Apple Considering Discontinuing More Server-Focused Products?

[KnightWRX]

OK, but the 'average small business' doesn't have a rack mount server. Heck, if they have a frame on the wall to mount their switches in I'd be surprised...

I'm sorry, when is the last time you did small business support work ? I did it for 2 years in my life and our clients all had a small rack in which we mounted rack mount servers or if they had a full sized rack, we used shelves to put servers on. Really cleans up the server "room" (aka, the closet).

Average small businesses do tidy up and rack their stuff. It makes for less clutter and people who don't dabble in computers like it when it at least looks clean.

Maybe some don't, but your gross generalization is just out of whack with reality.

Yes but with the Linux system i have to deal with Linux nerds to get the system and keep it running because on one else can understand him. Even then it takes him six months to get it working fully. All the while everyone is getting frustrated the phones don't work and using their mobiles.

And i'm dealing with angry bosses (far worse than angry birds) asking why are we using this system? with my only answer being "You told me i would be half the price"

Uh ? Linux nerds ? Why not hire a competant systems administrator instead ? Why not buy your Linux solution from a qualified vendor like RedHat, Novell or Canonical, with full technical support ?

I think the answer you should give your bosses is "You told me it would be half the price, but since I have no idea how Linux works these days, I bought the wrong thing and hired the wrong guy".

Are you claiming the secretary can manage your OS X server infrastructure ? That's just plain ludicrous. Concepts of network security and management are not obsolete because a vendor built a GUI tool to manage the "box".

Maybe a sign of Apple giving up on OS X Server is the fact that you can't connect a Windows 7 workstation to a PDC on OS X Server.

http://support.apple.com/kb/ts3235

The reason I have been recommending Mac mini server is that you could put an office on it. Now all I can do is map a drive to it. The dominos keep falling because without support for the windows domain controller there is really no use for OS X Server in a network environment.

Uh ? There's more to servers than Domain Controllers my friend. A lot more. And SAMBA will eventually get it working, that's just the way of life when you work with Microsoft stuff, they don't like interoperability, they want you locked into their products.

 

[Quu]

It was a bad decision by Apple to discontinue the XServe servers.

If you are going to have a Server operating system you need to supply rack mountable servers to supplement that software offering if you don't it shows you are not serious about it. And yes I do know that two Mac Pro towers can be placed in a 9U rack but that is such a waste of space when you could fit 9x XServe's in that same space.

In my opinion Apple have two options here, discontinue the server software entirely or enable it to run on 3rd party hardware. Now to fantasize a little I think they could do 3rd party hardware easily and securely by providing a TPM to OEM's such as SuperMicro to include on the motherboard, however I don't believe that Apple would ever do that, just seems to small of a chance, just an idle fantasy.

Now what I think is most likely is that Apple will become a great Linux citizen by supporting popular Linux server services on their client to enable system administrators to swap out their OS X powered servers for Linux ones. Perhaps they will even go so far as to release some Linux Turn-Key software to better administrate OS X Clients.

 

[DarthMoops]

Were you aware that both Novell and Sun are no more?

Novell was broken up and the scraps sold to who ever wanted them and Sun was bought by Oracle and they have been working hard to alienate all of Sun's hardware customers as fast and as much as they can... (If anything, Oracle should sell Sun's hardware business to Apple)

And as far as server OS's, nothing beats, in my experience, Novell Netware 4.11. We had a server that was up for nearly 18-months with no problems. No leaks, no hangs. It just ran. We also had a Netware 3.12 server that ran for over two years without a reboot. Try that with, at the time, Windows NT Server and even now with Windows 2003 Server. At times, not having a server seemed better than Windows NT Server... And don't even get me started on NT Workstation...

I think Novell still exists doesn't it? Just selling SUSE Linux rather than Netware? Or is it SUSE bought Novell and they are basically just using the name? I think many of the products are essentially still the same, ie GroupWise.

