IBM AltiVec

[Faeylyn]

Re: Re: great new thread idea

Originally posted by ktlx

But to me, a high end server is an enterprise-class server that is going to run a database (i.e. Oracle or DB/2), application server (i.e. BEA, PeopleSoft or SAP) or large e-mail or file server. Apple has no experience here and Mac OS X is woefully inadequate compared to Solaris, HP-UX, AIX and Linux. And Linux is only on that list, in my opinion, thanks to the huge investment by IBM.

It will very difficult for Apple to get much traction in the large server market as Sun, Hewlett-Packard and IBM own 90% of the UNIX server market. All of them have far more experience than Apple at building large servers. My guess is that as Linux matures and Intel improves their server CPU designs, Dell will capture the remaining market share leaving only crumbs for Apple or any other company.

Again, I'm not talking about a high-end server, but a high-end Mac server. Macs don't compete in the areas you mention above. There's no reason for Apple to enter that market because there's already enough competition there that Apple would find it difficult to impossible to differentiate their offerings.

Instead, you try to marry IBM's existing knowledge about how to build a decent high-end server with Apple's OSX for a higher-end Mac server than Apple can produce. Apple would have to be involved in the design because it's a Mac server, not just another server.

Initially, this would be for people who already want Mac servers but find the XServe more than lacking. How big is that market? Or, a better question, how big is that market likely to be two years from now?

 

[ktlx]

Re: Re: Re: great new thread idea

Originally posted by Faeylyn


Again, I'm not talking about a high-end server, but a high-end Mac server. Macs don't compete in the areas you mention above. There's no reason for Apple to enter that market because there's already enough competition there that Apple would find it difficult to impossible to differentiate their offerings.

Instead, you try to marry IBM's existing knowledge about how to build a decent high-end server with Apple's OSX for a higher-end Mac server than Apple can produce. Apple would have to be involved in the design because it's a Mac server, not just another server.

Initially, this would be for people who already want Mac servers but find the XServe more than lacking. How big is that market? Or, a better question, how big is that market likely to be two years from now?

Okay, but you still have not answered the question why would IBM want to be involved beyond building the CPUs for this thing. So we have this high end server running Mac OS X server, not targeted toward the cash-cow enterprise market, but some other market such as render farms, compute servers, etc.

If I am IBM what reason is there for me to be involved beyond wanting Apple to use my Power4-lite (or other PPC) processors? What reason is there to believe the market of buyers who must have Mac OS X, as opposed to Linux, is worth messing with for IBM? Why would many people even want a high-end server based on a 32-bit operating system that is not Microsoft Windows?

I am sure there is a market for a server with more muscle than the Xserve running Mac OS X server. My contention is that the size of the market looking for an Apple designed and IBM marketed high end server, is too small for IBM to even mess with. That is assuming Apple could even design and get working a four, eight or more CPU server using Mac OS X. Xserve is more an effort in industrial design than anything else (they already had dual processor systems).

 

[Faeylyn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: great new thread idea

Originally posted by ktlx

Okay, but you still have not answered the question why would IBM want to be involved beyond building the CPUs for this thing. So we have this high end server running Mac OS X server, not targeted toward the cash-cow enterprise market, but some other market such as render farms, compute servers, etc.

If I am IBM what reason is there for me to be involved beyond wanting Apple to use my Power4-lite (or other PPC) processors? What reason is there to believe the market of buyers who must have Mac OS X, as opposed to Linux, is worth messing with for IBM? Why would many people even want a high-end server based on a 32-bit operating system that is not Microsoft Windows?

I am sure there is a market for a server with more muscle than the Xserve running Mac OS X server. My contention is that the size of the market looking for an Apple designed and IBM marketed high end server, is too small for IBM to even mess with. That is assuming Apple could even design and get working a four, eight or more CPU server using Mac OS X. Xserve is more an effort in industrial design than anything else (they already had dual processor systems).

Why would IBM want to be involved? The same reason they want to be involved in anything they do. Money. They could gouge high-end customers in the same way they currently do with their other mid to high-end servers. And then make several times that again on the support fees. I don't have IBM's sales figures, but they certainly don't need to sell a huge number of units of higher-end servers.

As for it being a 32-bit OS, my bet is that will change sometime in 2003.

Thinking longer term, the more Apple boxes (with IBM chips) that sell, whether they be desktop or server, or IBM-built server, the better for IBM. How much money does IBM get when someone buys a Dell or Gateway or Compaq or HP or Sun? Unless they're using a couple IBM components, the answer is zero to none. If supporting Apple on the high-end helps drive the low-end, that's good for IBM twice (gouge the high-end customers, make a few bucks on the chips used for the low-end customers). If putting IBM's name on a Mac OSX box helps gets Macs in the doors of more businesses, schools, etc., that's nothing but good news for IBM. Even if it just adds a little respectability to Mac OSX, it still is a win for IBM.

But mostly it's because I want them to.

 

[Faeylyn]

This is similar, in a way, to Intel's advertising. Intel wants to encourage people to use systems with Intel processors because they don't make money on systems with AMD, PowerPC, or anything non-Intel. I've always wondered why IBM and Motorola didn't do more to help push their processors to the public.

IBM should want to do whatever it can to encourage people to buy Macs. When people buy Macs, IBM makes money. Just selling the CPU to Apple with a, "thank you, come again" isn't very good business sense.

So if Apple needs a boost to get into corporations, IBM should help. If putting Mac OSX on an IBM branded server would help Apple get their foot in the door in other ways, it would be a win for both companies.

 

[Cappy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: great new thread idea

Originally posted by ktlx


You are talking could and I am talking should. Sure it is possible for IBM to contract out to Apple to build software, hardware or whatever for the server market and try to sell it. But the question is why? What reason would IBM have to believe that Apple could develop any product targetted toward the enterprise server market that would be more attractive than something IBM developed itself?

Manageability, reliability, security. Again I'm not saying this could happen tomorrow but Apple has a better base to build off of than even Linux. Let us not forget costs which is where Linux makes inroads. Mac OS X Server would admittedly cost more than Linux but should still come in cheaper than a MS solution while still offerring better features over Linux.

Originally posted by ktlx
The problem with the catch up argument, in my opinion, is one of R&D dollars. The server portion of Apple's business, let alone any potential high end server business, would be so small in comparison to the existing players, they will simply be out spent. Before we even talk about things like journaling file systems we need to find out if Mac OS X will even work with more than two processors. It should, but others had problems taking SMP beyond two processors before. Until there is a quad or eight processor Mac OS X server out there running just fine, we will never know for sure.

I agree with this one. SMP beyond two processors is sorely needed. Journaling too would be a great benefit but I don't see that as being a big decision maker as the SMP. It would certainly help and by the time some of this came to fruition, I wouldn't be surprised to see a journaling file system.

At any rate you are preaching the idea of it likely not happening to the choir. We all know that Apple has no experience in this arena. My point that brought it up was that I felt that if they focused on bringing a more solid product to address that market, IBM would be the one that could put Apple on the map in a business environment. No one else can do this in my opinion.