Apple Considering Discontinuing More Server-Focused Products?

[faroZ06]

Reading your posts something is very clear to me. You and/or your group basically hate all things "M$". To say that Windows server is unstable "because it runs on MS DOS" is just plain stupid and really reveals your extreme lack of knowledge. We get it. You hate "M$" which contributes to your environment being so unstable (if that's even true). Any problem must be the fault of "M$". It can't possibly be because of something you're doing wrong. I meet guys like you all of the time and I am alway amazed at their extreme lack of knowledge and arrogance. If your environment is an unstable as you claim then all of you guys need to be fired.

Nice facts. What, MS DOS and NT are stable? You're hypocritical. I don't base my argument on myself hating MS (I pity them) or that things are made by MS (what up with the $ you use?). You base your argument that MS makes good software on your view that I hate MS, and nothing else.

I'm just using the stereotype that MS produces unreliable software which I have developed over the years I have used their products. I used to like MS, but I lost my patience.

Of course, I always check and see if my stereotype still applies.

 

[Full of Win]

Ah. Fair play. Either way, while those machines could certainly afford more in terms of ports, connections, speed, muscle, and whatnot, I really get the feeling that most Pro customers are fine with that. Those that need machines with expansion will go with a 17" MacBook Pro and a Mac Pro, those that don't or already have the aforementioned for expansion will get a 27" iMac or a 15" MacBook Pro. It's not like the Pro apps from Apple, Adobe, Autodesk, or the like don't run fast enough to appease the Pro market.

From my POV, the company is just not focused on the pro market.

For example, I use a app called Cinema 4D (R12/Studio to be specific). This supports OpenGL 3, that increases speed of viewing and the textures I could see while in the app. However, unlike Windows, OpenGL3 is nowhere in OS X. Most, if not all the GPS's Apple uses support it, but Apple is MIA on it.

SSD. I would love to have an SSD in my 17 inch uMBP. But I will not put one in w/o TRIM support at the OS level. Windows has it...why cannot OS X?

Apple has been treading water since 10.5 came out a few years ago.

 

[Speedy2]

The whole thing with "apple abandoning the pro market to focus on more casual users" is getting as old as "pc gaming is dying and people turn to consoles" and the "grandma's pie is dying because now we can buy pie in supermarket" things.

I don't know about Grandma's pie, but both PC-based gaming and Apple's corporate business are dying in the long run unless completely unexpected dramatic shifts occur in the future. They are already rather insignificant compared to the entire market.

 

[faroZ06]

I started to give the same explanation but realized it was really a waste of time with this guy. He clearly exposes his ignorance with comments like "Windows Servers is based on MS-DOS". Sigh.

I realize my error (I have used 98 longer than 2000 or XP). Now realize yours. Have some real reasons other than that I use Wikipedia.

 

[LucidMac]

Do you suggest that NT is more stable than UNIX? You haven't answered yet.

UNIX is more stable than NT. There I said it. UNIX being more stable than NT does not equal NT being unstable. But that really isn't the point. The point is your extreme lack of even the most basic knowledge on this topic. You have totally discredited yourself in this forum based on your ridiculous, simplistic comments. Dude please stop while you're behind!

 

[Speedy2]

Oh, please. If Exchange crashes then it's Exchange's fault. Period. Misconfiguration can cause incorrect or unoptimized behaviour, but crashing? No.

Well, excessive use of limited resources can cause a crash, too. It's also debatable whether a process constantly running at 100% CPU load because of incorrect setting is a crash or not. For the user it most certainly presents itself as one.
The most common causes for actual UAEs are either the use of unsuitable hardware or admins that are not able to figure out which faulty hardware they need to replace.

 

[LucidMac]

Oh, please. If Exchange crashes then it's Exchange's fault. Period. Misconfiguration can cause incorrect or unoptimized behaviour, but crashing? No.

Go back and re-read my statement. I said this type of dribble comes from people who do not know how to configure Exchange properly. Not that mis-configurations cause crashes. Sigh. To these types the term "crash" is used very loosely. They usually have very little experience with the product and a 2 minute discussion is usually enough time to expose them. Again, Exchange is installed in very larger environments all over the world with great results. I've even seen novice admin build and configure Exchange servers, not even based on best practices. Yet it still runs well. This guy just doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[faroZ06]

UNIX is more stable than NT. There I said it. UNIX being more stable than NT does not equal NT being unstable. But that really isn't the point. The point is your extreme lack of even the most basic knowledge on this topic. You have totally discredited yourself in this forum based on your ridiculous, simplistic comments. Dude please stop while you're behind!

