What exactly is the target market for the X-Serve? I see a few of them going into data centers, but can't understand who they offer a good value proposition for.
For my small business, I wanted to find an excuse to go with an X-Serve instead of a Dell... but the premium was almost 2x! Even factoring in consulting time to go with Linux, we saved over $1k with the Dull.
I honestly am just having trouble understanding, and would love to know. It seems like Apple really needs to come up with a more cost-effective solution if they want to make a strong push of Leopard Server.
What exactly is the target market for the X-Serve? I see a few of them going into data centers, but can't understand who they offer a good value proposition for.
For my small business, I wanted to find an excuse to go with an X-Serve instead of a Dell... but the premium was almost 2x! Even factoring in consulting time to go with Linux, we saved over $1k with the Dull.
I honestly am just having trouble understanding, and would love to know. It seems like Apple really needs to come up with a more cost-effective solution if they want to make a strong push of Leopard Server.
The target market are businesses that already have Macs as their primary clients.
There will likely never be a "Vista" server as Windows Server 2008 is the name of the beta OS being readied for release. As for longhorn, that was just a code name for Vista prior to release.
Sorry, but you seem a little confused. Longhorn client was named Vista for release. Loghorn Server was the code name for Windows Server 2008 until May 15 when it got its name.
What exactly is the target market for the X-Serve? I see a few of them going into data centers, but can't understand who they offer a good value proposition for.
For my small business, I wanted to find an excuse to go with an X-Serve instead of a Dell... but the premium was almost 2x! Even factoring in consulting time to go with Linux, we saved over $1k with the Dull.
I honestly am just having trouble understanding, and would love to know. It seems like Apple really needs to come up with a more cost-effective solution if they want to make a strong push of Leopard Server.
Do you happen to know what ihe cost of maintenance is over the life of the server, with respect to Linux and OS X?
What's really missing with the Xserve isn't a lower price tag. It's the support (as with all Apple products). A server needs an (optional) on-site support deal. Todays "buy a new one, or mail in your old one and will fix it within the month" doesn't do it.
What melgross said... We are an entirely mac based production unit within a 'normal' business model (read: PC based accounting and sales).
When it was time for us to upgrade from an old 'server' (basically a G4 tower with hard drives crammed in every which way), the x-serve was a no-brainer even though it cost more than an 'equivalent' PC. 2 years later, and I remain convinced it was the best thing we did. The OS is smooth and completely glitch free, backups are a breeze (with SuperDuper), it's quiet, and I feel a lot more secure than I would with a Dull.
There will likely never be a "Vista" server as Windows Server 2008 is the name of the beta OS being readied for release. As for longhorn, that was just a code name for Vista prior to release.
I stand corrected on the product name (too lazy to google around for it) -- but the next gen of Win Server is an announced product, and how Apple -- or Parallels or another virtualization solution provider deals with it will, or could prove interesting and just maybe strategic.
But I'm glad others have recognized that these seemingly tiny numbers portend more than their current direct contribution to A, Inc's bottom line.
I've also read articles on the value prop -- considering the combo of OS X server/Xserve vs. other solutions and factoring in reliability, IT time needed to deal with them, swapping out issues, failover, user support issues, etc., and all have generally tended to support the notion that over the whole life cycle, Xserves are very competitive to clearly superior in both data center satisfaction and overall cost. Apple's OS license is also much less restrictive than MS's, with (unless memory fails again) a flat cost for as many clients as the unit can handle, whereas MS ratchets up (or did rachet up) the cost based on the number of clients. So the reported 2X cost upfront is not all it seems by any means.
It would be great to see the whole top 10 list, with sold units _and_ market share.
In Q3 2002 worldwide server shipments totaled about 1.1 million units according to Gartner and Apple sold 7,484 units, its share of the server market was 0.68 percent.
In Q1 2007 worldwide server shipments reached just over 2.1 million units, Apple sold 8,700 Xserves, its share of the server market should be 0.4 percent.
