Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Xserve Powers iTunes Music Store

Posted by pudge on from the lickable dept.

Nexum writes "MacCentral has the scoop on the entire iTunes Music Store being powered by Apple Xserves. Is this the first really big implementation of Apple's server hardware? I have to admit, that even being a big Apple fan I didn't think that the Xserve hardware would be powerful enough for the severe pounding that the iTMS must have been getting. This seems like great news for Apple being able to show that they can be a real serious force in the server arena, to which they are practically a total newcomer to." I wouldn't see any reason to doubt that hardware and Mac OS X software could handle iTMS. I mean, it's heavyweight hardware, and Unix software. Still, good to see actual examples of Xserve sites in the wild.

11 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. They'd better be running XServes... by Shenkerian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Imagine the fallout if people found out Apple was using, say, IIS on 2000 Server. It would make the sales pitch for their server solutions a little tougher.

    --
    You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while," and I'll stop calling you a pretentious jackass.
  2. saw this in Infoworld too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the back, an article about companies like Microsoft and Apple that "eat their own dog food".

    Though this isn't exactly news, what else would they use???

    Xserves are great, I know folks (like my boss) who didn't even consider them but once they read the specs, their eyes open, their head nods up and down slowly, and their mouth says "wow, not bad. pretty good in fact"..

  3. Don't hate me because I use an Xserve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Find me another server that can hold 720 gig in 1U and survive a million hits a day.

    These things are awesome! Our IT guy is a part timer because our Xserves are so reliable.

  4. It's a sign of achievement... by chrispy666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...and not simply a technical prowess.

    I mean, Apple bashers can say all they want, but the Xserves are great machines, and the architecture proves to be scalable and reliable. Sure, they are not running at 20THz, but hell they will cope with the load of such heavy duty app like the music store.
    This shows Apple dedication towards *reliability*.

    I dunno if I'd like to have OS X Server running on such nice boxes, but it's Apple, it works together nicely.

    P.S. : I'm a switcher, that doesn't mean I only swear by Apple products. I just try to give credits to a company that clearly tried its best to come up with comprehensive solutions.

    --
    Music is the language of the heart, the sound of the soul. -Joe Satriani
  5. Hardly a newcomer by djupedal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Back in 1996, Apple and Tower Records got together to try this new thing called 'e-business', where people used this other new thing, the internet, to spend money and buy things using networked computers.

    Apple was only interested in selling iron, and had no interest in the retail side of things, much less selling CD's, books and video tapes.

    Apple had suits as reps, and since Tower's IT department didn't even have email, the 'Pulse' magazine arm of Tower became the cheerleading squad for Russ (owner of Tower Records) and the gang.

    Apple 'donated' three AIX equipped Shiners (200MHz), and Tower gathered a group to meld MUSE's song data and Tower's credit card backend into a website. www.tower.com belonged to some company back east, and they turned down a $10k offer for the domain, so www.towerrecords.com was it. A small group of highly talented software guys in the Bay Area were hired to code it all together*, and the growing pains began.

    Fast forward to today, and we have ITMS on Xserve and Tower running the latest ASP shopping cart.

    Like they say, it's the singer, not the song.

    *That group was bought up by MS in a short time, and the e-shop app was shelved...never to be seen again. If you can't compete, kill the competition and bury the body in the backyard....but that's another thread.

    1. Re:Hardly a newcomer by Graymalkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Um, no.

      In the mid-eighties Steve Case was running a little company called Quantum which was an online service for the Commodore 64. By January of 1986 Q-Link had about 10,000 users. By 1987 Quantum's stock was on the decline and the company was facing an inability to pay back its loans. In '86 Steve Case moved to California for three months in an attempt to convince Apple to let Quantum build an online service for them.

      Apple as you said had been running a system called AppleLink. This was a system for retailers and sales reps to keep in contact with all that was going on at Apple. The system was run by General Electric Information Services and was pretty successful at keeping its intended audience up to date. The top brass began to think an extended system might allow them to lower their customer support costs by allowing direct access to technical documentation and the like. This was the system Steve Case was in California to nab the contract for.