I knew Oracle purchased Sun, I kind of view it in the sense of Oracle is to Sun as Compaq is to HP. Although that doesn't make you any less correct.

 

[DarthMoops]

Now what I think is most likely is that Apple will become a great Linux citizen by supporting popular Linux server services on their client to enable system administrators to swap out their OS X powered servers for Linux ones. Perhaps they will even go so far as to release some Linux Turn-Key software to better administrate OS X Clients.

This is where I was going earlier. Only I'd say keep the mini server for home users.

 

[rdrr]

Since Apple refuses to let you virtualize the OS, it make perfect sense. There is no way they can compete with the push to make everything in the datacenter virtual. We are in the process of virtualizing a majority of our Linux and Windows systems. The current technology allows us to put 50 virtual guests on one blade, and in a 14 blade chassis that would allow us to put around 750 systems on one blade center. There is so much cost savings going virtual, from energy, cooling, rack space, and cabling, that it just makes sense.

As long as Apple refuses to allow their operating systems to go virtual, they will not be able to compete. They certainly would loose their "green" label if they insisted on selling there servers as a viable option.

 

[macsmurf]

Now what I think is most likely is that Apple will become a great Linux citizen by supporting popular Linux server services on their client to enable system administrators to swap out their OS X powered servers for Linux ones. Perhaps they will even go so far as to release some Linux Turn-Key software to better administrate OS X Clients.

I really really doubt that. There's a lot of guesses as to how Apple can rectify the situation (VMWare OS X server, OS X server on standard hardware, Linux backend support) but the fact is that all Apple has come up with is a notice that XServe discontinuation is imminent. They haven't even hinted at an alternative. No responsible company who would like a continued presence in the enterprise would do that. They've already burned their bridges. Any competent system administrator should have a zero amount of trust in Apple (even before the XServe discontinuation, IMHO).

The only explanation I can see is that Apple is fully committed to the consumer market. They don't care about leaving companies hanging because they don't see them as future customers.

In other words, don't get your hopes up.

 

[KnightWRX]

I think Novell still exists doesn't it? Just selling SUSE Linux rather than Netware? Or is it SUSE bought Novell and they are basically just using the name? I think many of the products are essentially still the same, ie GroupWise.

Novell still exists (obviously Pinkwhatshername should have gone to http://www.novell.com). They bought SuSE, not the other way around. They just sold the company to a venture capital firm and sold some patents to Microsoft but they remain around for the foreseeable future.

As long as Apple refuses to allow their operating systems to go virtual, they will not be able to compete. They certainly would loose their "green" label if they insisted on selling there servers as a viable option.

Apple has a deal with VMWare to allow virtualization of OS X Server. The caveat is that it has to be on Apple branded hardware, so essentially, that was the Xserve.

So OS X Server already runs perfectly on top of VMWare, they're a license change away from getting their foot in the door of all the ESX/ESXi deployments out there. But after 3 months of having cancelled the Xserve, I doubt the confidence is there. They basically killed any good will they had in the entreprise server space with that boneheaded move.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

I'm sorry, when is the last time you did small business support work ? I did it for 2 years in my life and our clients all had a small rack in which we mounted rack mount servers or if they had a full sized rack, we used shelves to put servers on. Really cleans up the server "room" (aka, the closet).

Average small businesses do tidy up and rack their stuff. It makes for less clutter and people who don't dabble in computers like it when it at least looks clean.

Maybe some don't, but your gross generalization is just out of whack with reality.

Really? I've been in the business since before Novel Netware 3.12 shipped and have actually rarely run into a typical small business that has any rack mount anything. In the support of over 100 small businesses, we have only run into 2 that had any racks and of that we actually converted one of them to a rack system because they had their servers sitting on file cabinets and people, especially the cleaning people, were tripping on the power cords... (Really!)

The reason why small business don't do racks is obvious: COST. A rack mount server costs more, the racks cost more and yes racks *can* reduce clutter but they can cause other issues that are more serious.

