The Apple Core

Jason D. O'Grady & David Morgenstern
Home / News & Blogs / The Apple Core

Are Mac OS X and Apple servers making inroads with the Feds?

By | October 12, 2009, 6:49pm PDT

A recent article points to traction in the goverment market by a Mac-based surveillance system vendor. Despite the resistance from PC-centric IT managers, the Mac’s performance and easy support appears to be winning contracts.

A Security Systems News story by L. Samuel Pfeifle tells of videoNEXT, a company offering a range of video surveillance software that runs on Mac OS X clients and servers. In the summer, the company released Cavu Free, Cavu and Cavu Pro: iPhone-based surveilance management client apps costing nothing (go figure), $19.99,  and $49.99, respectively.

According to a government VAR sales manager quoted in the story, the “Mac conversation” begins with the Mac’s lower profile with the hacker community. Later on in the purchasing process, the customer is won over by the Mac’s better performance, storage availability, and ease of use, all of which come at the same price point as a competing Windows system, he said.

According to Chris Gettings, CEO and president of VideoNEXT, quoted in the story, there are still a number of hurdles when approaching government IT shops. He said sites familiar with Linux systems offer much less resistance.

In addition, Gettings reported that Apple’s hardware decisions made integration and quality assurance easier.

The reason Gettings likes Apple hardware is because of its consistency. He said he can order two Dell servers two weeks apart and find that small things like a specific chip has been changed on the motherboard, which doesn’t show up on the specifications, but can slightly affect his software’s performance.

With Apple “it sounds like mumbo jumbo,” he said, but the company tunes every piece of the hardware to work together on its platform and exacts efficiency from the result. Thus, Gettings claimed, he can put as many as 60 cameras on one Apple server that, according the specifications, has the same performance abilities as a Dell or HP server that can only serve 50 cameras.

“That can be a measurable difference in some of these larger deployments,” Gettings said.

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

More from “The Apple Core”

Topics

Apple Mac OS, Apple Macintosh, Performance, Apple Inc., Apple Mac OS X, Performance Management, Desktops, Servers, Human Resources, Workforce Management, Hardware, David Morgenstern

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.

26
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RTFA
shis-ka-bob 21st Mar 2010
The managers found that small differences in 'generic hardware'
produced noticeable variations. As is stressed in any TQM training,
quality is the reduction of variability. So the Apple approach of
controlling the the n-th degree does improve consistency. This is the
modern definition of quality.

Go tell Rockwell's Avionics teams or the FAA that its OK to swap out
'equivalent' parts & that they shouldn't have to worry about variations in
'standard' parts. So any testing of real-time avionics isn't needed just
because two products from different manufacturers claim to meet the
same specs.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Silly Question comes with silly answer
davebarnes 12th Oct 2009
"Are Mac OS X and Apple servers making inroads with the Feds?"

No, "the Snow Leopard bug hosed [our] data".
0 Votes
+ -
No, it didn't.
A Grain of Salt 12th Oct 2009
"No, "the Snow Leopard bug hosed [our] data"."

Snow Leopard just failed to recognise the data. A trip to Terminal can fix
that and recover all data. The data was never lost. Not great for end
users, but no great problem for IT experts.

But, as we're mudslinging, MS did trash a lot of peoples data, that to this
point is unrecoverable and will seemingly stay that way.
0 Votes
+ -
Are you sure you're not related to...
zkiwi 12th Oct 2009
LoveRock, No_Ax, ye, cayble and for that matter Mary J?

That and other than mindless bitterness, did you have a point?
0 Votes
+ -
Probably because...
webmaster@... 17th Mar 2010
you are a tad annoying and lack humility. Just sayin'
0 Votes
+ -
Of course he's right
Richard Flude 12th Oct 2009
"Thus, Gettings claimed, he can put as many as 60 cameras
on one Apple server that, according the specifications, has
the same performance abilities as a Dell or HP server that can
only serve 50 cameras."

Despite the claims of the uniformed ZDNet talkbackers to the
contrary. Hardware is not all made the same!
0 Votes
+ -
Bingo
itguy08 13th Oct 2009
Despite the claims of the uniformed ZDNet talkbackers to the contrary. Hardware is not all made the same!

Those same talkbackers harp on Apple's price when they fail to realize just about every vendor sells machines at the same price as Apple. And some even go above that. (See the POS Dell Adamo).
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong again, but keep trying!
ShadeTree 13th Oct 2009
So based on one person's say so you conclude Apple hardware is superior? That is the most ignorant post yet. Apple servers are made out of the same parts as their PC bretheren. That cannot be argued. Same processors, chipsets, hard drives, memory, etc. To argue the contrary is just plain ignorant!
0 Votes
+ -
Explain differences in performance
itguy08 13th Oct 2009
between IBM, Dell, HP, etc servers.