1 - HP: 634,093 units (30.03%)
2 - Dell: 445,850 units (21.12%)
3 - IBM: 295,175 units (13.98%)
4 - Fujitsu: 81,068 units (3.84%)
5 - Sun: 79,063 units (3.74%)
8 - Acer: 14,900 units (0.71%) *
9 - Hitachi: 9,000 units (0.43%) *
10 - Apple: 8,700 units (0.41%) *
Other: 543,416 units (25.74%)
Total: 2,111,265 units (100.00%)
Gartner numbers except * IDC quoted by Digitimes
The Mac is outgrowing the personal computer market, this is not the case with the Xserve in the server market. Apple did pretty well in 2004, but at the moment with less than 10,000 units/quarter, there is nothing to write home about. Xserve shipments should reach 14,968 units just to maintain the Q3 2002 market share of 0.68 percent. Just out of curiosity, if the Xserve server market share was similar to the Mac worldwide market share, Apple would have sold approximately 52,500 units this quarter (6x more).
It isn't intangible. It's measured by doing industry surveys of companies with said equipment.
It's done all the time.
We just don't have those numbers.
I think these numbers might be useful in determining hardware reliability, but I think there are too many variables to account for in the software realm that render these numbers nearly useless in that department.
Apple will continue to gain significant share in this market for the next decade.
But at this point it appears that they will only pick up market share with small business, and I have no clue what sort of potential is there and how it translates into numbers.
I think these numbers might be useful in determining hardware reliability, but I think there are too many variables to account for in the software realm that render these numbers nearly useless in that department.
First of all, reliability was the subject. Second of all, software problems are easily documented as well.
Do people really think that business don't keep detailed records of problems? I can assure you that they do.
That's how metrics are developed.
For many years now, IDC has done yearly surveys of medium, and large businesses. Every year of those surveys, the Mac has been found to be cheaper for the five year periods that industry uses as their depreciation standard. The more Macs in an organization, the cheaper IT costs are. The reasons are, hardware reliability, training, software maintenance, etc.
All Mac shops have costs that are as much as 36% cheaper over that five year period.
How do you think they arrive at these numbers, guesses?
But at this point it appears that they will only pick up market share with small business, and I have no clue what sort of potential is there and how it translates into numbers.
Apple ignores mid, and enterprise business. They have nothing in place that would appeal to them. In posts above I clearly set out reasons why those business don't look to Apple for their hardware and software.
When Apple decides to address their needs, if ever, that will change, but not before.
First of all, reliability was the subject. Second of all, software problems are easily documented as well.
Do people really think that business don't keep detailed records of problems? I can assure you that they do.
That's how metrics are developed.
For many years now, IDC has done yearly surveys of medium, and large businesses. Every year of those surveys, the Mac has been found to be cheaper for the five year periods that industry uses as their depreciation standard. The more Macs in an organization, the cheaper IT costs are. The reasons are, hardware reliability, training, software maintenance, etc.
All Mac shops have costs that are as much as 36% cheaper over that five year period.
How do you think they arrive at these numbers, guesses?
I don't know how they arrive at their numbers, but I think that they are bogus.
No two companies are alike. In large businesses, like I said, Apple's server GUIs are usually pretty useless, as services like DHCP, DNS, mail, LDAP, etc. are usually populated and maintained by a series of automated scripting that is very specific to a particular environment. In large businesses, they are usually separate departments that handle things such as identity management, possibly security policy, HR stuff, etc. Apple cannot design a just-add-water GUI for all of these sorts of environments, and I'm certain that they know this given how OS X Server is designed.
Without Apple's GUIs, you are left with a command line based environment, and OS X is not a particularly rich or well designed environment to use purely in this fashion compared to its competition. Sure, it *can* do the same sorts of things, but it is missing a lot of nice features such as open source package management (and Macports and Fink do not cut it). Put it this way: the compelling reason to use OS X Server over its competition are the GUIs Apple develops, in addition to the XServe if this hardware and price tag is compelling for the needs of your environment.
In a CLI-only environment, I'd argue that the costs of running OS X Server are even higher. For one, who uses OS X Server this way anyway? Have you ever seen a job description that listed using Pure Darwin or OS X Server minus Aqua? Secondly, lacking the aforementioned, how is time being saved? Even using Aqua, how often do you see a job listed on a site like Monster.com that demands OS X Server experience?
When it comes to OS X client, I can be more accepting of this sort of data, and if you are in an environment where you can use the GUIs Apple provides in OS X Server, perhaps I can also be understanding, but the world of business as a whole? Don't buy it at all.
I don't know how they arrive at their numbers, but I think that they are bogus.