Oh, and that second client with a rack had shelves in the rack and non-rackable servers sitting on them. The shelves were constructed in their metal shop. I'm glad that most of your experience has been with racked equipment. I guess it's up to a coin toss to see who lives in the real world.

 

[KnightWRX]

Really? I've been in the business since before Novel Netware 3.12 shipped and have actually rarely run into a typical small business that has any rack mount anything. In the support of over 100 small businesses, we have only run into 2 that had any racks and of that we actually converted one of them to a rack system because they had their servers sitting on file cabinets and people, especially the cleaning people, were tripping on the power cords... (Really!)

I pity your clients then if that is the level of support you offer. We prided ourselves on offering budget sensitive clean installations that were properly, cleanly wired and racked and there was no way "cleaning people" could trip and unplug servers.

The reason why small business don't do racks is obvious: COST. A rack mount server costs more, the racks cost more and yes racks *can* reduce clutter but they can cause other issues that are more serious.

Racks don't cost a lot, especially half height racks. What issues do racks cause ? I'm seriously interested in knowing because about the only issue I've had with racks is not being able to go the lazy route when wiring something and just having to do it properly, not something I'd call an issue.

And again, you can use full height racks and shelves to house normal tower servers cleanly, moreso than sitting on a table somewhere or under a desk, so the rack mount server isn't even an issue (and really, if your clients are balking at 100-200$, maybe they don't even need a server to begin with. Google offers cheap hosted solutions that probably fills all their needs).

I would never want to go back to small business support, but my experience doing it is that small businesses aren't as messy as you make them out to be or maybe it's your consulting firm that is having these mess issues. Not to mention for someone having dabbled in Netware, not knowing Novell was still around is pretty frightening...

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Novell still exists (obviously Pinkwhatshername should have gone to http://www.novell.com). They bought SuSE, not the other way around. They just sold the company to a venture capital firm and sold some patents to Microsoft but they remain around for the foreseeable future.

The story that I got, from what I thought was a reputable source, was that Novell was being basically being carved up and sold for scrap and that once done they wouldn't exist as a standalone company. To me that means that Novell will just exist as a 'ghost company' or like a wholly owned company. A shell.

To be honest, in my opinion, Novell stopped existing to me when they dropped Netware. Reselling someone elses product with some features added in is a heck of a long fall from selling your own NOS that competed rather well with Microsoft.

Whatever...

 

[alent1234]

I run Win2K8R2 in the office because I won't spend the huge cash on Xserve's.

Now if the licensed it for virtualization I'd run it.

And yes they really do need a home server product. Windows Home Server is a fantastic product.

Either come out with a dedicated home server product or let iTunes run as a service on Windows Home Server.

the whole home server market is for geeks who live in the basement and don't pay bills or those with spouses who don't know any better.

no one in their right mind is going to run a server 24x7 at home and pay the bills associated with it. this problem has been solved for most of us through the cloud and crazy big external hard drives

 

[KnightWRX]

To be honest, in my opinion, Novell stopped existing to me when they dropped Netware. Reselling someone elses product with some features added in is a heck of a long fall from selling your own NOS that competed rather well with Microsoft.

Whatever...

Reselling someone else's product ? Which product are you talking about ?

Probably not SuSE Linux since that is theirs (though there's some talk of splitting SuSE out of Novell and either selling it or managing it seperately). Surely you're not speaking of eDirectory ? Nope, all Novell there too. Identity Manager ? Groupwise ? ZENWorks ? Unix licensing ?

Nope, all Novell owned products (even the Unix licensing, since they acquired the copyrights if not the trademark from Bell labs in the 90s). I think you're a little out of touch with what Novell is and is doing. As far as the purchase goes, the venture capital firm Attachmate has said that Novell will continue operations and that's what I mean by foreseeable future. What is their true intention ? Who knows.

the whole home server market is for geeks who live in the basement and don't pay bills or those with spouses who don't know any better.

no one in their right mind is going to run a server 24x7 at home and pay the bills associated with it. this problem has been solved for most of us through the cloud and crazy big external hard drives

Geeks who live in the basement ? Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Costs running a server 24x7 ? I hope you never leave a TV on without watching it if your budget is that tight.