Ok, fine, I don't care. Like I said, we were discussing how Mac OS X Server is stable, not how "ignorant" I am of NT.

 

[nitro912gr]

I don't know about Grandma's pie, but both PC-based gaming and Apple's corporate business are dying in the long run unless completely unexpected dramatic shifts occur in the future. They are already rather insignificant compared to the entire market.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/32120/Report_Total_US_Game_Spend_To_Hit_247B_In_2010.php

Do the maths and reconsider this then.

Even if the 30% for pc/mac is lower than the ones on consoles (without counting web browser gaming of any form) we can see that the pc/mac share is growing and the console share is shrinking.

So...

As for the corporate business, they are not the only professionals you know. Actually I didn't said anything about them, I believe apple was never in corporate business, at least as you mean it.
As I said there are other players there and apple never focused in this market, they just made a couple of products to fill the gap between the consumer and the corporate market.

 

[mygoldens]

Now you got it!

Demise of OSX Server would be the demise of OSX. All of our Mac clients are supported by OSX Server on the back end. Say goodbye to all the Macs at our company. It's bad enough they're thinking of dropping the XServe. Who cares how many they're selling? It's not a high volume product. It's a critical piece of support infrastructure. No infrastructure, no Macs. Is anyone at Apple using their brains?

Apple intends on doing away with anything except highly portable devices. That includes Mac Pros and iMacs. There will only be MacBook Airs, iPads, iPods and iPones. The trend is small highly portable devices, it is their bread and butter. Macs were never a real contender in their profit line. All they sell now is with the halo effect and people that want to look cool.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

So it sounds like Apple is totally giving up on the business end of things and putting more of their future in the iPad and iOS.

I think this is a big mistake but not a terminal one.

A friend in the research end of the swamp told me that early versions of both the x-serve and the OS had major issues for them but then they wanted to string hundreds of them together to get compute power enough to move the universe. I personally would love one for competition with my POS Windows server.

Also, could this be why Apple touts the connectivity with Microsoft Exchange so highly over any other connectivity?

Are they seeking to ride Redmond's coat tails for a while?

Um. I wouldn't bet but that Microsoft would tweek Exchange and make it harder to connect...

Apple did it to Palm...

Apple intends on doing away with anything except highly portable devices. That includes Mac Pros and iMacs. There will only be MacBook Airs, iPads, iPods and iPones. The trend is small highly portable devices, it is their bread and butter. Macs were never a real contender in their profit line. All they sell now is with the halo effect and people that want to look cool.

I would argue that point.

People that need the balls and the expandability need the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro moves much in the music, video and research world. The iMac is a workhorse that does a hell of a lot for a hell of a lot of people. BUT...

Is Apple above changing directions and dumping the 'computers' and sticking with iOS devices? No. Is it a good idea? Um. No. Not yet... Too early... But Apple has been 'too early' in a few of its products too, and paid a huge price. Newton for one...

They have the money to last for a while on a bad tangent.

It would be a sad day when the traditional 'Apple Computers' are discontinued.

They would be like an overpriced Logitech or something...

 

[Swift]

Why Apple is completely axing the products is beyond me. The biggest reason why the XServe was seeing poor performance is because IT departments are virtualizing like CRAZY, and Apple requires that if you are going to virtualize their stuff, that it be on their hardware. Not many IT departments are going to lock themselves into XServe-only.

I know Apple likes to sell hardware, but in the case of their server stuff, they really should wise up and sell the OS licenses for Mac OSX Server so IT guys can run it on VMWare ESX.

Actually, this is a rumor so far. I think the mini server (http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_mini?mco=MTQzMDMxODY) is good for a lot of people. Next, they have to either allow the Server to run on generic hardware, or in VM, or they might as well discontinue it; support it for years more, but no more low-profit machines. They're low profit because they're competing in the market that is totally commoditized, and you're ultimately selling against FREE.

Would every Final Cut user be killed by losing Final Cut Server? You can use that end of it cross platform, and IT is full of people who can do that.

 

[macEfan]

As long as they do not get rid of the MacMini server it's fine with me. I've owned a couple of their rack mount servers and I must say they are very noisy. A lot noisier than my dells/ HPs. Rather than hear the roar of an XServe g5 I opted to just use a Rackmounted Quicksilver g4 with marathon handles... So much quieter!

