Steve Jobs: Xserve Axed Over Poor Sales

[HyperZboy]

Other than a small collection of repetitiously vocal loudmouths, no one is clamoring for this.

And such a machine would be an even worse server than their current (meager) server offerings.

Explain how such a product could possibly be worse than the non-upgradable Mac Mini.

Explain how such a product wouldn't sell more than an Xserve.

Explain how such a product wouldn't have both consumer and server appeal.

You basically shot down the idea in loudmouth fashion yourself.

It never ceases to amaze me how everyone on this site accepts Jobs every excuse like Mana from Heaven!

 

[wildmac]

Can you talk about a time when you've seen an analogous scenario play out in real life?

My experience is that the type of organization that has these archetypal "dictator" IT departments has perfectly matching management, for reasons that should be obvious. So in this scenario the exec would either say "too ********** bad, you're doing it anyway"... or, (s)he never would have suggested it in the first place.

I'm not saying you're totally wrong, the "enterprise" encompasses millions of people and situations so it clearly will happen somewhere, at some time. I'm just wondering how often you've actually *seen* it happen, as then we could extrapolate whether it might be common enough for Apple to care--clearly, they don't agree.

I've seen it happen. But it's not a dictator, its a gaggle of entrenched IT middle-management who are 5 years or more behind in the technology, and they keep things running well enough that they don't get fired, but slow down progress. That gaggle loves to point to things like this to trash a vendor that is new and scary to them.

 

[notjustjay]

Can you talk about a time when you've seen an analogous scenario play out in real life?

I'm not saying you're totally wrong, the "enterprise" encompasses millions of people and situations so it clearly will happen somewhere, at some time. I'm just wondering how often you've actually *seen* it happen, as then we could extrapolate whether it might be common enough for Apple to care--clearly, they don't agree.

I admit that I can't think of a particular example off the top of my head. I was just addressing your reply to the poster who made the suggestion in the first place. Your response suggested that the idea of a link between the two was totally out to lunch. I'm just saying it's possible. Perhaps rare, perhaps nonexistent, but possible.

There certainly are plenty of every day scenarios where people won't buy a particular brand or shop a particular store or eat at a particular restaurant because too many of their friends have had bad experiences. If you got sick after eating the fish and the restaurant didn't seem to care, I'm going to be wary of eating there even if I was planning on having the steak instead.

 

[Kenrik]

What would you buy if you were going to buy a server? A xserver or a dl360? OS X server gui is nice but unnecessary for any competent sys admin so the only real market is small mac based companies and most of them have the space for a mac pro.

Exactly! any Unix system will work just as well as the Xserve, it's just that it has a nice GUI. For the most part it's smaller design studios and printers (10 to 100 designers) that were using the Xserves. If you're only serving 10 - 100 designers than using a MacPro in a rack or under a desk is an option.

In my studio we have an Xserve that is just sitting on a table because it's to deep for our rack. It could just as well be a Mac Pro sitting on that table..

Anyway we went with a Linux server for our new system. I built it Hackintosh compatible just in case we want to install OSX Server on it at some future point as we already own the license due to the Xserve that's going to be retired.

I expect the next version of the Mac Pro Case will have a rack friendly design that takes 3 - 4U of space mounted horizontally with hot swap front drives and an option for dual PSUs in server config.

Why would you use Xserves in a datacenter? I really don't see the point.

 

[BrotherBeagle]

I have one Xserve running the following:

1 OSX Server - JSS
1 OSX Server - AFP Distribution Point
1 OSX Server - SMB Distribution Point
1 OSX Server - SUS
1 OSX Server - Netboot

Why did we choose this route? Zero Downtime and the ability to scale based on traffic.

My last company had 2500 Xserves. The guys I talked to that still work at that location have told me that they just spent 10 million dollars in upgrades 2 months ago.

Out of curiosity, how many clients are you managing on that slab and what are the specs? Also, how are you handling directory services (triangle, modified AD schema, third party)?

Finally, are you on the Casper mailing lists today? If so, we're might be already having this discussion over there...

 

[German]

Explain how such a product wouldn't sell more than an Xserve.

cmaier is absolutely right.

Your "Mac" would be nice for many things but not as a replacement for the Xserve.
Does your Mac has ECC-Ram? Does your Mac has a Server-CPU?
If yes? It is the Mac Pro.
If not? It is even inferior for server purpose.

ECC-Ram and Server-CPU + Server-Board are the things that make a mac pro expensive (but are overkill for desktop usage).

