This is odd, as it directly contradicts Apple's Lion preview page. From there:



    "Lion Server is now part of Mac OS X Lion. It’s easy to set up your Mac as a server and take advantage of the many services Lion Server has to offer."

    "Lion Server guides you through configuring your Mac as a server. And it provides local and remote administration — for users and groups, push notifications, file sharing, calendaring, mail, contacts, chat, Time Machine, VPN, web, and wiki services — all in one place."



    That doesn't sound at all like a separate app to me. It sounds much more like an option in your System Preferences pane.



    no where does it say that it will be free. or that it is built in etc



    and if Lion is only by MAS as some rumors suggest, it makes sense to divide things up so folks that won't ever use server don't have to bother with those bits
  • Reply 27 of 42
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,755member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by _Hawkeye_ View Post


    Not if you're a non-profit on a limited budget.



    Apple, Microsoft, and most other companies offer non-profit pricing models (steep discounts) of some sort.



    http://www.techsoup.org
  • Reply 28 of 42
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Hopefully the fact that they are separating it out suggests Lion itself will be cheaper than in the past. I really hope Lion is released at WWDC!
  • Reply 29 of 42
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    $499 is still a steal.



    Windows 2008 R2 Standard runs $799 plus $35 per computer/user connecter to the server.



    Cant run OSX server on any sever class hardware, so its a toy at this point...you cant buy servers from Apple (note, the mac mini is not a server, its a headless laptop), you cant install on bare metal HP Dell etc. boxes and you cant run it in VMWare esxi or MS Hyper-V so to call it a "server" OS at this opint is misleading. It is a desktop client build with a few server apps added on...Real server OSes install in an incredibly minimalist fashion, allowing you to just install the roles and services that you need.



    OSX Server is a toy, Windows server is an enterprise class tool. That is why MS can command that premium.
  • Reply 30 of 42
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post


    How is all of this going to work in an enterprise environment? App stores don't really go with the way software is distributed in the enterprise world.



    Oddly enough, I I have been reading up on MS System Center vNext AKA 2012 and they are implementing an app store for enterprises, which will actually make life really nice for IT folks who manage licensing like myself. Basically, we can publish apps to the app store and the end users could select the apps they need and for the ones that don't require licensing, like internal apps or some OSS apps we use, they just need their managers approval and it happens with no IT intervention. If they need a license, we get the approved request from the manager, go to the needed director for signoff on the expense, add it to our volume license count for true up and distribute the app to teh PC, so yes, this model is definitely coming to a corporation near you, soon.
  • Reply 31 of 42
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    I really hope Lion is released at WWDC!



    And I really hope it isn't. It's nowhere near ready.
  • Reply 32 of 42
    dluxdlux Posts: 666member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by a_greer View Post


    OSX Server is a toy, Windows server is an enterprise class tool.



    I think the mainframe boys would take issue with your assessment.



    (And what's with the chest-beating? Was this an issue in the article that warrants your expenditure of testosterone ?)
  • Reply 33 of 42
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by a_greer View Post


    Cant run OSX server on any sever class hardware, so its a toy at this point...you cant buy servers from Apple (note, the mac mini is not a server, its a headless laptop), you cant install on bare metal HP Dell etc. boxes and you cant run it in VMWare esxi or MS Hyper-V so to call it a "server" OS at this opint is misleading. It is a desktop client build with a few server apps added on...Real server OSes install in an incredibly minimalist fashion, allowing you to just install the roles and services that you need.



    OSX Server is a toy, Windows server is an enterprise class tool. That is why MS can command that premium.



    A needless distinction.



    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Server



    Quote:

    A computer that manages centralized data storage or network communications resources. A server provides and organizes access to these resources for other computers linked to it.



    A Mac mini running Snow Leopard Server is every bit the part of being a server by definition. People are free to make up their own "personal" definitions but the world at large still uses the good ole dictionary at their source so as not to get confused.
  • Reply 34 of 42
    gctwnlgctwnl Posts: 278member
    I wonder how an upgrade path for an existing 10.6.x OS X Server will work.



    And I wonder if they will have dumbed down server. I run multiple e-mail virtual domains on mine, for instance. This requires some low level text file edits in postfix.



    And I wonder if they will have switched some server tooling (which will cost me a lot of time).



    And I wonder how a 10.6.x server will play with 10.7 clients in case I decide that upgrading my server will have to wait.



    And I wonder if portable home directory syncing will finally work decently. It is a nice idea but gives tons of headaches when in practical use and is the part of OS X Server which takes by far the the most of my time to repair all the time.
  • Reply 35 of 42
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dlux View Post


    I think the mainframe boys would take issue with your assessment.



    (And what's with the chest-beating? Was this an issue in the article that warrants your expenditure of testosterone ?)



    I guess I may have failed to communicate what I am thinking on this: the post I quoted mentioned that Mac OSX Server was a good cost value over Windows at todays prices, $499 vs say $800 for win server. I was simply saying that Apple has to give away the server OS because most people who buy server OSes demand a certin level of hardware to run them on that Apple no longer sells. Take a top end Mac Pro and cram it into a 1 or 2-u rack mountable enclosure and you have something, I can not imagine any real big shops putting mac minis in a data center, no dual NICs? no redundant power? no fiber channel or other san interface and no slots fr these things make it a no go.



    OSX server on consumer hardware may be a good solution for some small mom and pop shops or the few that need mac only server tools like FCS but mom and pop shops arent gonna fork out $500 for a server OS when the cloud can take care of most of their stuff, pro shops that need FCS will use mac pros cause they have no choice and no one else will touch it, ergo there is no more market for a $500 apple server software product - open it up to virtualization and the story changes instantly.