 

[KnightWRX]

UNIX is more stable than NT. There I said it. UNIX being more stable than NT does not equal NT being unstable.

Really ? Which UNIX are you guys even talking about ? OS X ? HP-UX ? Solaris ? The BSD's (which can't legally call themselves Unix) ? Irix ? AIX ?

Which Unix standard level are you comparing ? Unix '95 ? Unix '03 ?

What do you guys even mean by more stable ? Stable ABI ? Stable API ? Able to prop up a table without having it fall over ? Userspace stability ? Kernel stability ?

I'm a Unix sysadmin and I'm not ready to say something as generic as "unix is more stable than NT" because frankly that means nothing at all. The Unix world is much bigger than both of you seem to realize and to just bunch it all together is pretty naive. Not to mention uttering words like "stable" without defining what you mean is pretty empty as far as statements go.

I've had HP-UX and Solaris panic and dump core because of kernel software bugs, not hardware problems. I've had NT boxes do the same. I've had both panic and dump core because of hardware problems. I've recently dealt with an issue with our Linux (which isn't even Unix certified) deployment needing boxes to be rebooted weekly because of a Kernel memory leak.

You both obviously aren't IT admins at all. You can now stop talking about things you have never dealt with.

 

[RMo]

Why use Exchange when you can use IMAP?

You realize Exchange isn't just a mail server, right? We use it at my school and it works nicely: mail, calendar, and presence information (Office Communicator) all in one, along with a Web access interface for two of the three and, of course, integration with the existing AD system.

And I'm certainly not an MS fanboy.

 

[KnightWRX]

You realize Exchange isn't just a mail server, right? We use it at my school and it works nicely: mail, calendar, and presence information (Office Communicator) all in one, along with a Web access interface for two of the three and, of course, integration with the existing AD system.

And I'm certainly not an MS fanboy.

I'm surprised no one has pointed out to him that Exchange supports both POP3 and IMAP and uses SMTP nowadays as its mail transport layer. No need to try to justify it beyond that, it just kills his premise of "why use exchange when you can use IMAP ?".

 

[deadkennedy]

I can't stand OSX server. I also can't stand windows server but prefer it over OSX server.

Ive just had too many unexplainable problems with it. Just sayin'

I totally understand what you're 'sayin''. However there isn't a server in the world that wouldn't give you hard time. These stuff just weren't invented for user friendliness.

 

[dernhelm]

I'd be a little surprised if the mac mini server (2 hard disks, with OS/X server) wasn't selling pretty well. Considering the relatively low cost, and low power consumption I can see lots of small businesses opting for these.

Not to mention "mac mini colo" type solutions.

But then again, who knows - maybe they aren't selling at all.

Myself, I can't see discontinuing OS/X server. Perhaps rolling more of the features from it into OS/X proper, but OS/X server has a lot of terrific features that might be valuable even in a home environment, especially as the number of computer devices per home trends upwards.

If OS/X server contained an iTunes media server (hypothetical product) I'd get a mac-mini with OS/X server on it just to host all the media in my house. That'd be awesome!

 

[FX120]

I realize my error (I have used 98 longer than 2000 or XP). Now realize yours. Have some real reasons other than that I use Wikipedia.

You need to give up on this and walk away. It's painfully obvious to everyone here that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Pro tip: Stability of a server has *very little* to do with what kernel the OS is based on, and *everything* to do with the configuration of the OS and services. Arguing otherwise is only going to further reveal your ignorance.

 

[arkmannj]

Please Apple don't abandon Professionals, and the Enterprise....
I'd think with more Apple inroads to corporate space (iPhone, iPad, being prime examples) that Apple solutions in the Corporate/Enterprise level would only increase.

 

[Riemann Zeta]

Apple is really making a mistake abandoning the professional/business/scientific/technical/developer markets and shifting to all iOS all the time.

 

[KnightWRX]

Please Apple don't abandon Professionals, and the Enterprise....
I'd think with more Apple inroads to corporate space (iPhone, iPad, being prime examples) that Apple solutions in the Corporate/Enterprise level would only increase.

Apple doesn't need OS X server for their iOS stuff, they wrote a Windows port of the iPhone Configuration utility required to manage them remotely. You only require a Mac to roll your own apps.

