Apple Considering Discontinuing More Server-Focused Products?

[Yebubbleman]

You people seriously need to chill the ****** out. They are discontinuing the Xserve because it didn't sell well. There's no way that Apple is going to discontinue Mac OS X Server or any machine capable of running it, at least not in the near future.

They are not leaving you (us) Pro customers out to dry, they've always charged premium for middle-low end hardware, it's just more apparent now that we're on Intel, and even more apparent now that Apple has retained Core 2 Duo on half it's line AND (more importantly) made serious headway with iOS. They're not killing the Mac Pro, they're not killing anything but the freakin' Xserve and they're only killing it because not enough of you bought it.

 

[pubwvj]

Gak. All consumerism, all the time. Sad.

 

[DarthMoops]

If Apple wishes to go this route, no "Apple" enterprise products, they should partner up with Novell or Sun and let them provide the back end for Mac environments.

None the less, keep the Mini & SL Server for the home market.

IMO "cloud computing" is a buzzword, this year's marketing gimmick, I just don't see the corporate world allowing their sensitive data to be housed off site.

 

[KnightWRX]

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

MS is evil. No other company has done so much harm to both the IT business and the computer industry in general. The quality of their products (or lack of it) doesn't even begin to interest me in the slightest. I won't encourage a corporation that did not think competition is good or that interoperability is important in an interconnected systems world. I don't even care to know if they changed or not. They burned that bridge long ago with me.

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.

Exchange is not a protocol/standard. You're thinking MAPI, which is not a standard, it's a proprietary protocol. AD is just a name for a schema and some extensions for a LDAP/Kerberos solution.

That aside, to answer your question : Nothing prevents OS X clients from using services from other Unix vendors/Microsoft. Apple integrates them with better management tools, but so do other vendors.

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.

But the point is agreeing with the general statement was wrong and doesn't help this fellow realize that he doesn't even understand what he is even talking about. UNIX is many things. Stability is many things. Without defining anything, you can't come to the consensus that any of those have more than NT.

Look at it another way, you failed to properly articulate your point and by agreeing with a vague statement that might or might not be true once properly framed, you hurt your own credibility in the matter. The proper response is probably to just ignore that poster though.

 

[KnightWRX]

double.

 

[lilo777]

Once Apple drops their server products they will become... Sony (without TVs)

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

Kill the hardware not the software for the server side of the house.

All things aside, if you look at the MacMini went to some length to make it OS X Server capable for home users. Sure its not pro, however also replaced it with a capable MacPro server model.

The Rack units made no sense, since its competing with other rack units from HP, Sun, etc... I believe it would be better to change the licensing terms to allow it to be used in a VM environment. Less R&D dollars to invest into the server hardware unit.

 

[Full of Win]

MS is evil. No other company has done so much harm to both the IT business and the computer industry in general. The quality of their products (or lack of it) doesn't even begin to interest me in the slightest. I won't encourage a corporation that did not think competition is good or that interoperability is important in an interconnected systems world. I don't even care to know if they changed or not. They burned that bridge long ago with me.

I'm not fan of Microsoft, but that is a little strong. Hats off to Microsoft, while they are not as good as OS X in my opinion, there is no denying their flexibility. Apple could learn a thing or two from them.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

They are not leaving you (us) Pro customers out to dry,

We'll always have the iMac, right? And the promise of the almighty light peak?

They're not killing the Mac Pro,

Nah, they just neutered it and chained it outside to let it slowly die of starvation.

they're not killing anything but the freakin' Xserve and they're only killing it because not enough of you bought it.

Oh, so at the top it's "us," but now it's not you?

 

[backdraft]

Ease of administration with a point and click GUI, Mac OS X only server apps like Final Cut Server, PodCast producer etc...

Now if Apple were to release Final Cut Server as open source or sell it off to theFoundry then it wouldn't be so bad. Of course I wouldn't be running Linux! I'd be using FreeBSD!

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

 

[deannnnn]

What a terrible, terrible day for Apple news.

Martin Luther King would not approve.

 

[backdraft]

Well Darwin Streaming Server runs great on FreeBSD. I would love to get my hands on Final Cut Server. Though honestly I could see TheFoundry taking over development of Final Cut Server.

I hope they give the Apple specific services to the Open Source Community. Im thinking of iChat Server, Podcast Producer 2 and so on. If any distro could run this, there would be no need for OS X Server.

 

[headfuzz]

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.

Furthermore, the pain of trying to clean a compromised *nix server is something I can't go into here without setting off the censor.