 

[mabaker]

Was wondering this as well

They’re using IBM/Solaris ones.

 

[Bubba Satori]

The Mac Pro will get the axe next.

 

[alent1234]

I've never seen a data center that was a monoculture. I'm sure they exist, but it seems like a really bad idea for everyone but the executive who's getting the kickbacks. Ask Sun customers how they feel about it right now, especially since Oracle has now dumped all of the vendors and moved to direct sales. It's a living nightmare that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Edit to clarify: subsections of a datacenter are usually monocultural for exactly the reasons you state, but I haven't seen one of any size that shoehorns a single vendor into handling every aspect of the business' software needs. Some tools are for some things, others... are for others. It depends a lot on how commodified your software needs are, obviously, and the management culture. I've seen places invest millions in switching mail over to expensive Exchange installations because they were revving up AD for client administration. This is clearly silly from a business as well as a tech perspective, as any theoretical "savings" from being all-MS instead of some-MS-some-*nix will not begin to compare to either the transition or recurring costs, but it's one of those things that people do because someone told them in business school that it's "enterprise".

except that HP/dell/ibm will run ^nix on their cheapo x86 servers. HP PRoliants are certified for linux and solaris

 

[longofest]

For the price of one low-end Xserve, you could afford three Mac mini servers, and you would save space while doing so.

Sigh... an XServe != Mac Mini in any way, shape, or form. Businesses/Enterprises that need servers like the XServe need first and foremost hot-replaceable parts (CPUs, fans, drives, power supply). The Mac Pro and Mac Mini both do not get you anywhere close except for maybe the drive category, where you could connect a RAID enclosure (or internal raid array for Mac Pro).

The one way Apple can salvage this is to license virtualized copies of Mac OSX Server. Not likely to happen tho.

 

[coleridge78]

I've seen it happen. But it's not a dictator, its a gaggle of entrenched IT middle-management who are 5 years or more behind in the technology, and they keep things running well enough that they don't get fired, but slow down progress. That gaggle loves to point to things like this to trash a vendor that is new and scary to them.

Yeah, that's all too common. I'm just wondering if the particular affect suggested happens very often. That is, the difference between shuffling around the ever-changing list of excuses vs. making an actual difference in outcome.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Out of curiosity, how many clients are you managing on that slab and what are the specs? Also, how are you handling directory services (triangle, modified AD schema, third party)?

Finally, are you on the Casper mailing lists today? If so, we're might be already having this discussion over there...

250 on the current XServe. We did a POC with 3 Mac Minis and 150 clients and the Mac Mini's were just dying. We run Centrify, ExtremeZIP, Casper. Our Goal is to get all 1500 clients on this Xserve and slowly consolidating services since we are still doing a limited pilot. Either way we want the Distribution Server and JSS Segregated.

 

[cmaier]

Explain how such a product could possibly be worse than the non-upgradable Mac Mini.

Explain how such a product wouldn't sell more than an Xserve.

Explain how such a product wouldn't have both consumer and server appeal.

You basically shot down the idea in loudmouth fashion yourself.

It never ceases to amaze me how everyone on this site accepts Jobs every excuse like Mana from Heaven!

Such a product has absolutely no lure to any enterprise looking to buy servers. First, it has no checkbox server features (lights off management, redundant power supplies, easy drive access, redundant ethernet connections, etc.) If an enterprise is such that it can get away without all that stuff, it has two options - cheap minis it can install in racks and get machine-level redundancy, or expensive but more expandable and reparable pros (which it can also put in racks, but which are 12u vertical).

To get to that point, you're already a niche on top of a niche (first niche: enterprises that need mac servers. second niche: the small percentage of those that can get away with or justify servers that aren't really servers.) Now you are proposing there is a market for a niche on top of a niche on top of a niche: enterprises that need mac servers, that can get away with non-server servers, and which would prefer a box neither small enough to practically rack nor large enough to make on-the-fly repairs reasonably cheap and easy.

As for why such a box has no server appeal, take a look around - the entire desktop segment is shrinking rapidly. If people are chaining themselves to a desktop it's increasingly because they need/crave maximum horsepower, expandability, and future-proofing. They get that (to the extent apple is willing to give it to them) from the MPs.

The vast majority of the consumer market who are still buying desktops have no actual interest in opening up a box and tinkering, and for them iMacs are just fine.