$ uptime
 9:44AM  up 144 days, 14:22, 1 user, load averages: 0.38, 0.27, 0.21

I love my home server, that sits in the basement of my home that I purchased and pay for along with everything required for my GF to live a comfortable live. So much for your crazy assumption. I would never trust the "cloud" for my stuff, not with a 100 GB cap on my monthly Internet connection.

 

[christian_k]

no one in their right mind is going to run a server 24x7 at home and pay the bills associated with it. this problem has been solved for most of us through the cloud and crazy big external hard drives

Depends on the hardware. Of course, the typical "old PC as a server" is a waste of energy. But if the server was based on an ULV X86 or even an ARM processor it could be made very energy efficient. The functionality could even be integrated with the WiFi router into a single device. Most people have a router running 24/7 anyway to have constant access to cloud services.

I think a smart solution can be made to run with less than 10 Watts (only a few $/year), completely silent, small ff and zero administration.

Christian

 

[KnightWRX]

Depends on the hardware. Of course, the typical "old PC as a server" is a waste of energy.

Factor in the cost of buying the new hardware vs the saved energy costs and you'll find that the amortization period is longer than the usable life of the recycled old PC as a server.

 

[pondosinatra]

Never really understood why people were surprised the XServe was axed. Who knew that companies would ever figure out they can get the same hardware for half the price if they go with Dells.

Apparently you've never heard of the acronym CAL

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

the whole home server market is for geeks who live in the basement and don't pay bills or those with spouses who don't know any better.

no one in their right mind is going to run a server 24x7 at home and pay the bills associated with it. this problem has been solved for most of us through the cloud and crazy big external hard drives

Sounds like someone wishes they could afford a home server but instead will make brash generalizations to make themselves feel better.

Come on why would you even make a comment like that. It reminds me of all those hater guitar players online he make fun of guys who shred saying "They probably live in there mothers basements."

 

[context]

I think this is the fundamental issue.

Also doesn't help X-Serve hardware costs 2x as much as a comparable Dell Server.

Probably you should check your numbers.

Apple's enterprise hardware has always been VERY competitive. I can't get a rackmount Dell near the price of an xServe when configured as similarly as possible. By the time you license the software the total cost of the Apple solution is CHEAP! (and heck it even comes with some nice pretty shinnies appeal)

I'm not trying to play fanboy here but I just went shopping three months ago for a server and I couldn't beat the value the xServe represented. I'm going to be sad to see it go.

 

[teasphere]

Apple screwed up majorly by letting Kace go to Dell. That was a perfect acquisition. I think Apple could do a lot in the server space and think they need a department fully devoted to it and funded well. I think the existing server products are weak and should be dropped, but I don't think Apple should drop out entirely.

I would kill for a great Apple-designed VM environment with some great administrative tools and management pieces. Desktop virtualization could be amazing as well from Apple.

 

[clnilsen]

I hope they come out with some product aimed at the home server market. Something to feed our Macbook pros and AppleTVs with all the stuff we want to store but won't fit in a laptop hard drive. They need iTunes server, iPhoto server, etc. And we need to be able to sync our iDevices to the libraries on the server.

This. With MS getting out of the Home Server market, I would jump 1005 into Apple if they came out with a Home server.

 

[MentalFabric]

I have a couple of xserves and a couple of Mac Pro file/dns/OD/ftp/mail servers (and a linux webserver). for a business running about 40 macs and 5 doze machines, there's nothing easier to set up or maintain. Using any other server OS for file/dns/Directory Services would be a massive hassle and cause endless problems.
Macs are so nice and easy to back up too, just keep a clone of the HD around and you're good to go!