 

[MisterK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Two of Apple's strengths are industrial design and marketing. These two are pretty much wasted on the enterprise market as they are mainly concerned with price and performance. They already don't worry about ease of managing because they have tech guys who take care of these things. I can see Apple continuing iMacs (and them being great computers) because they sit out and can cover almost all of Apple's customers. I would imagine Apple's board is making a rule that they have to stay with their strengths of industrial design, marketing, consumer hardware, and consumer software.

Prosumer machines can now support some pretty serious power that it covers most of us in the professional market also.

I can run After Effects, Maya, and Photoshop pretty well on my Core i7 iMac with and SSD harddrive. Looks nice hooked up to a 30" display too.

 

[alexbates]

I'd say its extremely likely that Apple will eventually discontinue Mac OS X Server. It could be at the time Lion is released, or maybe the following release of Mac OS.

I have all the proof I need to believe it: Steve Jobs. When the Xserve was released at WWDC 2002, Steve said, "So, what do they want to see in a server? Well, the first thing they want from Apple is a dedicated server platform. They don't want to use a PowerMac G4 as a server. They want a dedicated server platform. They want it to be rack mounted. It's the most efficient way to do it. That's how they do it now, and they want to see it from Apple."

That just about says it. The Mac Mini and Mac Pro are not servers. Very few people will buy them to use as servers, because Linux servers are much cheaper, usually are much faster, and do the job just as well as a Mac OS X server. The security and reliability of Linux is no worse than Mac OS because they are both based on Unix. Apple has always been best at making a great UI's, and servers don't really need a great UI to do their job well. You install a server, setup the software, and let it sit for months in one place without needing to hook it up to a monitor (other than the occasional software update or repair). I think Apple has realized this, and is trying to shift their focus to mobile operating systems that ordinary people use and enjoy throughout each and every day.

 

[jb60606]

nm

 

[the vj]

I use Final Cut Studio and is a mediocre system.

Aple just took a bunch of third party applications and put them "as one" mess. No key commands are alike, there is not such compatibility and DVD Studio Pro can not run iDVD files any more, Logic has nothing to do with Soundtrack and the compatibility between Soundtrack and Final Cut Pro is lame.

Not to mention that Final Cut Pro can't still running different file formats in the same sequence, something Adobe used to do just fine with Premiere back when my beige 233Ghz G3 was new.

Still, if Apple discontinue the pro applications I myself will burn down the closest Apple store to my place.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

If Apple wishes to go this route, no "Apple" enterprise products, they should partner up with Novell or Sun and let them provide the back end for Mac environments.

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...

 

[Yebubbleman]

We'll always have the iMac, right? And the promise of the almighty light peak?

The iMac ain't goin anywhere and Lightpeak isn't even ready for release yet, cool yer jets.

Nah, they just neutered it and chained it outside to let it slowly die of starvation.

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

Oh, so at the top it's "us," but now it's not you?

I'm not an Xserve customer and the Xserve isn't a "Pro" product, it's a server product. If I want a Mac OS X Server based server, I'll build a Hackintosh; way more powerful for the cost.

 

[BrotherBeagle]

Big mistake. I teach at a high school, my lab is all Mac. All of our student accounts are network accounts on the Xserve using LDAP. I also use it as a Netboot to image my entire lab. I have had countless students beg their parents to buy them a Mac after using them in my class. If the server goes away, my Mac lab goes away. If I can't manage the student accounts/clients it is of no use. It also means my video production class moves from Final Cut. Apple loses customers. STUPID, short term thinking. Where is the famous Apple vision?

You've got a few years. Open Directory is three tiered beast: Kerberos, Password and Apple's implementation of vanilla OpenLDAP. If you're authenticating against AD, you're probably not dealing with the first two services anyhow.

You can migrate to straight OpenLDAP on a *nix box (BSD or Linux works fine). Netbooting also works (I've been testing against OpenBSD and while you don't get Apple's nice front end, you can make it work). Finally, you can manage SUS off OS X Server as well.

For what it's worth, I'm far from saying -- Don't worry. I'm also in K12 and have spent the past two years bringing our program from 1:1 firewire image deployment with CCC to fully centralized netbooting and imaging across a 30+ location WAN; I feel your pain.

I just wanted to chime in to say that there are some options -- as long as there are Macs to actually deploy to. I go back and forth, for the most part, though -- I just have a feeling we're going to have more integration with Active Directory in future releases. I'm really not sure what Apple's long range plan is concerning NB and SUS though (I'm still laying early bets on OS X Server plugins for Windows 2kX)...

 

[4nNtt]

OSX Server is a brilliant platform -- it would be such a shame to lose it. I can see scaling down dedicated hardware, but I don't think it makes as much sense to discontinue the software side of things, as that is scaleable to the rest of the OS, and fairly profitable.

If they did this, they would probably work with third parties to make the standard version of OS X capable of being a server product. There is actually very little difference between client and server. The main feature is an easy to configure LDAP/Kerberos service.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

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

No it's not.