 

[ChrisA]

Theywere really a silly product. The whole point of Mac OS X is the desktop and user interface. Servers typically run headless in a dark room. Who the heck cares about user interface on a machine run with no monitor attached in t adark room? If you put UNIX/Linux on generic PC server then you get a better server at a lower price. If you look at the server software Aple provided it's allfree open source. You can get it yourself from the same place Apple gets it.

And then where is Apple's service? Can you even buy an on-site service contract where Apple agrees to have a tech at your place in 30 minutes or an hour?

Applejust was not trying to get into the server market. They don't have the right OS and Apple can't provide the level of service users need.

 

[DTphonehome]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A306 Safari/6531.22.7)

Agreed. If it is not selling well, then it is time to focus elsewhere.

Even if the xserve as a line item on some accountant's spreadsheet that isn't selling well, it's main purpose is primarily to support large workgroups of other Macs (although there are other uses as well).

So by discontinuing the Xserve, you risk losing large purchases of other Macs that companies used the Xserve to support.

So Job's usual flippant answer 'they weren't selling well' is either a poorly thought out reason, or there's more this this decision that he isn't telling.

I'm hoping it's the later and the Unisys deal will have some real solution down the road.

If not, it's another nail in the Macs coffin as a tool by Pros.

You know that you don't "need" an Xserve (or even Mac os x server) to support macs, right? Linux/unix does it just fine.

 

[parapup]

Yes, but I'm going to call that a strawman. Nobody is saying that for that particular use case a redundant power supply was unnecessary. The frame of the debate was:

"Hot-swappable drives and redundant power are always an absolute necessity if you care about your business."

and this is simply too broad a statement to be true. It is true of SOME PARTICULAR ELEMENTS of a business, but not as a generality. Clear?

Yes they are an absolute necessity for anyone who cares about their data and all businesses do. It's just that some are not wise enough and take the risks. There may be PARTICULAR ELEMENTS of a business that opt out of redundancy but they are more of an exception than norm.

So the "don't need redundancy for this mom and pop shop" case is a straw man really. That's a PARTICULAR ELEMENT. Not the general enterprise.

 

[Ed91]

I know this is just wishful thinking, but the Mac Pro hasn't had an external redesign since its introduction, and it's truly a monster of a computer in terms of size. I'm not an expert on this by any means, but I'm certain that Apple could could fit the components into a much smaller, more elegant case without compromising ease of access if they really wanted to

I'm dreaming that some time early next year Apple will redesign the Mac Pro into a sleeker machine somewhere between rack mount server and power user desktop, enabling users to configure the machine the way that best suits their needs.

To me it doesn't make sense for Apple to completely cut a product in a strategically significant market without so much as trying to make it competitive. They let the Apple TV live on as a hobby, but cut the xServe due to lack of sales? Something about that doesn't seem to sit well. Yes, I know one is enterprise focussed and the other is consumer, but with macs starting to sneak into corporate, I think they could sell more if they weren't charging $3000 for a product that hasn't been updated in 19 months.

But alas, all I know for sure is that I don't know anything like the whole story here.

 

[KnightWRX]

Theywere really a silly product. The whole point of Mac OS X is the desktop and user interface. Servers typically run headless in a dark room. Who the heck cares about user interface on a machine run with no monitor attached in t adark room? If you put UNIX/Linux on generic PC server then you get a better server at a lower price. If you look at the server software Aple provided it's allfree open source. You can get it yourself from the same place Apple gets it.

Really ? Care to share a link to all the client management tools and final cut server ?

Some of the software parts of OS X Server are Apple exclusives and not just repackaged open source.

 

[longofest]

I've never seen a data center that was a monoculture. I'm sure they exist, but it seems like a really bad idea for everyone but the executive who's getting the kickbacks. Ask Sun customers how they feel about it right now, especially since Oracle has now dumped all of the vendors and moved to direct sales. It's a living nightmare that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Edit to clarify: subsections of a datacenter are usually monocultural for exactly the reasons you state, but I haven't seen one of any size that shoehorns a single vendor into handling every aspect of the business' software needs. Some tools are for some things, others... are for others. It depends a lot on how commodified your software needs are, obviously, and the management culture. I've seen places invest millions in switching mail over to expensive Exchange installations because they were revving up AD for client administration. This is clearly silly from a business as well as a tech perspective, as any theoretical "savings" from being all-MS instead of some-MS-some-*nix will not begin to compare to either the transition or recurring costs, but it's one of those things that people do because someone told them in business school that it's "enterprise".