 

[MacUser4Life77]

What will Apple use for their own server infrastructure?

So my question is..what will Apple use for their own server infrastructure at their data centers, call centers and research facilities? Mac Mini's and Mac Pro's??

I'm sad to see this happen as their are a lot of businesses, school district's and gov't divisions that were looking to switch to Apple products (I know because I've read the backlash responses to this since the news broke last month). Especially since Apple is gaining such a strong foothold in the market as more businesses are implementing both iPad's and iPhone's in the workplace.

Apple should reconsider this strategy to offer businesses a complete Apple solution for their server and workstation needs. Not just focusing on iPhone's and iPad's (as much as I love all of their products). If this division of their company isn't performing well, hire someone who can turn it around to the point where Apple has a strong foothold in the server and SAN market. That way Apple is seen as a serious competitor and not just a niche.

Just my two cents...

user 4 life

 

[LucidMac]

Really ? Which UNIX are you guys even talking about ? OS X ? HP-UX ? Solaris ? The BSD's (which can't legally call themselves Unix) ? Irix ? AIX ?

Which Unix standard level are you comparing ? Unix '95 ? Unix '03 ?

What do you guys even mean by more stable ? Stable ABI ? Stable API ? Able to prop up a table without having it fall over ? Userspace stability ? Kernel stability ?

I'm a Unix sysadmin and I'm not ready to say something as generic as "unix is more stable than NT" because frankly that means nothing at all. The Unix world is much bigger than both of you seem to realize and to just bunch it all together is pretty naive. Not to mention uttering words like "stable" without defining what you mean is pretty empty as far as statements go.

I've had HP-UX and Solaris panic and dump core because of kernel software bugs, not hardware problems. I've had NT boxes do the same. I've had both panic and dump core because of hardware problems. I've recently dealt with an issue with our Linux (which isn't even Unix certified) deployment needing boxes to be rebooted weekly because of a Kernel memory leak.

You both obviously aren't IT admins at all. You can now stop talking about things you have never dealt with.

Dude that is some serious flaming. I'm not going to list credentials or post a resume. The point of agreeing with the general statement of stability was to get to the larger point I was trying to make, which you obviously missed. You really missed the forest for the trees on this one (pun intended). Sometimes the best thing in a debate is to agree on a smaller, insignificant point in order to keep focus on the more important one. In general I agree with most of your post. You had the patience to go into more detail than I was willing to do. See what I did there?

 

[Meep]

Really ? Which UNIX are you guys even talking about ? OS X ? HP-UX ? Solaris ? The BSD's (which can't legally call themselves Unix) ? Irix ? AIX ?

Which Unix standard level are you comparing ? Unix '95 ? Unix '03 ?

What do you guys even mean by more stable ? Stable ABI ? Stable API ? Able to prop up a table without having it fall over ? Userspace stability ? Kernel stability ?

I'm a Unix sysadmin and I'm not ready to say something as generic as "unix is more stable than NT" because frankly that means nothing at all. The Unix world is much bigger than both of you seem to realize and to just bunch it all together is pretty naive. Not to mention uttering words like "stable" without defining what you mean is pretty empty as far as statements go.

I've had HP-UX and Solaris panic and dump core because of kernel software bugs, not hardware problems. I've had NT boxes do the same. I've had both panic and dump core because of hardware problems. I've recently dealt with an issue with our Linux (which isn't even Unix certified) deployment needing boxes to be rebooted weekly because of a Kernel memory leak.

You both obviously aren't IT admins at all. You can now stop talking about things you have never dealt with.

Who needs informed discussions when a blanket "MS are evil and Apple awesome" will suffice?

Anyway I've always wondered what prevents Mac OS X clients using standards/protocols like LDAP, AD, IMAP, POP, Exchange (any other acronym you can think of)etc etc from any type of Windows or 'Nix box for their network services? I thought the whole idea of a standard was to allow for a heterogeneous network design but apparently I missed the point where it said that if you use Windows Clients they must use Windows servers.

I get that you may get some propriety functionality from staying one make but I suppose the needs/requirements depend on the environment in question but do the gains in general from using Mac OS X Server outweigh the losses?

Apologies if my question seems ignorant (what can I say? My job focuses more on layers 1 - 4 of the OSI model) but before we go round playing the "I'm more of an IT Admin than you" game I think it's important to remember IT as well as admin are pretty vague descriptors.......

Meep