Only the backend services market is the market you are crying wolf about that Apple is abandoning.

Professional, Business, Scientific, Technical, Education, and Developer markets are on iMac/Macbook series/, Mac Pro, Mac mini with their targets being that hardware, plus the iOS Platform systems.

The entire hardware line by Apple continues to expand, except the XServe line.

I wouldn't expect any new information about the direction of OS X Server until after the next revision of the iPad is out the door.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

I'd say its extremely likely that Apple will eventually discontinue Mac OS X Server. It could be at the time Lion is released, or maybe the following release of Mac OS.

I have all the proof I need to believe it: Steve Jobs. When the Xserve was released at WWDC 2002, Steve said, "So, what do they want to see in a server? Well, the first thing they want from Apple is a dedicated server platform. They don't want to use a PowerMac G4 as a server. They want a dedicated server platform. They want it to be rack mounted. It's the most efficient way to do it. That's how they do it now, and they want to see it from Apple."

That just about says it. The Mac Mini and Mac Pro are not servers. Very few people will buy them to use as servers, because Linux servers are much cheaper, usually are much faster, and do the job just as well as a Mac OS X server. The security and reliability of Linux is no worse than Mac OS because they are both based on Unix. Apple has always been best at making a great UI's, and servers don't really need a great UI to do their job well. You install a server, setup the software, and let it sit for months in one place without needing to hook it up to a monitor (other than the occasional software update or repair). I think Apple has realized this, and is trying to shift their focus to mobile operating systems that ordinary people use and enjoy throughout each and every day.

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...

Now that I think about the discontinuation of the X-Server, I see the logic. There are two many hardware vendors out there that make servers and heck, at NewEgg, you can probably buy the parts to make your own server pretty cheap.

Plus people are probably right in that there are two big players now left in the server OS market: Windows and *nix (and all the variants). Sure OS X server was a great idea but it was a little late in the market. Sure people bought them but I'm sure that Apple isn't cutting off their face by killing the X-Serve hardware. I'm sure a lot of people just wanted their command line and not to worry about compatibility and having to fight the OS to get things to work.

The X-Serve was a product aimed at a segment of the market that wanted either four, three, or two letters on their servers and the five letter name just wasn't going to make it... (Dell. Sun/IBM, HP)

I guess that even Apple is feeling the bad economy...

 

[Yebubbleman]

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...

Now that I think about the discontinuation of the X-Server, I see the logic. There are two many hardware vendors out there that make servers and heck, at NewEgg, you can probably buy the parts to make your own server pretty cheap.

Plus people are probably right in that there are two big players now left in the server OS market: Windows and *nix (and all the variants). Sure OS X server was a great idea but it was a little late in the market. Sure people bought them but I'm sure that Apple isn't cutting off their face by killing the X-Serve hardware. I'm sure a lot of people just wanted their command line and not to worry about compatibility and having to fight the OS to get things to work.

The X-Serve was a product aimed at a segment of the market that wanted either four, three, or two letters on their servers and the five letter name just wasn't going to make it... (Dell. Sun/IBM, HP)

I guess that even Apple is feeling the bad economy...

Mac OS X Server also doesn't strike me as being as much of a server OS as the higher-end Windows Server packages or Linux. Hell, there are still standards on those two platforms that OS X Server fails to utilize. It seems great if you have 80 people, a website, or both, but I get the feeling it lacks when you have anywhere from more to way the hell more than that. And it is those places that are in need of something like the Xserve. Then again, I could be wrong. I've only been to a single Apple-held seminar on OS X Server 10.6, so what do I know?

It's definitely true though that the Xserve is more than you could be paying for elsewhere; again, a casualty of the move to Intel as a PowerPC rack-mounted Server (which couldn't really be compared to an Intel rack-mounted server) running OS X Server seemed to have more of a reason to exist than a comparatively overpriced Intel Xserve running OS X Server. Though at that point, you could then go back and cite that Apple hasn't spent anywhere near as much effort marketing OS X Server to server customers as it has OS X Client to everyone else, not that anyone can blame them, but still.

No it's not.

Only the backend services market is the market you are crying wolf about that Apple is abandoning.

Professional, Business, Scientific, Technical, Education, and Developer markets are on iMac/Macbook series/, Mac Pro, Mac mini with their targets being that hardware, plus the iOS Platform systems.

The entire hardware line by Apple continues to expand, except the XServe line.

I wouldn't expect any new information about the direction of OS X Server until after the next revision of the iPad is out the door.

+1

 

[AidenShaw]

Also on Wikipedia, it implies that NT is based off of MS-DOS.

When are you going to give up this argument that NT is based on MS-DOS.

It's so completely wrong it's funny.