Please don't let this one be true!

I'm going to keep hoping they sell someone a licence to make rack-mountable server hardware running OS X... Sounds unlikely but that's the rumour I heard!

At the very least, keep developing the server OS!

 

[iPhoneCollector]

Who even shells out the cash for an Apple server when Linux distros do just a good a job?

exactly linux servers are by far better than any other server os.

 

[kingtj]

Wow.... what lack of knowledge you have ....

Wrong, wrong, and dead wrong....

1. The home server market is booming with people who need a small server that's somewhat mobile. Just last weekend, I was talking to a professional photographer who set up a Windows Home Server box on a small LAN, networked to several notebook computers used by his team, so they could get photos of dogs at a dog show and weekend expo, edit them on the fly, and have a central place to save all of them as they worked. Mind you, this was a location that had no Internet access at all -- so ideas of "just using the cloud" weren't feasible.

2. Plenty of people are SAVING electricity at home by running a small home server appliance! Instead of having one's videos, photos and music scattered all over several computers in the house, you can put them all in one place that's accessible by other electronics devices that use them (newer TV sets with network video streaming capabilities built into them, for example). Then, everyone can shut off their individual PCs when they're done using them and the content is always available anyway.

3. Home servers, properly configured, make a great place to send regular backups if you own more than 1 or 2 computers. Why buy multiple external hard drives and add the clutter of them sitting around, attached to each computer for backup purposes? Just save all of it to a home server instead. These things really don't use the amount of power you seem to think they do. They're not full-blown corporate servers with multiple redundant power supplies and high performance motherboards. They generally don't even have displays attached to them, and they don't draw any more power than a basic desktop computer.

the whole home server market is for geeks who live in the basement and don't pay bills or those with spouses who don't know any better.

no one in their right mind is going to run a server 24x7 at home and pay the bills associated with it. this problem has been solved for most of us through the cloud and crazy big external hard drives

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Racks don't cost a lot, especially half height racks. What issues do racks cause ? I'm seriously interested in knowing because about the only issue I've had with racks is not being able to go the lazy route when wiring something and just having to do it properly, not something I'd call an issue.

Someone who i know who basically is the IT for his department (30 or so people) says his only complaint about his rank servers is when he is doing some test bed ideas on new servers or things he wants to put in which means it will only be in there for a few days is more of a pain on the wiring since it has to be done properly.
That being said he also says he much rather deal with that then the mess of wiring with the rack.
His department I would say is basically a small business in how it runs. One IT guy, running the servers and everything and they go with the rack system. When he started it was kind of a room with towers and a mess and over the years he got them to go to a small rack system.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Apple's enterprise hardware has always been VERY competitive. I can't get a rackmount Dell near the price of an xServe when configured as similarly as possible. By the time you license the software the total cost of the Apple solution is CHEAP! (and heck it even comes with some nice pretty shinnies appeal)

I'm not trying to play fanboy here but I just went shopping three months ago for a server and I couldn't beat the value the xServe represented. I'm going to be sad to see it go.

But so much about this 'IT Business' is about identity.

We have a client that will buy, and wait for the shipment of, a Dell system over an HP with the exact same specs that they can have the next day, for less money...

It's just amazing how much resistance we've gotten from some clients about hardware brands. One, which we dropped, wanted to use only LinkSys equipment back pre-Cisco buyout. Another one that would not use a hardware firewall and adamantly insisted on something like 'Zone Alarm' and people would just click 'OK' and they got attacked. DUH!

Sometimes you just have to wonder...

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Man, if getting a 12-core CPU is neutering, then I want my computer neutered right away!

The 12 core machines could be wonderful. But it is bundled with anemic ram, a slow graphics card which is hamstrung by Apple's implementation of Open GL, and Apple's own "Pro" apps which cannot take advantage of the incredible system they have built.

So yes, they took a big bad beast and neutered it. The simplest way to give a Mac "Pro" its balls back is to run windows on it.