Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Time Capsule Not Using Server-Grade Hard Drive As Advertised?
- Thread starter IntrinsicMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple is the worst at brand loyalty. Why there using Hitachi in the first place is alarming. Right now, i am using a new aluminum iMac that has a seagate drive, the macbook's ( Idk about the newest revision) were using Toshibas and The Mac Pros used to have Maxtor. I have never had good luck with Hitachi. As for server grade, Apple has stated that they are referring to mean time between failures. Isn't that the benchmark Drive companies use to designate there drives between consumer and server?
So you're saying that since it's a "time capsule", the drive would be server-class some time around 1996? 
Perhaps you haven't had any luck with Hitachi, but other people say the same about WD, Maxtor, and others. Anecdotal evidence is useless. The statistical data is apparently good enough for Dell, Apple, and SoftJoy to use Hitachi drives in their servers.
That's absurd. Who says that RAID 1 is the definition of server grade? More importantly, what if they put two drives with a 2 minute MTBF into a RAID 1 configuration - it wouldn't be much of a 'server grade', would it?
Server grade means just what it says - good enough to be used in servers. Apple, Softjoy, Dell, and Hitachi all say it is. What are your credentials for disagreeing?
Please don't say that ! I just switched over from Dell Windows machines to iMac after 15 years of Microsoft.
Don't listen to Apple bashers here. While it's true that Apple has taken a lot more hard-headed business decisions lately and Microsoft isn't as bad as they once were, Apple would still have to degenerate a long way to be as bad as Microsoft.
Sorry, but you've been accusing Apple of lies and half truths all through this thread. There was nothing in your post to support the concept that you were being sarcastic.
As for the first 64 bit desktop, there's some truth to that. There were some 64 bit computers on the market at the time (Alpha clearly preceded PPC's 64 bit implementation by a long time), but everyone I saw was sold as a workstation or server. I don't recall anyone else selling their computers as 64 bit 'desktop computers' at the time. I could be wrong, but it was a plausible claim because there were certainly no mainstream vendors selling 64 bit desktop computers.
So your view is that Apple's at fault because you jumped to unfounded conclusions? Strange.
Then your opinion is biased and unfounded. No one says that every server MUST HAVE redundancy, so redundancy is clearly not a requirement for server grade (if it were, there are a zillion servers out there that you would claim are not servers). 'Server grade' can not reasonably be interpreted as anything other than 'good enough to use in servers'. Apple, Dell, Hitachi, and Softjoy all consider this drive to be server grade. Unless you can provide credentials greater than their combined experience, you lose.
Oh come on. Look, I'm not upset by it - it's just slightly naughty.
Never ordered one. I already have a router and backup storage.
I'm sorry - in earlier posts I say that you find "good" drives (usually called "desktop"), and "better" drives (typically for servers). In this case I meant "the 'better' drive - the server drive", not "the 'better' server drive".
What is misleading is how you would buy "a" server drive. For example, if you go to Western Digital you would see:
It's pretty obvious *where* you would click to find "a" server drive. You'd click on the link that says "server", right?
How about Seagate?
Still pretty clear - there's a link under Products named "Server & Enterprise Storage". That's where I'd click...
Now for Hitachi...
Let's see, we want a server, not a desktop - must be Ultrastar or Enterprise, right?
Nowhere do you see "greater than 10^6 MTBF" or whatever metric Apple is using. That's what's misleading, and why many people are surprised to find "Desktop" drives named "Deskstar" in the box that Apple claims has a "server-grade" drive.
Let's take a look:
"There's no set term by any manufacturer, and the blustery 'hold Apple to unusually high marketing standard for no apparent reason' is just a lot of hot air."
[Your position] is just a lot of hot air.
Does it frustrate you to go for cute and glib (or reading comprehension, on the increasingly possible chance you're being literal), yet fail so miserably to achieve humor (or success)?
Really?
It seems Hitachi makes quite a few of them.
And Seagate clearly shows:
Relying on quick-access menu links and none of the product literature hardly makes a compelling case.