    I call OSX Server a toy not because it is bad, it is a pretty great OS, but I believe that it is so handicapped because it can not run on the kind of hardware that will allow it to flex its muscle.
  • Reply 36 of 42
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by a_greer View Post


    Windows server is an enterprise class tool.



    I wouldn't be that harsh, Steve Ballmer is an enterprise class tool, but Windows isn't so bad.



    Actually I'm not so sure Apple is interested in selling OS X Server to enterprises, it is more aimed at small business. They even discontinued their rack Mac.
  • Reply 37 of 42
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    I wouldn't be that harsh, Steve Ballmer is an enterprise class tool, but Windows isn't so bad.



    Actually I'm not so sure Apple is interested in selling OS X Server to enterprises, it is more aimed at small business. They even discontinued their rack Mac.



    you called Ballmer right LOL



    as to OSX in small shops, for the sub-25 seat non IT related shops, I dont really see much of any need for on site servers with services like google docs, Office 365, carbonite, and quickbooks online, why woulod Joes Plumbing or some other non web design type firm need servers? For massive onsite file storage, tehre are plenty of cheap NAS boxes that are gonna work fine without server OS management complexity. I think even apple offers such a device, like a router with a HDD in it - I dont know exactly because I dont use or read up on apple networking gear.
  • Reply 38 of 42
    _hawkeye__hawkeye_ Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    It's been a while...



    But I have:



    1) Taken a standard OS X system and added the necessary bits to act as a Web Server, Web Application server, etc.



    2) Installed OS X Server



    Me too (both 1 & 2).





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    The OS X Server automates everything in 1), (saving hours of work at the CLI level) -- then provides additional services and high-level GUI to manage the system.



    So, the answer is if you want to do all the low-level stuff, install/setup Apache, etc. -- the OS X Server Component is not necessary.



    But if you want the added function, management capabilities, and ease-of-use -- even a $499 price tag is a bargain for what you get including an unlimited numbr of client seats.



    The $499 is certainly a bargain if you're comparing against Windoze-based solutions. Not a bargain if you're a non-profit, hobbiest, or even a small business on a shoestring budget. In other words: It's relative.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    There are rumors about the TimeMachine evolving into a iOS-based Home Server. I can visualize a later release adding general-purpose server capability to iOS -- similar to what they are doing with Lion.



    That's fine, if one limits it to a LAN server. I've seen some iomega NAS drives which do this. But i wouldn't want my backup HD exposed to the InterNet. I'd even be concerned about this if the backup were encrypted. It's just better to separate any backup device from any InterNet facing device, in my opinion.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    Apple, Microsoft, and most other companies offer non-profit pricing models (steep discounts) of some sort.



    Apple doesn't offer non-profit discounts. At least when i last checked (circa 2006). Back in the late 80's, they didn't offer discounts, but they did do some grant giving to non-profits. But they discontinued that in the early 90's.



    The only discounts which Apple does, as far as i'm aware, are educational discounts (which apply to both students and teachers).





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    Hopefully the fact that they are separating it out suggests Lion itself will be cheaper than in the past.



    Uh, they're not separating it out. It was separate. They're consolidating it, as per Apple's website (cited above).



    Be that as it may, the cost of Server was halved with Snow Leopard (if you were an unlimited customer; essentially no change in price if you were a 10-client customer).



    Given that Apple has withdrawn from the rack-mounted server hardware business, it makes sense that they would roll the server OS in the client OS, and essentially give it away for free. It adds more value to the Mac platform, particularly for small businesses and non-profits, and doesn't really cost Apple that much more. As Dick Applebaum alludes to above, most of what is needed for a server is already contained in the client version of Mac OS X. Most of the difference between the client and server versions of Mac OS X is in the GUI interfaces for already installed components in the client version (e.g. Apache, Postfix, etc.) However server does add a few missing components (e.g. MySQL, Dovecot, etc.) But these are open source products, and represent very little cost for Apple.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by a_greer View Post


    I guess I may have failed to communicate what I am thinking on this: the post I quoted mentioned that Mac OSX Server was a good cost value over Windows at todays prices, $499 vs say $800 for win server. I was simply saying that Apple has to give away the server OS because most people who buy server OSes demand a certin level of hardware to run them on that Apple no longer sells. Take a top end Mac Pro and cram it into a 1 or 2-u rack mountable enclosure and you have something, I can not imagine any real big shops putting mac minis in a data center, no dual NICs? no redundant power? no fiber channel or other san interface and no slots fr these things make it a no go.



    OSX server on consumer hardware may be a good solution for some small mom and pop shops or the few that need mac only server tools like FCS but mom and pop shops arent gonna fork out $500 for a server OS when the cloud can take care of most of their stuff, pro shops that need FCS will use mac pros cause they have no choice and no one else will touch it, ergo there is no more market for a $500 apple server software product - open it up to virtualization and the story changes instantly.



    I call OSX Server a toy not because it is bad, it is a pretty great OS, but I believe that it is so handicapped because it can not run on the kind of hardware that will allow it to flex its muscle.



    Your clarification is helpful; didn't get that from your previous post. Agree with most everything.



    Seems to me somebody could come along and make a 1 or 2-u rack mountable enclosure into which you can drop a couple Mac minis. Not only do you get redundant power supplies, you get redundant servers!
  • Reply 39 of 42
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by _Hawkeye_ View Post


    Uh, they're not separating it out. It was separate. They're consolidating it, as per Apple's website (cited above).



    I sure hope not. The method introduced with Preview 2 is much nicer and, as i've previously argued, overall better for the consumer.
  • Reply 40 of 42
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    As previously deduced and asserted OS X Lion Server is not only a separate download but an additional cost ($50) from the Mac App Store.
Sign In or Register to comment.