The Apple Core

Jason D. O'Grady & David Morgenstern

Apple in the enterprise: Living without Xserve

By | February 1, 2011, 10:58pm PST

Apple officially called an end to its server line on Tuesday and it’s a bitter pill for some Mac stalwarts in the data center. Part of the problem is that enterprise customers have a comfort-level problem when it comes to living with questions about Apple’s product and strategic plans like the rest of us. Cupertino’s cone of silence is absolute, whether it’s the details of the next iPad or the continuing support for Mac OS X Server.

The pot was boiling over on Apple’s Mac OS X mailing list. Some said just run Mac OS X Server on a Mac mini or Mac Pro, while others, such as systems engineer Dave Schroeder, said this wasn’t an acceptable option.

The “truth” is that Apple is, and has been, de-emphasizing server, professional, and enterprise products. As Apple executive leadership, including Steve Jobs, has either implied or directly said, verbatim, that “Apple is not an enterprise company”, what conclusions shall we draw from that? For the first time, there is no companion Server splash pages for a future version of Mac OS X Server. Sure, there may be a Lion Server, but then … ?

Like many large Apple sites, we have had, and continue to have, a significant investment in Apple server products. The discontinuation of Xserve RAID and then Xserve were complete surprises, not only to us, but to other major enterprise vendors with whom Apple has a relationship. Yeah, we know Apple doesn’t do roadmaps. That’s fine. We deal. Always have. But even without a “roadmap”, we can see the direction things are headed.

Of course, Apple doesn’t really talk about any forthcoming strategy, or product feature or even future. What you see at the moment is what you get, until the cover is pulled off the new product or model. This isn’t what enterprise technology managers want from a relationship with a major supplier.

This behavior can be maddening, no doubt. “Savvy” suppliers such as Microsoft and open source projects let customers know their plans long in advance. However, I would point out that Redmond doesn’t have a stellar record of making its deadlines or following through on the detailed projections of technologies shown to the analysts and IT directors year after year.

Apple has mostly followed through on its promises to developers and actually shipped the features that it has shown in advance and mostly on time. Yes, the company’s focus is on its consumer platforms, and it appears that its message to business users is to stuff it.

Yet, it’s hard to fault Cupertino for finally admitting that there wasn’t much of a market for its server hardware.

At the same time as Apple’s focus is on the main-stream consumer customer, it is making headway in the enterprise. Maybe not in the data center, but Macs are making their way out of the marketing department and are being found in all departments. And the iPad is being deployed in the thousands.

Last week at the Macworld Expo in San Francisco, I spoke with Wally Tonra, vice president of sales at business management software vendor xTuple, about Macs in the enterprise. (And yes, there were some enterprise products on the show floor amid the iPad mania.) He said the Mac is making headway into the enterprise.

“People come and knock on [Apple's] door, and [Apple] says they’re not interested. But this ’strategy’ is working! The Mac is being accepted in the enterprise in spite of Apple’s strategy of neglect.”

For those interested in Mac minis as a server platform, hardware-mounting vendor H-Squared showed the Mini Rack, a forthcoming rack mount for Mac minis at the Expo. Due to ship in March or April, each unit can hold up to 6 minis in vertical aspect. Here are some shots I took of it.

From the company blog:

When used with a 29″ rack, you can pack up to 18 Mac minis in 5U of space. That’s 36 cores!

Each rail holds 6 Mac minis, secured by our very own Mini mount. At the head of each rail is a power status panel that indicates which Macs are or (or off). Down the center of the rail is a cable management channel that keeps all of your cabling organized on the rack. The end result is a clean, organized, yet easily accessible rack mount for your Mac minis.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

David Morgenstern has covered the Mac market and other technology segments for 20 years.

Disclosure

David Morgenstern

Freelance journalist/blogger David Morgenstern has nothing to disclose.

Biography

David Morgenstern

David Morgenstern has covered the Mac market and other technology segments for 20 years. In the recent past, he founded Ziff-Davis' Storage Supersite, served as news editor for Ziff Davis Internet and held several executive editorial positions at eWEEK. In the 1990s, David was editor of Ziff Davis' award-winning MacWEEK news publication as well as its successor title, eMediaWEEKly, which focused on multiplatform professional content creation. His byline can be found online and in print publications including CreativePro.com, Peachpit Press' Mac Bible and Popular Photography.