No two companies are alike. In large businesses, like I said, Apple's server GUIs are usually pretty useless, as services like DHCP, DNS, mail, LDAP, etc. are usually populated and maintained by a series of automated scripting that is very specific to a particular environment. In large businesses, they are usually separate departments that handle things such as identity management, possibly security policy, HR stuff, etc. Apple cannot design a just-add-water GUI for all of these sorts of environments, and I'm certain that they know this given how OS X Server is designed.
Without Apple's GUIs, you are left with a command line based environment, and OS X is not a particularly rich or well designed environment to use purely in this fashion compared to its competition. Sure, it *can* do the same sorts of things, but it is missing a lot of nice features such as open source package management (and Macports and Fink do not cut it). Put it this way: the compelling reason to use OS X Server over its competition are the GUIs Apple develops, in addition to the XServe if this hardware and price tag is compelling for the needs of your environment.
In a CLI-only environment, I'd argue that the costs of running OS X Server are even higher. For one, who uses OS X Server this way anyway? Have you ever seen a job description that listed using Pure Darwin or OS X Server minus Aqua? Secondly, lacking the aforementioned, how is time being saved? Even using Aqua, how often do you see a job listed on a site like Monster.com that demands OS X Server experience?
When it comes to OS X client, I can be more accepting of this sort of data, and if you are in an environment where you can use the GUIs Apple provides in OS X Server, perhaps I can also be understanding, but the world of business as a whole? Don't buy it at all.
Unless you are involved in these metrics, your statements that they are bogus are more than a bit suspicious. Read some industry publicationss ,uch as Computerworld, or InfoWorld.
Industry spends many millions a year on evaluating matters such as this, and they have been doing it for over 50 years.
You are talking about one aspect of the equation, and as I said "Macs", you are not even addressing the statement I made. I discussed server problems earlier.
Unless you are involved in these metrics, your statements that they are bogus are more than a bit suspicious. Read some industry publicationss ,uch as Computerworld, or InfoWorld.
Industry spends many millions a year on evaluating matters such as this, and they have been doing it for over 50 years.
You are talking about one aspect of the equation, and as I said "Macs", you are not even addressing the statement I made. I discussed server problems earlier.
Comments
For my small business, I wanted to find an excuse to go with an X-Serve instead of a Dell... but the premium was almost 2x! Even factoring in consulting time to go with Linux, we saved over $1k with the Dull.
I honestly am just having trouble understanding, and would love to know. It seems like Apple really needs to come up with a more cost-effective solution if they want to make a strong push of Leopard Server.
What exactly is the target market for the X-Serve? I see a few of them going into data centers, but can't understand who they offer a good value proposition for.
For my small business, I wanted to find an excuse to go with an X-Serve instead of a Dell... but the premium was almost 2x! Even factoring in consulting time to go with Linux, we saved over $1k with the Dull.
I honestly am just having trouble understanding, and would love to know. It seems like Apple really needs to come up with a more cost-effective solution if they want to make a strong push of Leopard Server.
The target market are businesses that already have Macs as their primary clients.
Ad agencies, large studios, education, etc.
everything else that Apple gets is gravy.
And that's the problem.
There will likely never be a "Vista" server as Windows Server 2008 is the name of the beta OS being readied for release. As for longhorn, that was just a code name for Vista prior to release.
Sorry, but you seem a little confused. Longhorn client was named Vista for release. Loghorn Server was the code name for Windows Server 2008 until May 15 when it got its name.
What exactly is the target market for the X-Serve? I see a few of them going into data centers, but can't understand who they offer a good value proposition for.
For my small business, I wanted to find an excuse to go with an X-Serve instead of a Dell... but the premium was almost 2x! Even factoring in consulting time to go with Linux, we saved over $1k with the Dull.
I honestly am just having trouble understanding, and would love to know. It seems like Apple really needs to come up with a more cost-effective solution if they want to make a strong push of Leopard Server.
Do you happen to know what ihe cost of maintenance is over the life of the server, with respect to Linux and OS X?
When it was time for us to upgrade from an old 'server' (basically a G4 tower with hard drives crammed in every which way), the x-serve was a no-brainer even though it cost more than an 'equivalent' PC. 2 years later, and I remain convinced it was the best thing we did. The OS is smooth and completely glitch free, backups are a breeze (with SuperDuper), it's quiet, and I feel a lot more secure than I would with a Dull.
There will likely never be a "Vista" server as Windows Server 2008 is the name of the beta OS being readied for release. As for longhorn, that was just a code name for Vista prior to release.