Drives "named 'Deskstar'" is another hollow argument and says nothing of server applications or use, just like a quick navigation link means nothing. Does "MBA3" shout enterprise? Does Caviar? Does Barracuda? Like these Deskstar enterprise drives called Deskstar?
Or perhaps these server drives also named Deskstar?
Round and round we go.
My "position" is that Apple has not defined what it means by "server-grade" in the Time Capsule literature, and it's not hard to see that it would be possible for people to be misled about the type of drive used by Apple.
The first post in this thread is *proof* of exactly that confusion. Other posts in this thread also show the confusion. The debates on other websites and around the Flickr thread are additional *proof* that Apple's ad copy has misled people.
Why do you insist on droning on and on and on about minutiae buried deep in websites, yet ignore the obvious evidence that Apple should simply add a footnote to its pages so that people aren't misled?
And hard drive manufacturers haven't defined what it means, either, so it doesn't accomplish anything to bitch about Apple's use of an ambiguous term if there's not a clear one to evaluate it against. If Apple defined it exactly as 1/1E15 error rate, those people would still be bitching about their "lax" definition of "server". It wouldn't change a thing.
Nothing's buried "deep" in any website. Four clicks at most to a drive's information sheet isn't "buried". One click to Seagate's products page that shows at least three categories isn't "buried". One click to a Hitachi drive selector tool from their products page that recommends a Deskstar for servers isn't "buried".
The longer you keep insisting on hollow arguments that don't, even in their most deferential light, establish a cause of action, the longer you stir the pot for no good reason.
I don't care about the stupid footnote. There doesn't need to be one, just like "luxury-class" car is meaningless, it's advertising. It's not false advertising, it's just a bunch of griping and moaning over a complete non-issue. The word "server" appears all over every manufacturer's website in all sorts of drives that aren't enterprise drive. Enterprise would have been the magic word that would launch valid complaints, and defining it in a footnote wouldn't have avoided the "confusion" you speak of.
Did they get a drive better than the low end? Yes. Is that drive marketed for and used in servers? Yes. Do the customers have any demonstrable ground to unequivocally expect an enterprise drive? No. Would they be whining regardless? Yes.
When I look at the advertisement for Time Capsule on Apple's website, I can't help but agree that this is deceptive advertising. Ads work through a combination of both explicit statements of fact about the product ("server grade") and implicit associations, from the connotations of the words themselves to the visual rhetoric of the overall piece. Considered alone, "server grade" implies cutting edge. As Aiden (I think?) pointed out a few posts back, drive reliability and size are a moving target. There are no absolute definitions--in terms of failure rate, size, etc.--for drive classes. Nor should there be, since this year's definition of "server" could well be the norm for cheap ass drives included in Compaqs 5 years from now.
So far, folks seem to think that since there's no precise term, that means Apple's ad isn't deceptive. But the definitional ambiguity is the key to the problem here: to most audiences, server grade doesn't suggest a concrete set of performance guidelines. Instead, it suggests "premium quality."
What else about the ad suggests that you think of Time Capsule of premium quality? Jobs' slide at MWSF puts "server grade" right next to "802.11n" wireless. Since 802.11n is the latest and greatest in widely available wireless networking, one would assume that "server grade" suggests an equally high quality or high technology disk in the Time Capsule. Apple's website also tries to associate the Time Capsule with premium equipment. Notice that its pictured next to a MB pro--not a macbook, a mini, or an imac. The implication is that Time Capsule is "pro" level equipment, just like the MBP is "pro" level hardware (ok ok. if you honestly believe that MBP is pro level hardware, then I guess you should be ok with accepting Time Capsule's deskstar as pro too...)
It might not be legally actionable, but really, the ad's implications are clear: expect a pro level product. Is the Deskstar really going into the latest and greatest servers? Is the Deskstar the premium equivalent of the MBP and 802.11n?
This isn't a stretch. Marketing works by suggestions you aren't totally conscious of. Apple is leveraging its (partially self manufactured) image as a provider of premium quality equipment to help sell something that isn't. Its not fraud, I guess. But please, it isn't those benevolent computer gurus at Apple giving us the best of the best either--even if their marketing suggests it.
So far, folks seem to think that since there's no precise term, that means Apple's ad isn't deceptive. But the definitional ambiguity is the key to the problem here: to most audiences, server grade doesn't suggest a concrete set of performance guidelines. Instead, it suggests "premium quality."
What else about the ad suggests that you think of Time Capsule of premium quality? Jobs' slide at MWSF puts "server grade" right next to "802.11n" wireless. Since 802.11n is the latest and greatest in widely available wireless networking, one would assume that "server grade" suggests an equally high quality or high technology disk in the Time Capsule. Apple's website also tries to associate the Time Capsule with premium equipment. Notice that its pictured next to a MB pro--not a macbook, a mini, or an imac. The implication is that Time Capsule is "pro" level equipment, just like the MBP is "pro" level hardware (ok ok. if you honestly believe that MBP is pro level hardware, then I guess you should be ok with accepting Time Capsule's deskstar as pro too...)
It might not be legally actionable, but really, the ad's implications are clear: expect a pro level product. Is the Deskstar really going into the latest and greatest servers? Is the Deskstar the premium equivalent of the MBP and 802.11n?
This isn't a stretch. Marketing works by suggestions you aren't totally conscious of. Apple is leveraging its (partially self manufactured) image as a provider of premium quality equipment to help sell something that isn't. Its not fraud, I guess. But please, it isn't those benevolent computer gurus at Apple giving us the best of the best either--even if their marketing suggests it.
Nope, no truth at all. None. A lie.
http://research.microsoft.com/~gbell/digital/timeline/1993-2.htm
A 64-bit Alpha desktop mini-tower PC running Windows in 1993, from one of the mainstream vendors.
Even ignoring the whole desktop<->workstation nonsensical debate, this photo alone says that "PowerMac G5 is first 64-bit desktop" == "LIE". It's untrue. Pure falsehood.
Yes, you are wrong. It is not a plausible claim.
You don't even have to debate whether the PowerMac G5 is a "desktop" or a "workstation". Nor do you need to debate whether the Alphas and other 64-bit systems were desktops or workstations.
10 years before the PowerMac G5 there were 64-bit desktop mini-tower mainstream PCs running Windows, UNIX and VMS.
pwned
(This seemingly OT digression is really on-topic, since it proves that outright lies have been prominent parts of Apple's recent marketing.)
Yeah, exactly. Definitional ambiguity is essential to all advertising.
What is "pro level"? Is "pro level" something that is actually used in professional environments? Like the Deskstars going into server farms, PowerEdge business servers, and xServes? Or is it something else entirely that you made up so as not to include the Deskstar 7K?
Clearly, the latter. "Misleading" advertising implies something beyond the range of normal advertising, something no one has managed to demonstrate.
Sure. You're the one who just said the MBP wasn't really "premium" though, so what does it matter?
Note how that's only true if you can somehow exclude a Deskstar from "pro level" and "premium" and the other vaporous terms you use, and note how there's no clear basis for doing that exclusion, either. You're substituting terms that are equally unclear. What do those terms mean? How is the Deskstar 7K, used throughout the industry in servers, not included? How is a 1TB drive, a unit clearly beyond the reach of most consumer applications (considering that it costs more than half the going price of the median consumer PC) not in such a category generally? Out of six such drives on the market, it is at worst the third-ranked. All of them deliver above-average performance and reliability. They're all "cutting edge", whatever that means.
Is it arguable that some people would draw the line elsewhere? Of course. Does that make it misleading or deceptive advertising? No. It just makes it...advertising. If you want to complain about advertising in general, have at it, but there's no evidence that any hard drive manufacturer or any computer manufacturer has done anything wrong.
Yes, but Apple seems to feel that it is able to go beyond ambiguity - to bald-faced lies.