      He managed to convince Apple to let Quantum develop and run the system. Quantum was going to produce the software and were granted the right to use Apple's logo as long as they made the program LOOK like an Apple product. Problems arose pretty quickly after a while. Quantum in Steve Case fashion wanted to package APE with new computers for free or sell it through direct marketing (mass mailing). Apple said that option was a no go, they didn't want to give software away for free. The service debuted at Apple Fest in 1988 and was $35 annually and $6 night time and $15 day time IIRC. The service had a fair number of users and was for the most part a success as far as Apple was concerned.

      Quantum however decided to end their relationship with Apple. Because of the logo deal signed Apple had to pay $2.5m to Quantum to relenquish rights to use of the logo. This set Quantum up very well for the short term. In 1989 Quantum changed the name of the service from AppleLink to America Online.

      Later Apple wanted to be rid of the costly AppleLink service run by GE. They decided they wanted a service not only for intracompany communication but an experience for their customers as well.

      They approached AOL due to their history with APE. Apple bought the APE code from AOL to develop it further on their own with AOL providing the actual service. Apple added content from third parties and provided e-mail and other services to contend better with existing services like AOL and CompuServ. As I recall the service was announced sometime in January 1994 and went into operation around June. From the rusty confines of my mind I seem to recall the monthly fee was about $8.95 (maybe 8.99) with a couple hours included. Night time hours were $5 and daytime minutes were $8.

      The service was aimed at all the people running around with Macs and Newtons and up until then relatively unused modems. NewtonMail was provided through eWorld as was e-mail for regular Macs. The interface was spacial and pretty fun to use. Any Mac enthusiast who could afford to had an eWorld account. Due to budget cuts a Windows version was never released and the service shut down altogether in 1996. Apple's problems elsewhere caused serious problems for eWorld.

      I believe eWorld was the service the grandparent post was talking about. AppleLink did not get spun off from Apple however. Quantum ended their partnership and relabeled their service of their own volition. They had been playing Tandy and Apple against each other by developing similar services for both systems, the Tandy system called PC-Link. Apple was under the impression Quantum was giving their full attention to their contract when in fact they had a similar agreement with Tandy. APE failed because Apple and Quantum did not want to market the service and software the same way.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  6. Re:What it's running doesn't matter by benntop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Keep in mind that the XServe isn't only about profit. It is also about mindshare and having a broad enough hardware selection that any company could approach Apple with a need and our favorite fruit company could turn right around and tell them, "yeah, we can do that." Clustering? Big RAID arrays? Redundancy? No problem.

    Sales numbers notwithstanding, it is a competitive box. In the future it will be interesting to see how many of the things fly out of the warehouse. Time will tell, time will tell...

  7. According to the headers in my mail by Knife_Edge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apple's .Mac mail servers are XServes, too, running OS X Server. Apple is eating their own dogfood. Or forging the headers to make themselves look good... I don't even care as long as the mail gets through.

    1. Re:According to the headers in my mail by Knife_Edge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Xserves are definitely at some point in the receiving chain for me, but not the final resting place of the mail as you have pointed out. My mistake.

      Received: from smtpin06-en2.mac.com ([10.13.10.151]) by ms05.mac.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id XXXXXXXXX for X; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:18:29 -0700

      Received: from mx6.sjc.ebay.com (mxpool03.ebay.com [66.135.197.9]) by smtpin06-en2.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id XXXXXXXX for X; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:18:28 -0700 (PDT)

  8. Early in Apple's history, they used DECs ... by timothy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just read a book about Digital, which had a note I found interesting / amusing: When Apple was a young company, they bought DEC computers for company record-keeping / infrastructure. DEC no longer exists per se, but it would be an interesting turnaround if at least some workgroup of former DEC employees at HPaq runs *their* infrastructure on an Apple server ;)

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  9. Re:What it's running doesn't matter by E1ven · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not to press, but do you have a source for this? I'd love to be able to use that infomation, and credit it to mroe than a Slashdot post ;)

    --
    Colin Davis