I stand corrected on the product name (too lazy to google around for it) -- but the next gen of Win Server is an announced product, and how Apple -- or Parallels or another virtualization solution provider deals with it will, or could prove interesting and just maybe strategic.
But I'm glad others have recognized that these seemingly tiny numbers portend more than their current direct contribution to A, Inc's bottom line.
I've also read articles on the value prop -- considering the combo of OS X server/Xserve vs. other solutions and factoring in reliability, IT time needed to deal with them, swapping out issues, failover, user support issues, etc., and all have generally tended to support the notion that over the whole life cycle, Xserves are very competitive to clearly superior in both data center satisfaction and overall cost. Apple's OS license is also much less restrictive than MS's, with (unless memory fails again) a flat cost for as many clients as the unit can handle, whereas MS ratchets up (or did rachet up) the cost based on the number of clients. So the reported 2X cost upfront is not all it seems by any means.
Do you happen to know what ihe cost of maintenance is over the life of the server, with respect to Linux and OS X?
How could this be accurately measured? It is intangible.
How could this be accurately measured? It is intangible.
It isn't intangible. It's measured by doing industry surveys of companies with said equipment.
It's done all the time.
We just don't have those numbers.
Us long term thinkers see inevitables clearly.
Apple will continue to gain significant share in this market for the next decade.
It would be great to see the whole top 10 list, with sold units _and_ market share.
In Q3 2002 worldwide server shipments totaled about 1.1 million units according to Gartner and Apple sold 7,484 units, its share of the server market was 0.68 percent.
In Q1 2007 worldwide server shipments reached just over 2.1 million units, Apple sold 8,700 Xserves, its share of the server market should be 0.4 percent.
1 - HP: 634,093 units (30.03%)
2 - Dell: 445,850 units (21.12%)
3 - IBM: 295,175 units (13.98%)
4 - Fujitsu: 81,068 units (3.84%)
5 - Sun: 79,063 units (3.74%)
8 - Acer: 14,900 units (0.71%) *
9 - Hitachi: 9,000 units (0.43%) *
10 - Apple: 8,700 units (0.41%) *
Other: 543,416 units (25.74%)
Total: 2,111,265 units (100.00%)
Gartner numbers except * IDC quoted by Digitimes
The Mac is outgrowing the personal computer market, this is not the case with the Xserve in the server market. Apple did pretty well in 2004, but at the moment with less than 10,000 units/quarter, there is nothing to write home about. Xserve shipments should reach 14,968 units just to maintain the Q3 2002 market share of 0.68 percent. Just out of curiosity, if the Xserve server market share was similar to the Mac worldwide market share, Apple would have sold approximately 52,500 units this quarter (6x more).
It isn't intangible. It's measured by doing industry surveys of companies with said equipment.
It's done all the time.
We just don't have those numbers.
I think these numbers might be useful in determining hardware reliability, but I think there are too many variables to account for in the software realm that render these numbers nearly useless in that department.
^Mel's correct. But numbers only go so far.
Us long term thinkers see inevitables clearly.
Apple will continue to gain significant share in this market for the next decade.
But at this point it appears that they will only pick up market share with small business, and I have no clue what sort of potential is there and how it translates into numbers.
I think these numbers might be useful in determining hardware reliability, but I think there are too many variables to account for in the software realm that render these numbers nearly useless in that department.
First of all, reliability was the subject. Second of all, software problems are easily documented as well.
Do people really think that business don't keep detailed records of problems? I can assure you that they do.
That's how metrics are developed.
For many years now, IDC has done yearly surveys of medium, and large businesses. Every year of those surveys, the Mac has been found to be cheaper for the five year periods that industry uses as their depreciation standard. The more Macs in an organization, the cheaper IT costs are. The reasons are, hardware reliability, training, software maintenance, etc.
All Mac shops have costs that are as much as 36% cheaper over that five year period.
How do you think they arrive at these numbers, guesses?
But at this point it appears that they will only pick up market share with small business, and I have no clue what sort of potential is there and how it translates into numbers.
Apple ignores mid, and enterprise business. They have nothing in place that would appeal to them. In posts above I clearly set out reasons why those business don't look to Apple for their hardware and software.
When Apple decides to address their needs, if ever, that will change, but not before.
First of all, reliability was the subject. Second of all, software problems are easily documented as well.