(see previous post #488)
I'm not getting into the G5 can of worms again. The Alpha workstations were never desktop computers in any sense other than "you can put it on a desktop". They certainly weren't sold to basic consumers or the people who buy consumer hardware (what you have been calling "desktop" hardware). Their pricetag, at $6000 for the "desktop" you've pictured, is over $9000, adjusted for inflation, at a time when Macs and Windows PCs went for a third to half that. They came in a big mid-tower case (unusual for a desktop). The Alpha version of NT (not a desktop operating system) was always problematic at best. AMD, upon launching their 64-bit processors, also heralded the "first" 64-bit personal computers. IBM, upon launching the 970FX, did the same on its own accord. I don't see you complaining about them.
DEC certainly never marketed those machines as desktop PCs or for home use, especially when you consider that their AXP line was renamed AlphaServer shortly after the model you pictured.
...you say, as you get into the G5 can of worms again.
Matticus - your posts keep me laughing!
No, I didn't. I meant the whole "what is 64-bit", "if it's not a 64-bit OS does it matter", "AMD shot first" nonsense which invariably follows the G5 around.
The matter of Alpha being a consumer/desktop processor is pretty straightforward. It wasn't. But thanks for pointing out that other irrelevant tempest in a teapot, fueled solely by zeal. It's okay when AMD or IBM does it, but gosh, Apple has lied if you selectively compare. I suppose you'll come full circle and claim the G5 isn't server-grade next.
Great exercise of flash over substance, though. It's the new black; of course, glib is also the old fail.
Server grade defined...
So with AidenShaw's premise that Apple should define Server-grade, I got to wondering if perhaps the term has been used by others, and if so how do they define it. Here is some of what I found:
A site called WiredTree:
Another site called vprMatrix:
And finally, another forum where the participants are actually discussing building their own server. I would imagine these people are probably a little better versed than the average computer user. I have bolded one guys definition of server grade:
So, it would appear the term has been used by companies/sites other than just Apple. It would also appear that the definition has been consistently vague. And if people that build their own servers would assume server grade would simply mean more reliable and better rated for 24/7 operation (which TC's drives are), why would the average computer user expect something more?
So with AidenShaw's premise that Apple should define Server-grade, I got to wondering if perhaps the term has been used by others, and if so how do they define it. Here is some of what I found:
A site called WiredTree:
Another site called vprMatrix:
And finally, another forum where the participants are actually discussing building their own server. I would imagine these people are probably a little better versed than the average computer user. I have bolded one guys definition of server grade:
So, it would appear the term has been used by companies/sites other than just Apple. It would also appear that the definition has been consistently vague. And if people that build their own servers would assume server grade would simply mean more reliable and better rated for 24/7 operation (which TC's drives are), why would the average computer user expect something more?
Exactly. The average computer user and consumer wouldnt expect something more. They would see the server-grade hard-drive line on the Time Capsule marketing and simply think, a hard-drive that is good enough to be used in servers -- which it is. I guess I am an average computer user and that is the real-life personal process I went through that resulted in an actual purchase.
The majority of Time Capsule buyers would not be obsessed with Apple having to define server-grade (it is only the non-average, geek, tech-manual reading user that would). Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not read one single post where someone has wrote, now that I realise it is the Hitachi Deskstar in the TC I am going to cancel my order now. It should have been the Ultrastar in there and I feel deceived and cheated.
I feel sorry for those who do feel bitter, lied to, deceived, boo-whooopie-hoo, etc, with Apple over something so trivial. You cannot but smile and laugh at the whole 400+ posted thread. By the way, I like this song:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=182885766&id=182885097&s=143441
Round 495... ding! ding!
Oh, also, I like the Kitty (a.k.a. AidenShaw) Vs. Rabbity (a.k.a matticus008) fight going on... looks like rabbity has some lethal kung-fu moves up its furry sleeves.
Oh, also, I like the Kitty (a.k.a. AidenShaw) Vs. Rabbity (a.k.a matticus008) fight going on... looks like rabbity has some lethal kung-fu moves up its furry sleeves.
D
Yes you can.
As for this thread, can we start a sweepstake as to how many posts or pages this thing will run to? I can't wait for the final outcome when one side finally manages to prove without a doubt, that black is indeed white.
Yup. My bet is, it will get close to, but not quite, the length of this (it's a bit slow opening):
http://tinyurl.com/27v7pf