Our datacenter is pure Dell (I should say my dayjob, not MR). We don't necessarily use all Dell software, but we use all Dell hardware to save on the hardware support contracts, etc

 

[coleridge78]

Yes they are an absolute necessity for anyone who cares about their data and all businesses do. It's just that some are not wise enough and take the risks. There may be PARTICULAR ELEMENTS of a business that opt out of redundancy but they are more of an exception than norm.

So the "don't need redundancy for this mom and pop shop" case is a straw man really. That's a PARTICULAR ELEMENT. Not the general enterprise.

You're taking that out of context, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and just assume you hadn't been following the earlier part of the exchange. As I said to the person that I was talking to: there are different ways to achieve "redundancy" that make sense for different situations. The idea that the only way, or the only right way, to achieve the desired goal (uptime and integrity) is to run every last service on a matching army of multi-everything rack units is clearly wrong, because it's overly broad.

The entire blade ecosystem wouldn't exist if the claimed route were the only sensible one.

ETA another example: hot-swappable drives are largely irrelevant when local storage is only used for system and tmp, which is increasingly true for large swaths of DC usage.

 

[mytdave]

not seeing it

What a lot of folks aren't seeing here is the reason they weren't selling. Apple foolishly dropped the XServe RAID array, and then they didn't update the XServe for years, and relegated the line to nary a comment on the Apple Store. It's a self-fulfilling demise.

And that's the problem. What Apple/Steve and lots of folks here are failing to see is the whole ecosystem falls apart without an end-to-end solution. The XServe and MacOS X Server are critical to supporting Macs (desktop or laptop) in any business - enterprise or SMB. In turn the Macs are critical to supporting iDevices in business.

Sales numbers are not important, what is important is keeping an up-to-date end-to-end solution for your customers. I fear that the entire ecosystem will begin to collapse with the demise of the XServe. Seem silly? Mark my words. This move sends a message to business owners that Apple cannot be trusted for long term viability. If they can't be trusted with a server platform, why should they be trusted with iPads?

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Our datacenter is pure Dell (I should say my dayjob, not MR). We don't necessarily use all Dell software, but we use all Dell hardware to save on the hardware support contracts, etc

We are all HP except our Apple Servers. Almost every place I have worked for has been brand exclusive due to EA and Warranty Agreements.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Yes, but I'm going to call that a strawman. Nobody is saying that for that particular use case a redundant power supply was unnecessary. The frame of the debate was:

"Hot-swappable drives and redundant power are always an absolute necessity if you care about your business."

and this is simply too broad a statement to be true. It is true of SOME PARTICULAR ELEMENTS of a business, but not as a generality. Clear?

And don't get me started on Sun and power supplies. Or fans. Ugh.

You have to be a pretty small shop to not care about hot swapping your drives and can afford for the server to be down a day or 2 while work is being done.
But as soon as you need to keep the server running over night you need hot swap and redundant . Reason I put that is if you are going to leave it up over night it needs to be able to keep running in case something goes bad and the hot swap is over night means during the day you need to keep full access.
If you are running rack server you need that extra reducancy since you are invested in server grade equipment.

 

[coleridge78]

You have to be a pretty small shop to not care about hot swapping your drives and can afford for the server to be down a day or 2 while work is being done.
But as soon as you need to keep the server running over night you need hot swap and redundant . Reason I put that is if you are going to leave it up over night it needs to be able to keep running in case something goes bad and the hot swap is over night means during the day you need to keep full access.
If you are running rack server you need that extra reducancy since you are invested in server grade equipment.

You have to be a pretty backwards shop to not care about other avenues to redundancy, such as clustering processing and segregating it from storage where it makes sense.

I think a lot of people here have experience running servers for either small-to-midsize orgs, or small-to-midsize divisions within something larger. There's a lot of talk that's pretty ten-years-ago about things like "you need hot swap so you can put a new drive in the email server without downtime!"

But if the "email server" isn't a single linux box in a rack with local storage, this argument doesn't apply, you see.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

You have to be a pretty small shop to not care about hot swapping your drives and can afford for the server to be down a day or 2 while work is being done.
But as soon as you need to keep the server running over night you need hot swap and redundant . Reason I put that is if you are going to leave it up over night it needs to be able to keep running in case something goes bad and the hot swap is over night means during the day you need to keep full access.
If you are running rack server you need that extra reducancy since you are invested in server grade equipment.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Every Server Admin has a few Mandatory when talking about Servers.

#1 Redundant PS
#2 Hot Swap Drives
#3 On Site 24 Hour Warranty or User accessible parts
#4 2 year roadmap on product