Do people really think that business don't keep detailed records of problems? I can assure you that they do.
That's how metrics are developed.
For many years now, IDC has done yearly surveys of medium, and large businesses. Every year of those surveys, the Mac has been found to be cheaper for the five year periods that industry uses as their depreciation standard. The more Macs in an organization, the cheaper IT costs are. The reasons are, hardware reliability, training, software maintenance, etc.
All Mac shops have costs that are as much as 36% cheaper over that five year period.
How do you think they arrive at these numbers, guesses?
I don't know how they arrive at their numbers, but I think that they are bogus.
No two companies are alike. In large businesses, like I said, Apple's server GUIs are usually pretty useless, as services like DHCP, DNS, mail, LDAP, etc. are usually populated and maintained by a series of automated scripting that is very specific to a particular environment. In large businesses, they are usually separate departments that handle things such as identity management, possibly security policy, HR stuff, etc. Apple cannot design a just-add-water GUI for all of these sorts of environments, and I'm certain that they know this given how OS X Server is designed.
Without Apple's GUIs, you are left with a command line based environment, and OS X is not a particularly rich or well designed environment to use purely in this fashion compared to its competition. Sure, it *can* do the same sorts of things, but it is missing a lot of nice features such as open source package management (and Macports and Fink do not cut it). Put it this way: the compelling reason to use OS X Server over its competition are the GUIs Apple develops, in addition to the XServe if this hardware and price tag is compelling for the needs of your environment.
In a CLI-only environment, I'd argue that the costs of running OS X Server are even higher. For one, who uses OS X Server this way anyway? Have you ever seen a job description that listed using Pure Darwin or OS X Server minus Aqua? Secondly, lacking the aforementioned, how is time being saved? Even using Aqua, how often do you see a job listed on a site like Monster.com that demands OS X Server experience?
When it comes to OS X client, I can be more accepting of this sort of data, and if you are in an environment where you can use the GUIs Apple provides in OS X Server, perhaps I can also be understanding, but the world of business as a whole? Don't buy it at all.
I don't know how they arrive at their numbers, but I think that they are bogus.
No two companies are alike. In large businesses, like I said, Apple's server GUIs are usually pretty useless, as services like DHCP, DNS, mail, LDAP, etc. are usually populated and maintained by a series of automated scripting that is very specific to a particular environment. In large businesses, they are usually separate departments that handle things such as identity management, possibly security policy, HR stuff, etc. Apple cannot design a just-add-water GUI for all of these sorts of environments, and I'm certain that they know this given how OS X Server is designed.
Without Apple's GUIs, you are left with a command line based environment, and OS X is not a particularly rich or well designed environment to use purely in this fashion compared to its competition. Sure, it *can* do the same sorts of things, but it is missing a lot of nice features such as open source package management (and Macports and Fink do not cut it). Put it this way: the compelling reason to use OS X Server over its competition are the GUIs Apple develops, in addition to the XServe if this hardware and price tag is compelling for the needs of your environment.
In a CLI-only environment, I'd argue that the costs of running OS X Server are even higher. For one, who uses OS X Server this way anyway? Have you ever seen a job description that listed using Pure Darwin or OS X Server minus Aqua? Secondly, lacking the aforementioned, how is time being saved? Even using Aqua, how often do you see a job listed on a site like Monster.com that demands OS X Server experience?
When it comes to OS X client, I can be more accepting of this sort of data, and if you are in an environment where you can use the GUIs Apple provides in OS X Server, perhaps I can also be understanding, but the world of business as a whole? Don't buy it at all.
Unless you are involved in these metrics, your statements that they are bogus are more than a bit suspicious. Read some industry publicationss ,uch as Computerworld, or InfoWorld.
Industry spends many millions a year on evaluating matters such as this, and they have been doing it for over 50 years.
You are talking about one aspect of the equation, and as I said "Macs", you are not even addressing the statement I made. I discussed server problems earlier.
Go back to my post #15.
Unless you are involved in these metrics, your statements that they are bogus are more than a bit suspicious. Read some industry publicationss ,uch as Computerworld, or InfoWorld.
Industry spends many millions a year on evaluating matters such as this, and they have been doing it for over 50 years.
You are talking about one aspect of the equation, and as I said "Macs", you are not even addressing the statement I made. I discussed server problems earlier.
Go back to my post #15.
So, how could one put these numbers into context in order to be useful?