31
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Apple in the enterprise: Living without Xserve
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 11th Oct
Respectable to get going to your weblog when once more, it's got been months for me. nfl jerseys 2012 Appropriately this submitting that i've been waited for so detailed.
0 Votes
+ -
Hey this is really a great information. i just retweeted your post. and a good news one my Friend company got approval for a product which is contus groupon clone in itunes. Is it really worths!!! http://www.contussupport.com
Apple offerings for the enterprise/business are too weak compared with companies like Microsoft or Red Hat. Even products like the iPhone and iPad are being deploy with applications from vendors like Good, because of lack of management features. Or enable securiy features via Exchange. Let's hope in a future they get better in that.
0 Votes
+ -
How many times does Apple need to say that the aren't interested in the Enterprise? They are currently content to have their products (iPhones, iPads) come into the enterprise in people's backpacks.

You have to remember: Apple and Steve Jobs have a very specific vision for the company and the products. They aren't generally open to deviating from that vision.

Apple also doesn't show a lot of concern for their partners. You get the product. "Do with it what you will, but don't expect us to go out on a limb for you." Refer to their lack of participation in MacWorld.
0 Votes
+ -
@Marc Jellinek Yes they really are a company that doesnt care about its users. And doesn't care about what anyone wants for it. They just make money, and sit on it. They don't put it back into the world, they don't spend it on R&D, they just sit on it. Making them a greedy and useless company.
0 Votes
+ -
Get over yourself!
matthew_maurice 2nd Feb 2011
@Jimster480 "they really are a company that doesnt care about its users." What utter horse$hit! As a consumer electronics company the "customer" (i.e. consumer) is their only focus. Why do you think they make all that money? It's because they concentrate on products people will want to buy, which they do in huge numbers. How could you care more about your customers? You can say you don't like Apple products, that they're over-priced, or even highly derivative, but you can't say that Apple is a company that doesn't care about the consumer, it's their ]raison d'etre.
@Jimster480
What you just described is Microsoft. Being the monopoly vendor they couldn?t care less about the customer, charge monopoly rents, and generally abuse their customers.
0 Votes
+ -
ROTFLMAO!!!
i8thecat 2nd Feb 2011
@Jimster480

LOL.. That was so retarded that it was hysterical!!! Apple did the R&D for the products that have led the market for the past 5 years and you claim they just "sit" on their money... According to you, if they wasted it on stupid research, it would somehow mean that they care??? LOL That is sooo stupid... LOL... I think it shows that Apple cares about both customers and investors. Kinda the exact opposite of Microsoft.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
@Jimster480

I disagree with the comment "... that doesn't care about its users." Apple cares deeply for their customers, as Apple defines their customers. If you fall outside of that definition (ie: Enterprise customers), they don't care... because they don't consider you a customer.

Right now, Apple seems very focused on their users, as Apple defines "user": the content consumer. Their focus seems to be on the user of the iPhone, iPad and iPod.
0 Votes
+ -
32 Cores in 5U isn't that impressive when you consider the fact that you can build 1U 2x 6-core AMD or Xeons... At that density you have 60 cores in 5u.
0 Votes
+ -
RIP xServe
jscott69 2nd Feb 2011
At my last job, I deployed numerous (dozens?) xServes and xServe RAID systems. And I never had any issues with any of them. Like Apple's desktop systems, "they just worked." And they didn't require the management effort of our Windows, Linux and Solaris servers. Plus, they were fast, had built-in redundancy, and they even looked cool. Typical Apple products: a bit pricier than the competition, but worth it in the long run.

I find it odd that now that Apple is the largest it has ever been that it would abandon the enterprise market. It seems to me that this would be the time to go on the offensive and make a push into the enterprise -- perhaps with server tools that will allow for easier management of iPads and iPhones, in addition to all the desktop stuff.

Hopefully the announcement won't mean the end of OS X Server. Unfortunately, without good 1U hardware to deploy it on, enterprises aren't likely to use OS X Server on many systems -- they just won't be space efficient.

BTW, the Mini Rac is interesting, but it seems to me that they could have mounted them horizontally with three on the front and three on the back and achieved higher density. Assuming you have access to the rear of the rack (and who doesn't?), you could have six per 1u or 30 per 5u, for a total 60 processor cores. That's pretty dense -- half again as much as five 8-core xServes (40 cores)! They're practically like horizontal blade servers!

Of course, a Mac Mini Server is a pretty decent machine for a small-business server -- veterinary or dentist offices, file servers for publishers, etc. Hopefully they'll continue on.
0 Votes
+ -
@jscott69

"I find it odd that now that Apple is the largest it has ever been that it would abandon the enterprise market. It seems to me that this would be the time to go on the offensive and make a push into the enterprise "

This is exactly the time to remain focused and not let success in one market segment (consumer electronics) go to Apple's head.

When I think of these types of situations, I think of a quote from the M*A*S*H character Dr. Charles Emerson Winchester: "I do one thing at a time, I do it very well, then I move on".

Apple had a long-term plan for bringing the iPad to market. I've read that the original idea was for the iPad and they prepared the market for it by bringing the iPod to market, then the iPhone to market... and only after they were successful, bringing the iPad to market.

One has to wonder... did Apple's plans stop there? I don't think they did.
0 Votes
+ -
The big integrators will likely fill the void. Apple wants to be the face of computing that users see. That's where the biggest margin is. They cannot compete in the price/performance arena of the server market.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple in the enterprise: Living without Xserve
Graham Ellison Updated - 2nd Feb 2011
David Morgenstern,

"People come an knock on [Apple's] door, and [Apple] says theyre not interested. But this strategy is working! The Mac is being accepted in the enterprise in spite of Apples strategy of neglect."

This is actually not the whole story, or even an accurate picture. On the opening day of Covent Garden Mac Store in London, I was invited up to the 4th floor where the enterprise suite is. Obviously I can't disclose the nature of the discussions I had with Apple's enterprise staff there, but I can assure you they are serious about the enterprise.

I suspect Apple's server offerings are going to the cloud. Why no thoughts on this?
@Graham Ellison
No serious business wants their data living in someone else's cloud.
0 Votes
+ -
@Graham Ellison "Going to the cloud" is not a solution 100% of the time, especially not going to the public cloud. It's a great an elegant solution in many cases, but let's face it, in many cases you NEED real iron, and guess what underlies this magical cloud? I'll give you a hint, it isn't air, it isn't water, it's servers.
0 Votes
+ -
I think Apple started to notice that people were beginning to virtualize the servers, running multiple server instances on each Xserve. OSX Server runs quite happily on VMWare on Intel based servers by HP, IBM, Sun, Etc. I'm guessing Apple was feeling that server sales were going to diminish due to virtualization and couldn't justify maintaining 24x7 support infrastructure that a server line requires. I wish they had given enterprise customers a transition road map to Parallels or VMWare.
@Andr??s,
"OSX Server runs quite happily on VMWare on Intel based servers by HP, IBM, Sun, Etc."

Maybe that's possible, but the Apple EULA for Mac OS X Server don't allow that. Here is a line from the EULA,

"You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Applebranded computer, or to enable others to do so."

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx_snowleopard.pdf

I don't think that a genuine business/enterprise will run Mac OS X Server in an illegal way. If you want to run Mac OS X Server, you only have two options, Mac Mini Server or a Mac Pro. An when you compare those two offering vs HP and IBM servers, it's easy to see why enterprises and business don't have Mac OS X Server.
0 Votes
+ -
Must admit, my experience with the XServe was limited to one box, but that experience was anything but happy. It was a poor network OS with horribly limited user rights and groups. Apple's server admin never came anywhere close to what was available in Novell's eDirectory or MS Active Directory. It was a huge step backwards. When we retired that Xserve it was a happy day.
@boomchuck1

I think WGM blows away AD. Have you used it since 10.5 or 10.6 OS X Server? Easier to use and just as much functionality as AD.
@cashxx,
Remember that AD includes Group Policy. And when you compare the full AD+GPO functionality vs WGM, you will find that MS has an advantage here. For example, can you apply policies to applications like MS Office or iWorks? How about other 3rd party applications like Google Chrome? How about integration from hardware and storage companies like EMC or HP?
I'm not saying that WGM is bad, but saying that it blows AD it's not too accurate when you see all the flexibility and strengths of AD.
0 Votes
+ -
Je ne comprends pas
johnfenjackson@... 2nd Feb 2011
I can understand (even if I disagree!) why some consumers might prefer an Apple PC ... with its pleasant appearance and 'superior computing experience'.