There ARE differences. There are many server chipsets, many hard drives, SCSI, SATA, etc. that make computers different. There's a lot more to the overall performance of the box. And that's where the differences are.

I do servers for a living and know the differences.

I think you are the ignorant one.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually....
aktazdevil 13th Oct 2009
I work with servers too. And heres a reality check

1) Apples hardware is far more expensive, not on the "retail" face but on the the large enterprise/government face. I can buy two dell/hp servers with more storage, memory, processor for the price of 1 apple server similiarly configured.

2) In reference to this article they are drawing conclusions that arent there. This is a vertical market system. The IT shop (no matter who it is) doesnt have to support the hardware or software. If I am buying a "complete" top to bottom vertical market system then I DONT CARE WHAT ITS ON as long as it works and I dont have to maintain it.

3) Servers arent really that different other than what you spec, if you lay them out side to side using the same technology SAS, SATA, FC, Intel, NVIDIA etc then the only difference is usually a matter of the chipset manufacturer.

On the other hand I can see how you might eek out a bit more performance on a unix based os, but ultimately no one serious would use mac/windows or apple/dell they would get embedded systems with on-a-chip operating systems / software. Really there isnt a mac or windows server driving air-traffic control systems, high end survielence/monitoring, etc etc.
0 Votes
+ -
thank goodness
rwahrens1952 13th Oct 2009
"Really there isnt a mac or windows server driving
air-traffic control systems, high end
survielence/monitoring, etc etc."

For good reason. BOTH Windows and Mac OS X EULAs
specify that their OSes are NOT to be used for life-
sustaining operations or installations whose failure
can threaten life or limb.

"Apples hardware is far more expensive, not on the
"retail" face but on the the large
enterprise/government face. I can buy two dell/hp
servers with more storage, memory, processor for the
price of 1 apple server similiarly configured. "

Links, please. The Apple X-Serve has long been
cheaper than similarly equipped Dell servers,
particularly. And while you are at it, please include
the cost of seat licenses, particularly if those non-
Apple servers are going to run some form of Windows
servers.

If you are so into servers you will know that the cost
of licensing is a major part of the cost of server
systems, especially Microsoft systems - often, for
small to medium businesses, more than the cost of the
equipment itself.
0 Votes
+ -
Spot on
Richard Flude 13th Oct 2009
Shade is a clown. A perfect example of the ignorant talkbackers I
referred to.

Servers are not all built the same. Never have been, never will be. Those
claiming they are have zero real world experience. Shows in the
talkbacks.
0 Votes
+ -
Isn't the OS a key well part to the server mix?
James Quinn 17th Mar 2010
Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
Plain ignorance
DeusExMachina Updated - 18th Mar 2010
"Apple servers are made out of the same parts as their PC bretheren.
That cannot be argued. Same processors, chipsets, hard drives,
memory, etc. To argue the contrary is just plain ignorant!"

Ignorance is taking a position diametrically opposed to empirical fact.
Your post shows that your understanding of hardware is limited to the
rather mundane level of large scale components. It is highlighted by
the fact that you and others only started joining this chorus after
Apple
switched to Intel CPUs, as if that has ANY relevance whatsoever. The
components used by Apple were industry standard components both
before and after the switch to x86.
Please explain how switching to Intel suddenly made the other
components any different. How is the Samsung or Toshiba or
Panasonic drive in my G4s and G5s somehow different that the same
components in my Windows PCs? How is the DDR in my dual 450 any
different from the same RAM in a Wintel box?!?

That said, it is just plain ignorance to claim that the parts are any
different from vendor to vendor. Different fabs use differing qualities
of
SM components, and use different fabrication processes that
drastically
alter final build quality. There is also a vast difference in quality
control
testing and parameters. There is a reason why Apple's overall
hardware
failure rate is well below industry standard.

Nor is any of this, nor, do I suspect, the statement of the OP, based on
one person's say so.

Ignorance seems to be contagious.
0 Votes
+ -
RTFA
shis-ka-bob 21st Mar 2010
The managers found that small differences in 'generic hardware'
produced noticeable variations. As is stressed in any TQM training,
quality is the reduction of variability. So the Apple approach of
controlling the the n-th degree does improve consistency. This is the
modern definition of quality.

Go tell Rockwell's Avionics teams or the FAA that its OK to swap out
'equivalent' parts & that they shouldn't have to worry about variations in
'standard' parts. So any testing of real-time avionics isn't needed just
because two products from different manufacturers claim to meet the
same specs.
0 Votes
+ -
For those
Gritztastic 13th Oct 2009
For those that know the cost of everything and value of nothing; Dell & HP severs > Apple servers. For those that work with both on a daily basis, the maintenance cost of the former quickly eclipses the higher retail price of the latter, IME.
0 Votes
+ -
partly agree
rwahrens1952 Updated - 13th Oct 2009
I repeat - Apple servers are not more
expensive! A comparably equipped Apple X-
Serve is often cheaper than a similarly
equipped Dell.

