Steve Jobs says hardly anyone was buying the Xserve

A reader of the French MacGeneration website sent Jobs an email complaining about the pending end-of-life of the Xserve and wondering why Apple hasn't considered allowing virtualization of Mac OS X Server under VMWare or Microsoft's HyperV, or license the Xserve technology to another vendor. Jobs replied in his usual terse manner.
Comments on my Friday post about Xserve show that there is widespread dissatisfaction with Apple's decision in the server administration community. AFP548 user mcal27 has even started a petition in an attempt to persuade Apple to change its mind about the decision. Unfortunately, such petitions have a dismal record of success.
One of our commenters speculated that Apple might be considering a new Mac blade server, which is not entirely out of the question. Apple loves minimalist design, and blade servers are the epitomy of minimalism -- a complete server on a board which slides into a rack-mounted chassis. A lot of blades can be packed into a standard 42U equipment rack, in much higher density and lower cost than the Xserve. However, it's odd that Apple didn't make an announcement of a new server technology prior to dropping the axe on the Xserve.
[via Electronista]
Share
While corporate, scientific, entertainment industry, and university buyers of the soon-to-be-dead Xserve are bemoaning the loss of the...
Add a Comment
Just as well... We're dumping our 3 xServes because they are inefficent. We gave them 3 years and all we got were mounting bills. SMB is still shot, Web service doesnt work if youre trying to host 2 seperate websites (like, say, an Internet and an Intranet site), Open Directory works fine, if all you use is Apple Services. Mail is way too basic (thou it did get better in Snow Leopard)... about the only thing I can say that was good was ARD. but only because i had to use it 99% of the time. When we had our windows server initially, the only interaction i had with it was its weekly reboot. the xServes failed on me way more often.
If apple had actually taken the time to get things right, it might have been a better story. But our IT costs quadrupled AFTER the hardware was purchased and Apple Enterprise set everything up. We never got stable, just workable.
I dont really have a huge problem with the axing of the hardware but do want to know if there will be a new OSX server edition... Because The mac Pro's def have enough to put the OS on there in my opinion.
November 08 2010 at 2:01 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThere are few, if any, compelling differences between Apple's XServe hardware and it's competition in the data center. The server software can be compelling for small workgroups (creatives, scientists, etc.) who can place a machine in a closet and who find the Server GUI to be a time saver but not to those many IT folks who need more control than the server GUI provides. MacOS X Server is largely based upon open source applications (Apache et. al.) so there is very little differentiation there either. Podcast Producer is probably the only major app in the suite that isn't interchangeable with an open source title.
Overall, then, MacOS X Server is a hard sell no matter how you slice it.
I am currently imagining a server rack system that accepts Mac mini servers like server blades. That would be so very amazing.
November 08 2010 at 11:29 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyA blade server to replace a 1U server is ridiculous. A blade server requires a chassis to seat into. The cheapest blade Dell M610 blade (middle line range) is just under $4000. The M-Series chassis for it to plug into is about $5000. If you are deploying a chassis fill of blades for a virtualization or performance cluster, it may make sense. But if I just need two or three standalone servers to meet my need, blades immediately looses their appeal from a cost perspective. Also, Apple would need to do a 180 degree turnaround on how it handles product roadmap disclosure. My employer needs to plan over 1 year ahead and these day of announcements that Apple is famous for do it no favors when trying to get integrated into enterprise IT planning. I'm an Apple fanboy by all definitions, but their enterprise business sucks.
And you know a Apple blade system would cost more than it similarly priced competitors.
Jobs on the enterprise market...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1srU6Z77jfc
What is Apple going to use to power their cloud computing initiatives?
I think this is another indicator that Apple doesn't take Enterprise computing seriously.
If the XServe market is peanuts to Apple (as implied by Steve's email) then Apple shouldn't block people from installing OS X Server on VMs. That would take away all the pain for everyone who is hurting from this announcement.
My point, if it's an irrelevant market due to its minuteness, then open it to VMs, it wont' hurt the bottom line or Apple's image.
The XServe is available until the end of January, which is three months away. Why announce its EoL now? Enterprise and education have long gestation periods on hardware purchases. They need to know their options this far in advance.
As to the XServe replacement, if there is one, I'm on board with the Blade theory. It makes perfect sense for so many reasons. However, if this is the next step they'll need to get a product announcement out in the next few weeks.
"williamt said 10:58AM on 11-08-2010
Do we yet have any idea what hardware Apple are filling the racks of the much heralded North Carolina data centre with? Their own?"
Hackintosh severs?
Deals of the Day
more deals- Cases for New iPad at HandHeldItems: Extra 20% off, $2 credit, from $3 + $3 s&h
- $15 Apple iTunes Gift Card for $8 for new Saveology customers
- Philips Fidelio Docking Speaker Station for iPhone / iPod for $38 + $6 s&h
- Retro 80's Case for iPhone for $11 + $2 s&h
- HHI 360 Dual-View Stand Case for new iPad w/ $2 credit for $12 + $3 s&h
- HHI ReElegant Smart Cover Companion Case for new iPad from $5 + $3 s&h
30 Comments