But when it comes to comes to putting an expensive, underpowered server (out of sight) in a computer room to do routine tasks ... I cannot imagine what business logic would sanction such madness.

And a whole rack of minis!!
Men in white coats, straighjackets, asylum.

I'd be interested to hear the business case.
0 Votes
+ -
The problem with your entire piece is that 'Mac stalwarts' aren't working in the datacenter at all. If they are, they probably hate their jobs.

OS X server was OK, but you can do most of it with much more expensive, labor intensive Microsoft junk that IT will prefer anyway. Apple doesn't need the 'enterprise' those engineers are better off working on the next Mac OS, the one that will finally put an end to Windows altogether. But the good news is you can keep your rack mounted Intel servers. All you IT guys should be happy.

Morgenstern, your Bio should be updated to say that you only started dishing dirt on Apple and maligning them when you were employed by ZDnet. You hardly cover the Mac objectively anymore. Hey, give the people what they want, right? We all know that most ZDNet readers are PC geeks, so that kinda limits what you can write about the Mac.
0 Votes
+ -
LOL..."on the next Mac OS...
SonofaSailor 2nd Feb 2011
@comp_indiana

, the one that will finally put an end to Windows altogether."

Don't hold your breath
0 Votes
+ -
@SonofaSailor Exactly.
0 Votes
+ -
@SonofaSailor

You could be right, and Apple may be content with just taking all the money instead, and let MSFT have the marketshare. But, somehow I think Apple is already making HUGE inroads among both business and consumers with the iPad. This will provide yet another halo effect. A lot of people don't upgrade that often. If they have an iPhone or iPod or iPad though, they will be all to happy to spend an extra $100-$200 on a Mac, rather than suffer along with Windows and it's very limited software. Especially when the Mac will run Mac, Windows, or iPad applications (coming this year.)

Apple have already taken the netbook market, to a large degree. That was the only thing that propped MSFT up through Vista, etc?
@comp_indiana,
"OS X server was OK, but you can do most of it with much more expensive, labor intensive Microsoft junk that IT will prefer anyway. "

If that's the case, does Apple includes something similar as Active Directorty + Group Policy or maybe a server/desktop virtualization solution as Hyper-V? Or maybe OS X Server includes something similar as Remote Desktop Server (Terminal Server) or Sharepoint Foundation? Don't think so. Maybe that's the reason IT people prefer Windows Server over Mac OS X Server. Don't you think?
0 Votes
+ -
@dvm

Apple would have you use standards like LDAP and not try to lock down the entire enterprise with something like AD. Mostly AD offers hand holding over LDAP, and also the lock-in of course. Of course, Apple has worked around all that now.

You really are guessing about desktop virtualization, obviously. There have been multiple solutions on the Mac since way before it got popular on Windows.

I admit sharepoint does some cool stuff, but there again, it's not anything that can't be done with existing, non proprietary technologies like SQL, etc? Apple offers all you need for collaboration--file sharing, wiki, listserv, SQL, Apache, etc.. and you don't even need to buy the server version to get all that.

So, yeah, I think that MSFT is the source for most of this because they do a decent job of hand holding for their real customers--the IT dept. IT has no problem spending $5k or $10k on a single server (and yet you all seem to think Apple is expensive.) And then IT pushes for MSFT adoption all around. Kind of a reciprocal arrangement.
0 Votes
+ -
@comp_indiana,
"Apple would have you use standards like LDAP and not try to lock down the entire enterprise with something like AD. Mostly AD offers hand holding over LDAP, and also the lock-in of course. Of course, Apple has worked around all that now."
If you notice, I mention AD+GPO. GPO is very useful for deploying, managing and applying security polices to Windows XP-W7, printers and other devices. Plus with 3rd party apps you can apply policies to Linux and Mac OS X. That flexibility and capability is missing from Mac OS X Server.