But otherwise, you are right. A good server
manager will know that the initial cost of
the equipment is dwarfed by the TCO (or Total
Cost of Ownership), which includes all of
those maintenance costs as well as those seat
licenses I mentioned. Which is a major
reason why open source servers vastly
outnumber Windows in the server space on the
Web in particular.
0 Votes
+ -
I Agree
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 13th Oct 2009
Any good IT Manager is going to look at overall TCO than just what gives him an itch in his pants to look at. It also has to fall in line with a vision of longterm direction. Where is the market going, and what is going to be the most viable in the long term.

People spend way too much time arguing over which is better blah blah blah, especially in the ABM or ABA crowds.

I have seen several articles now that indicate that Apple is starting to make some in roads into industry, however, it likely is not upwards of the amount you would write home about, but again that all can change just as fast.

Personally, I think that MS is an ok product, but really there are things that I really liked about the Novell NOS that I miss, from my previous job, as my current one is a MS shop.
0 Votes
+ -
The time has finally come
avatoin 14th Oct 2009
I've always wondered when the security of OSX would finally really be challenged and exposed to the crap it really is and now I think I have found it. Once the feds really start going into OSX based machines the number of attacks should increase a nice amount and cripple the track record of the OS bringing in to light what people should really be using.
0 Votes
+ -
Security vs. obscurity myth
DeusExMachina 18th Mar 2010
Yeah, don't hold your breath.
0 Votes
+ -
What isOpenBSD
shis-ka-bob 21st Mar 2010
Jeopardy question: what people should really be using if they are
concerned about security?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Are Mac OS X and Apple servers making inroads with the Feds?
johnmckay 19th Oct 2009
What a laugh.. I thought it was another spoof then realised it was even funnier. I'm still laughing.

Anyway... It's all spin. When you've got next to nought, anything is worth singing about. In Apples case a 1% rise in market share will be hailed as ground breaking and death to all other vendors. The truth is its still nought.

Apart from the gamesmanship I wish them well, and do hope they make inroads to keep others on their toes. But please stop the hype and cr8p talk that follows Apple everywhere. MS, Sun, HP will survive and so they should.

They messed up 20 years ago with their business model and I'm still hearing die hards bumping their gums that the rest of us are fools. Give us a break please!
0 Votes
+ -
Yep - you're OK now - 50 foot high walls will protect you
richardw66 28th Oct 2009
Yes, you were right to choose Windows.

MS Now offers you security, they've never offered that before, so the
current threat from the terrorists, criminals and foreign governments
targetting PCs is no longer a concern, not that it ever was, no, couldn't
be.

You're clearly no fool for choosing Microsoft Windows, it's always
been really good. Never causes anyone an issue at all.

And the government departments were right to go with PCs before,
after all Apple once got their business model wrong.

We all know that Microsoft is about real things, operating systems that
are the best, with absolutely no hype at all.

Apple is all about hype, and people only buy them due to clever
marketing, even though apparently they didn't get it right anyway.

And how dare anyone comment on this change in market thinking
resulting in Apple getting market share, after all MS can't be
threatened can it, that's just downright undemocratic.

What would be really bad is if MS had to answer for the dent they have
put in the security of the free world. Oh, sorry, virus problems are a lie
spread by Apple hype, I didn't mention them.

It's Apple's fault for advertising themselves that has caused botnets, If
it wasn't for them users would be better educated and choose
Windows, let's sue Apple for false advertising.
0 Votes
+ -
50 Foot Walls
tgray@... 24th Nov 2009
I do like Sarcasm - but please try to make your point with a little clarity.
0 Votes
+ -
cr8p?
DeusExMachina Updated - 18th Mar 2010
WTH is "cr8p?!?"

As for hype, I think the percentages are far higher than you put forth,
and certainly something to articulate. God knows other vendors
would. It is hardly Apple specific.

"They messed up 20 years ago with their business model and I'm still
hearing die hards bumping their gums that the rest of us are fools.
Give us a break please!"

Um, WTH are you talking about? Apple's consumer-centric business
model has made them one of the top richest companies in the world!
Seriously, what are you talking about?
0 Votes
+ -
The simple fact of the matter is this is good for Apple.
James Quinn 19th Mar 2010
I'm a die hard but I don't care what you do. All I'm concerned about is
good news about Apple. It does wonders for my Apple stock and my
future since I am an Apple tech/support person. Get it?

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
I don't think that it's because OS X is any more secure...
olePigeon 18th Mar 2010
I don't think that it's because OS X is any more secure, but
having a mixed environment of different operating systems
offers a level of security in its own by preventing malware
from spreading to all machines.

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

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix