“Apple is not an enterprise hardware company. They make consumer computing stuff and any corporate penetration is a reflection of their success in the consumer world, not the result of a carefully thought out plan of enterprise dominance,” David Chernicoff writes for ZDNet.
“And that is why the Xserve had to die. Take a look at this image [below] of Steve Jobs standing in front of a picture of his new server room and you’ll see that there isn’t an Xserve, or any derivative hardware, anywhere in sight. In fact, the room appears to have rack after rack of HP Proliant DL 380 G7 servers,” Chernicoff writes. “And I’m pretty sure that they aren’t even running OS X Server (which Apple has never used in any of their datacenters as the primary OS).”
Chernicoff writes, “From the point that Apple decided to focus on cloud services and build giant datacenters, Xserve, and realistically, OS X Server, was dead for all but the most rabid fan. If you can’t point to your own gigantic sever infrastructure and point out why your enterprise hardware and software is the best, how would you ever expect to sell it to your customers?”
Read more in the full article here.
Related articles:
Apple’s last Xserve order could ship in April, XSAN next on chipping block – January 27, 2011
70% of Xserve customers say Apple’s discontinuation will have no impact on decision to buy new Macs – December 07, 2010
Why Steve Jobs pulled the plug on Xserve, and how Apple can reenter the server market – November 09, 2010
Steve Jobs on Xserve cancellation: ‘Hardly anybody was buying them’ – November 08, 2010
Apple offers new $2999 Mac Pro Server to replace Xserve – November 05, 2010
Apple discontinues Xserve as of January 31; will continue to fully support existing units – November 05, 2010
That’s all fine and good, but as someone who runs Snow Leopard Server on a couple of different scales I must say my only fear here is that Apple at some point ignores local networks as if the cloud is the only place for their great technology.
Pure Mac businesses networks like mine or perhaps our local school district need to have strong OS X server software so that we can do the things that matter to us — not just to consumers.
I think Xserve died because it wasn’t profitable hardware. Because at the end of the day, the mac mini is perfect for my business and a mac pro is perfect for our school.
Fortune 500 companies? Well, that was a market that Apple never got nor seemed to want.
In the end, as long as the software is offered I could care little more about the hardware it runs on.
i totally agree with you mate.
@Midwest!
Do you troubleshoot Mac Server? If so, let me know!
+1
This is the big concern now that Apple’s going all cloudy on us – what will happen to local network needs, or those of us who really don’t care to have any more of our data floating around outside our control than necessary? Why can’t we use OS X Server to run our own local “cloud” to keep our devices in sync? (Especially as Apple would stand to make money from the extra hardware & software purchased to do so?)
I also agree that it’s most likely that Xserve hardware simply didn’t sell well. Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn’t keep making things that people don’t want, just because they have money to burn while doing so.
No, it’s not a big concern. If anything, it should relieve some of the concerns about syncing.
iCloud makes it far easier, and very secure, to access your data in various places on various devices. Therefore you don’t need to create your own mini-cloud – just use what Apple and its crack employees have created for you!
Xserve was basically a stopgap to iCloud. I’m sure Apple will continue to improve and update OS X Server, because there are many, many small businesses which can use its software and then still have a Mac-centric organization.
I’m worried too.
For a while I was thinking they’d eventually roll MobileMe technology into OSX Server (we were especially looking forward to the possibility of hosting MobileMe-style web apps for mail, etc.). Essentially letting us offer our team MobileMe features, but on our own hardware.
On the other hand, making iCloud free means we’ll likely just use it for our calendars and contacts.
Not sure what to do about documents. I can’t see us storing documents for our workgroup in iCloud, and the iPad is totally useless for working on documents without any practical way of getting files on an off of them.
agreed!
It’s not so much that they didn’t try to get into the enterprise server room, but there was no room in there what with all the Dell and HP reps on their knees giving out freebies to the upper IT management…
I managed to complete a rigorous 6 month effort to get an xServer installed for my marketing group and it was an unending wound on the psyche of the IT ‘tards. They hated “it” (the xServe) and wanted it GONE.
It didn’t matter that the xServe worked flawlessly for years without so much as a burp. I used to check in on it occasionally with ARD and sometimes I saw the IT staff playing around on it – too dumb to know I was watching.
… Apple is leaving the Enterprise for the WIntel crowd? Isn’t that, perhaps, 30% of the total market? And I sure do hope that Apple is running Unix in their Data Centers – I’d hate for my various computers to catch a virus because Apple didn’t have the sense to protect their iCloud!
It’s one thing to cut a line that is costing you money, another to cut one that simply does not provide sufficient profit. Is the miniServe strong enough to be the hub for a school district? If “yes”, then “goodbye xServe”. If “no”, then another answer need be provided. A “top” for the department, or district, or whatever SOHO needs.
Yes exactly! Wintel??? the enterprise server room is Linux unix. Windows if possible I even worse for networks than it is for the desktop.
I don’t know about that, there are a ton of Windows servers out there.
We have a LOT of Unix/Linux servers and a LOT of Windows Servers running 2003 Ent Server and 2008 Ent Server.
We don’t have any Windows servers in core networking jobs but many are there doing everything from File Services to providing full remote desktops over Citrix for mission critical applications.
We also have a large Active Directory forest and Windows is running that as well.
Apple’s datacenters are run under Linux (Red Hat, for example) — last year they had vacancies with direct naming of this OS for datacenter jobs.
Nice article! I think it’s another example of Apple (or mr. Jobs) just saying “no”.
On a different note, hardware and software for a cloud solution is not the same beast as enterprise software or business severs.
How to build a cloud that works is a new art. Apples priority is the performance of iCloud. They’re going to want the full might of the current technology landscape, which I’d bet is Linux on commodity hardware. Could it be the Darwin kernel?
Why Apple had to kill Xserve
The same reason that Video had to kill the Radio Star
Heh. First video ever broadcast on MTV. The Buggles.
From what I’ve seen on Apple’s IT job postings, Apple is mainly using IBM/AIX and Sun-Oracle/Solaris mega servers with some HP/Windows stuff thrown in.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that OSX isn’t running on these machines.
agreed, it’s easy and odd to speculate that Apple would consistently put so much development into the “client” OS and ignore the “server”/services.
Yeah…cuz all of Apple’s enterprise customers are building $1 BILLION dollar data centers. This fool’s article has no legs. He’s just blabbering because he recognizes some HP hardware in a keynote photo. XServe died because small-mid size business are OVER served by a mini-server or three.
A sever farm of that size needs a lot of interfacing, for that you need the hardware and the drivers… if either was missing in Xserve or OS X, then they needed something else. just my guess.
When you only care about shuffling data around in the quickest time possible you really don’t need fancy GUI tricks and instant compatibility for thousands of pluggable devices. My guess is that these things are running a massively stripped down UNIX tailored completely to the task, possibly based on Darwin. Full OSX really isn’t required.
Steve Jobs has proved time after time that he is about focus. You recall he said he is most proud of the things they haven’t done at Apple. I’m guessing that Apple applied that focus to the enterprise and decided it was a distraction to their core business. Apple began its existence directed at bring computing to the masses. They’ve gone back to those roots and ceded the enterprise.
Your words are wise, although Apple never had the enterprise. My guess is that Apple has a thorough understanding of the range of infrastructure and services that are required for effective enterprise support and decided that the cost/benefit was not present for Apple at this time. Hopefully, Apple will forge some strong alliances with partners focusing on the enterprise that will improve corporate IT support for Macs and other Apple products. That would require much less effort than a full blown push for Apple servers and enterprise software. Let others do what they do best.
SJ prides himself on saying “no” to good ideas in order to focus on a few great ideas. Who am I to argue? Apple has had tremendous success since his return in 1998. I admit to having been disappointed by the discontinuation of XServe. But I have to assume that Apple made that decision after careful thought and assessment.
“And I’m pretty sure that they aren’t even running OS X Server…”
The author can tell that from the photo? Wow.
The US Navy and Marine Corps mandate the same hardware and software, and even the same settings on every desk. In contrast, the US Army has a diversity policy regarding computer operating systems. The Army’s web site, http://www.army.mil runs on OS X. Their other web servers are from different vendors.
The US Army has more people in it than many small countries.
If you are selling to consumers, you have to entice them to come to you. If you are selling to the enterprise, you have a staff of outside salespeople to go to them. You need a public corporate image to sell to consumers, but not to the enterprise. If Apple projects a corporate image as an enterprise hardware company, it degrades their image to the consumer, because they would no longer look cuddly and chummy.
Apple sells to the enterprise. It has a sales staff dedicated to that; however, it doesn’t advertise that fact. It doesn’t need to advertise it, and they’d rather you not know much about it.
Xserve died but OS X server did not, and that should be a clue. Lion can be made into a server at any time; how wonderful for businesses! Need a server? Joe quit yesterday, Take his computer and reconfigure it and you’re good to go. You don’t have to wait for the Dell server to come by UPS, and you don’t even have to drive to the Apple store.
Microsoft sells client access licenses to its server software. Apple has no such limitation. How many home users benefit from server software having an unlimited number of connected clients?
If they are not Mac Xservers, then I am very disappointed. I hope what we are looking at is Xserve running on standard Intel server equipment. Apple and Steve made an error not using Apple hardware at the new server farm. I use a Max OS X Server version 10.5.8 running on a Dual 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5. I also added a ethernet card and it is the gateway for the total company’s Internet traffic. It was to take on all our e-mail and web hosting this July. Now I have to figure out what Apple’s Xserve software commitment is for the long term.
Not good and very disappointing if they aren’t running Apple’s software on those PC boxes!
What’s the error?
you can still use a MacPro which comes with 2gig ethernet ports built in if you need that much power.
So, let me get this straight… They made a mistake because a G5 Mac with OS X server works for you? Not to down play your setup by any means, but Apple needs much much more scalability for iCloud and whatever else they’re up to; than you.
LINUX or UNIX on the server & Mac OS/iOS on the client.
I’d bet a cold one of choice that the data center is running Red Hat or Solaris.
+1
I’m with you.
Seriously it makes the most sense, and surely they are using Oracle for such massive DB needs.
If you want to sell real servers, you also have to provide real support along with highly-reliable and consistent hardware. Well, unless you are Dell, and then you provide hot, steaming shit for a low, low, price (it’s not just Dell’s desktops that are utter shit).
The support requires a lot of outside people who are really good at running real iron, along with paying a lot of attention to them (Ah! One of FredCo’s disks is going to fail soon… We need to dispatch someone today to replace it).
There are companies who are really good at that (IBM comes first to mind).
It is a *lot* of work to sell and support enterprise server systems, and I’m not at all surprised that Apple isn’t interested in entering that market.
Apple can use HP hardware, but they can use Mac Os X Server in it. You know that they can ‘unlock’ it to work in different hardware. It is totally different thing if somebody else does it.
osx serve died the minute apple decided for the icloud/north carolina venture. They couldn’t go on building the datacenter and not use their own hardware.
Your all wrong.
My brother in law is working on the construction of the centre and he saw trucks arrive with what he said looked like White XServes. He noted that every single unit wasn’t boxed instead they were all stacked on top of each other in styrofoam.