"You really are guessing about desktop virtualization, obviously. There have been multiple solutions on the Mac since way before it got popular on Windows."
You are talking about running Windows on Mac OS X via Parallels or VMware. The main article is about the XServe and Apple in the enterprise, were Apple is miles behind MS or Red Hat. For example, Mac OS X virtualization is weak because of Apple EULA restriction, on which specifies that Mac OS X Server can only run on Apple hardware. And when you compare HP and IBM servers vs Apple offerings, both companies are far ahead. For example, both companies have 4 and 8 socket servers on which a I can consolidate 10's and 100's of servers. On which Apple hardware can I virtualize servers now that Xserver are discontinued? Neither of the options (Mac Mini Server and Mac Pro) available are powerful or flexible enough for that role. And Apple don't have any VDI or server virtualization platform, or something as Remote Desktop (Terminal Server). So it look like MS and Red Hat have better options compare to Apple offerings.

"I admit sharepoint does some cool stuff, but there again, it's not anything that can't be done with existing, non proprietary technologies like SQL, etc Apple offers all you need for collaboration--file sharing, wiki, listserv, SQL, Apache, etc.. and you don't even need to buy the server version to get all that."
Again, you have to go to 3rd party solutions because the Apple lack of an enterprise stack of applications. Let's make a small comparison. The solution you compared with Sharepoint, how it integrates with iWorks? Can I connect it to ERPs, for example, from SAP? Compare that with the integration of SharePoint with Office 2010. Or the integration of SharePoint+Office with SAP with Duet. Business and companies need those kind of tools to work and Apple don't provide them. That's the reason companies like Ferrari use Sharepoint and not a Mac OS X Server solution.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-New-Ferrari-com-Is-Powered-by-SharePoint-Server-2007-108088.shtml

"So, yeah, I think that MSFT is the source for most of this because they do a decent job of hand holding for their real customers--the IT dept. IT has no problem spending $5k or $10k on a single server (and yet you all seem to think Apple is expensive.) And then IT pushes for MSFT adoption all around. Kind of a reciprocal arrangement."
Maybe if Apple provided a real enterprise/business solutions, IT departments would consider it. But why are going to consider Apple a serious option if the only hardware where you can run Mac OS X Server are devices that don't even have the option for a redundant power supply and 1YR of warranty?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple in the enterprise: Living without Xserve
technology@... Updated - 4th Feb 2011
I have had the chance to set up SBS2008, OS X Server 10.2 through 10.6.x, and even Ubuntu Server. The worst experience I had was with SBS 2008 by far. Everything is so tightly coupled, and, like many MS products, controls are frequently not in the most logical place or named in a way that is clear and understandable to both the beginner and the expert. And it gives all sorts of vague and uninformative errors if something isn't configured correctly. Linux was a challenge, but there are so many step-by-step tutorials that it is easy to get going quickly. Setting up a Mac OS X server has gotten better with each generation. The servers are agile and easily scalable. If you need to change a core configuration it isn't a major deal.

The downside, of course, is that OS X Server's Open Directory (OpenLDAP implementation) is still not very good. Group computer/machine policies do not consistently propagate to client machines even if the machines are on the same version of the OS as the Server. The OpenDirectory can easily become corrupt, and there is no way to fix it except to recreate it. Save for resetting all the passwords, this is a fairly simple process that takes less than an hour, but still.... I don't want to have to go with Microsoft's byzantine, arcane and monolithic server infrastructure. I think I would rather switch to Linux first.
0 Votes
+ -
HELIOS WHITE PAPER
Xserve migration options for IT Net-Admins
http://www.helios.de/doc/PDFs/OSX_Migration_To_HELIOS_WP.pdf
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple in the enterprise: Living without Xserve
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 11th Oct
Respectable to get going to your weblog when once more, it's got been months for me. nfl jerseys 2012 Appropriately this submitting that i've been waited for so detailed.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix