Slashdot Mirror


Apple To Discontinue Xserve

Toe, The writes "Apple has announced that they are discontinuing their line of 1u rack-mount servers. With their usual understated style, the announcement comes in the form of a box on their website and a transition guide (PDF) to their low-end Mac mini server or their now-more-powerful-than-Xserve Mac Pro server. Attitudes about the Xserve have ranged from considering it a token nod to enterprise to an underpowered wimp to a tremendous value. Apparently, the migration to Intel processors removed some of the value of clustering Xserves, leaving them somewhat overpriced compared to other, more traditional offerings. The odd thing is that Apple clearly has shown they have the capacity for enterprise, but rarely the will to take it on. So, does the discontinuation of their rack-mount mean they have abandoned enterprise for their post-PC offerings, or are they simply acknowledging that their products aren't gaining traction in the data center? Or do they have something else up their sleeve for next year?"

35 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. That's too bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was the only way to look like a trendy douchebag in a datacentre setting.

    1. Re:That's too bad... by Whalou · · Score: 4, Funny
      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
    2. Re:That's too bad... by couchslug · · Score: 3, Funny

      "It was the only way to look like a trendy douchebag in a datacentre setting."

      Shit. Now I'll have to BE a trendy douchebag instead of just fronting.

      Damn raised barriers grumble mumble fuck...

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  2. Perception is reality by jhigh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It would never dawn on me to use a Mac for anything other than the desktop. While I'm sure that they make perfectly capable server products, I would wager that the perception that Apple is primarily suited for making products that target the end user rather than the enterprise is a substantial hurdle for Apple. Frankly, I think that this is one of the hurdles that keeps Linux from being as widely adopted as a desktop platform. People hear *nix and, if they think anything at all, they think "server."

    --
    Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
    1. Re:Perception is reality by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

      People hear *nix and, if they think anything at all, they think "server."

      Or they think "I know this!" and then check quickly for Velociraptors.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Perception is reality by fusiongyro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you are on the right track, but you have cause and effect backwards. Apple strives to be a consumer company. I was confused by Apple's Xraid/Xsan and Xserve products, because they don't really fit in the same milieu. If anything, I wonder if offering Xserves and Xraids was just a way for them to kill harbored distrust of OS X inherited from OS 9. After all, OS X had some big hurdles to overcome from OS 9. Supplying even a couple universities with Xserves demonstrated that OS X and Apple in particular were making high-performance machines, a worthy continuation of their NeXT legacy, and dispelled any fears about inherited OS 9isms. So from this standpoint, the product line was a success, but it is no longer required.

      From another standpoint, remember that Xserves were first brought onto the market was during the bubble, before "the cloud" was a thing. My first employer had an Xserve simply because he found the idea of managing it better than the idea of managing a hosted Linux server. Colocation was cheaper than paying for a managed server. For small business owners--particularly Mac software developers--it made more sense to them than learning how to administer Linux or paying another employee to do it. Familiarity is worth something.

      Remember also the market conditions when Xserves were brought out. They weren't the only vendor selling their own weird Unix in a 1U. SGI, Sun, and HP at least were also selling their own servers running their own Unixes. The market was nowhere near as homogenized as it is now, and it was plausible at the time that OS X Server could become as important as the competition. It turns out people don't buy servers for the same reasons they buy desktops. That wasn't necessarily obvious five or ten years ago.

    3. Re:Perception is reality by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not the 'ooo shiny' products that everyone knows Apple for, but their Server OS is quite good. As are some of their clustering capabilities.

      After trying to setup a linux cluster, XGrid is nothing short of Magic. It's a check box in a system control panel. You can let anyone use a computer or password protect it. Buy 1+ Macs. Check "Allow for use on XGrid" (and even set to only use when it's been idle). Anytime you compile something in XCode, all other available Macs will be used. No setting up which servers to use in a .distcc file.

      Their Server OS is also pretty polished. I know the hard core command line junkies think that everything should be done with vi/emacs and only configured from there. But not everyone wanting to run a server has that expertise. If I had to suggest a server to a friend for a small home business. I'd suggest the MacMini Server. Mail, Web, Jabber, OS Updates, Time Machine, etc.

      I suggest checking it out (not sure if they have the server OS setup in any Apple Store) before knocking it.

    4. Re:Perception is reality by cHiphead · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ad agencies with a lot of Mac infrastructure disagree. OS X server is a stable beast on the Xserve hardware. This is a giant fuck you to companies that went with a Mac OS X infrastructure (Open Directory, XSan, AFP and SMB file services on a single machine). 8+ cores and 16GB ram and its a hell of a machine to use for production AND even run several VMs, without any real performance degradation.

      I actually liked the overpriced son of a bitch xserve.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:Perception is reality by teeker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you worked in an organization where you hand to manage hundreds of desktop Macs it would dawn on you. I know places like that are not exactly everywhere, but they do exist...I know because I work at one. After our current Xserves reach the end of their useful life, there will be absolutely no enterprise class hardware that can be used for management and deployment of desktops. I'm sorry, but we will not be putting Minis on rack shelves for services (Open Directory, for example) that need to be available 24x7. The lack of redundant power supplies, lights out management and hot swappable drives is just not acceptable in an enterprise datacenter. I also cannot give up 6u per Mac Pro just to get the same 8-core speed that is currently available in a 1u box while I'm giving up those availability features. It's just not going to happen.

      We're already pondering what life is going to be like with Windows-only desktops. It's possible Apple is going to pull off some announcement about OSX server availability on VMWare/HyperV or something (which would be acceptable for larger environments I guess) but I can't plan ahead for what they *might* announce. Frankly, it doesn't give me confidence in the future of OSX server in general. Without large deployments, people won't be needing things like Open Directory, so that could easily be dropped at some point, for example.

      They are effectively removing themselves from consideration in large environments. Just a week or two ago, there were rumors they were going to make a bigger play in the enterprise space and I was anxious to see what they had in the pipeline. Now, suddenly we're looking at abandoning OSX as a platform almost completely at hundreds of desktops. We were about to put in an order for 50+ iMacs for the second or third time this year alone, but now those plans are on hold until we can get a new long term plan together. As a result, it is definitely going to be a factor in future iPad/iPhone deployment (which has been pretty positive thus far).

      I never doubted Apple was evil, I didn't know they were dumb too.

      --
      teeker
    6. Re:Perception is reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've been administering XServes for nearly five years now and I can say that OS X Server and the XServes it runs on are, far and away, the worst combination of "server" OS and hardware I've ever had the misfortune to use.

      The first XServe we had was a dual 1.33GHz G4. It ran 10.4. First, the hardware...The rack rails were horrible. The top of the 1U box stayed with the rails in the rack. There was only one power supply and there was no option for hot-swap/redundant PSUs. Cable management? Ha...You got a clip to keep the power cord in the PSU. That's it. The damned thing didn't even have link LEDs. The only redeeming hardware feature were the somewhat-decent drive sleds. The motherboard finally died in the thing a few years ago.

      The second XServe, our current unit, is a single 2.8GHz quad-core Xeon machine. It...Doesn't suck from a hardware point of view. The rack rails don't make me cry. There are link LEDs. I don't remember if there's cable-management, but I want to say no. There are redundant, hot-swap PSUs available. So, to sum up, it's on par feature-wise with 1U rack boxes from Dell/IBM from five years ago in every way except for the CPU. Good going, Apple.

      OS X Server? No, thanks. 10.5 has been moderately solid, once we figured out the Spotlight issue that was causing the box to require a hard power-cycle once a month. Of course, every time I start to get comfortable with OS X Server Apple comes along and shoots themselves in the foot, usually with something stupid like breaking CPAN, breaking their own packaged webmail (Squirrelmail) by not paying attention to the PHP updates they're shipping, breaking their own ClamAV in such a way that it actually crashes the machine at random and shipping an update that causes serialnumberd to lock you out of your own box due the mistaken notion that you're running two instances of OS X Server if your OS X Server machine has two interfaces on the same subnet.

      Let's not forget the 10.6 AFP bugs, the 10.4 AFP bug that would let me reliably crash the XServe if I tried to mount an AFP share a second time after the first mount request didn't succeed, and so on.

      I suppose you're right...They are capable of making server products. They just refuse to. Either they don't eat their own dog food internally, their RE/QA guys are asleep at the switch or I'm just terribly unlucky, but for me I'll never willingly choose to use OS X Server.

      Apple throwing in the towel on the XServe has been something I've expected for a while. I can count on one hand the number of people actually running XServes with an Apple OS in production, and I work on a major university campus. The resources required to compete for even a small slice of the enterprise pie just aren't there for Apple. They're too busy playing with phones and mp3 players. I don't blame them for doing so, but I am happy to see them truly, finally, exit the real enterprise arena.

  3. Lion's Share Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    OS X Lion Server will introduce the new "Lion's Share," and a new blade server appliance into which you can mount 9 Mac Mini's each with app store instant Lions Share server installs. Want AFP? Install Lion's Share AFP app on the mini. Want DNS? Install app store DNS app on another Mini! Roar! with Lion's Share!

  4. Huh by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple are dropping Xserve and Ubuntu is dropping X-Server

    Your move Microsoft...

    1. Re:Huh by somersault · · Score: 3, Funny

      Xchange

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Huh by Morky · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hopefully, ActiveX.

  5. OS X Server is a nice tool by Toe,+The · · Score: 4, Informative

    Xserve aside, OS X Server provides some very, very powerful tools. Many of them are based on open-source, but for the ~$1K price, a well-paid employee would be hard pressed to roll them all in less than $1K worth of time. And all these tools have no per-seat cost, unlike Microsoft solutions.

    The question remains, of course, how seriously can people take OS X Server now that apple discontinued the Xserve?

    OTOH, it makes a really nice home server, if it is a bit over-powered and pricey for that application.

    1. Re:OS X Server is a nice tool by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not to mention the build quality on those things was just unbelievable, where I work we have somewhere in the range of 30 or so XServes currently and have had a total of over 50, and I think we have had 1 die. One even went airborne and fell about 3 meters and other than some of the metal getting bent its perfectly fine. Meanwhile on the flip side we have had about that many Dell servers and the fuckers break at least 5x as much as the XServes.

    2. Re:OS X Server is a nice tool by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What do you in your datacenter that would result in a server becoming airborne?

      Oh, and you've never had a server crash?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:OS X Server is a nice tool by phoebus1553 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Meanwhile on the flip side we have had about that many Dell servers and the fuckers break at least 5x as much as the XServes.

      I think the moral of that story isn't Apple makes fine servers, it's that Dell doesn't.

      --
      ----- - The beatings will continue until morale improves
  6. No big loss by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the only people who got these things were Mac Fanboys. Don't get me wrong, I like Mac. But I would never have recommended Apple Servers in a business settings.

    1. You are stuck on one platform. It is like getting a Sun Solaris platform but worse because apple never really had a strong enterprise department.

    2. You didn't get any real extra functionality over a Linux/BSD even Windows servers.

    3. There is 0 fore-site on what will happen for the next version. What new features. Apple is too closed

    4. You had limited options. So that means you are paying for stuff you don't need

    5. Limited server tools. Sure the Apple stuff is good but you need that one extra tool that apple doesn't support.

    Like Apple or Hate Apple, it really isn't a good server platform.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:No big loss by Toe,+The · · Score: 5, Informative

      > 1. You are stuck on one platform. It is like getting a Sun Solaris platform but worse because apple never really had a strong enterprise department.
      They're Intel boxes. Run whatever OS you want on them.
      Also, they're UNIX, so run whatever software you want on them.

      > 2. You didn't get any real extra functionality over a Linux/BSD even Windows servers.
      Setup times are far less time-consuming than Linux. Per-user cost is far less than Windows.

      > 3. There is 0 fore-site on what will happen for the next version. What new features. Apple is too closed
      Absolutely true, and a real deal killer in the enterprise.

      >4. You had limited options. So that means you are paying for stuff you don't need
      Somewhat true, but the Xserve is 1u. Most of the options are externalized.

      >5. Limited server tools. Sure the Apple stuff is good but you need that one extra tool that apple doesn't support.
      Then install it. The Xserve is UNIX. Also, most data centers have more than one machine, and hardly any have all the same brand throughout.

      >Like Apple or Hate Apple, it really isn't a good server platform.
      Well, they still make servers, just not rack-mounted ones.

    2. Re:No big loss by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Informative

      When Apple first moved to Intel the XServes were actually VERY price competitive with Dell and HP and whatnot. The problem is that eventually interest waned an Apple let the refresh cycles get longer and longer and less spectacular when they were refreshed.

  7. If you don't like your own food... by 1984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well I guess that answers the question about what *didn't* go in that big new data center.

    In a previous life several years ago we looked at buying 300 of them to run Yellow Dog (yes, several years). They were nicely engineered units, but Apple clearly wasn't series about enterprise sales. They offered a kit of spare parts for field replacements, but not much beyond that.

  8. Re:No offense, but... by jgagnon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Starting an offensive statement with "no offense" doesn't make it less offensive. :p

    (not that I'm offended)

    --
    Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
  9. So what? by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Xserve has been largely redundant since Apple discontinued the Xraid. When you pair them up they make great file servers, the publishing company I used to work for loved them (yup, that's right, there *are* people for whom Apple servers make sense, go home haters).

    Seeing as how there's nothing you can do with an Xserve that you can't do with a Mac Pro, the only difference is the rackmounting. Considering the way forward is Xsan, that's completely optional now even if all your storage is rackmounted. The SAN controller can be on the other side of the building as long as your fibre reaches it.

    Nice as it was, goodbye redundant product. You'll be missed, but not for long.

  10. Support was the biggest problem for Apple Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple's hardware support was abysmal for their servers. And by support, I'm not talking about drivers, I'm talking about their ability to fix a broken system.

    I've called Apple to get parts for failed Xserves, and they have taken WEEKS to ship for systems covered under applecare. They also think it's entirely fine to tell you to bring an Xserve in to an authorized repair center. I mean, *what?*

    Just because a server is available in a 1U form factor doesn't mean it's an enterprise system. You can't support enterprise hardware the same way you support iPods.

  11. Re:Why is this odd? by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The move would make sense if Apple were a car company(ha! car metaphor ftw!) Discontinuing one line of a car company's models has almost 0 effect on the other model that company makes. However in computing, esp. with a company like Apple, it's actually a different beast. While the XServe may not have had many sales by itself, it really was an enabler for companies to move more stuff towards the mac(and by extension iOS devices). Apple's biggest strength really has been that they are a one stop shop for your entire computing ecosystem. You can move your company to Apple, and while you will pay a little bit more for the hardware, the fact that Apple has designed the whole ecosystem(hardware, software etc) to work with eachother means that you will save money and time when it comes to support. However recently with the discontinuation of Java and now the XServe Apple is really saying, "We are a gizmo company. We make other stuff, but if it isn't gizmo related we really don't care'

    The knock-on effects of this decision are going to be pretty bad for Apple. Apple was finally making inroads in the enterprise, only to do something as stupid as this. Not only that, companies now have 0 faith in the future of Apple. They have shown time and again that they have 0 problems discontinuing product lines/platforms on a whim. How is a developer supposed to plan anything when Apple can just cancel it? Are we really supposed to put our reputation with our customers(which translates into our livelihoods in a lot of circumstances) in Steve's hands when he has shown 0 qualms about discontinuing products at a moments notice? You can bet that any sysadmin/architect who convinced their boss to buy XServes in the past couple months is so is worried sick about how said boss will interpret this news. And you can be sure as shit that said sysadmin won't be nearly as enthusiastic about Apple products in the future. I know I'm not.

    Steve is destroying the very thing that made him big in the first place, and I wonder how much longer Apple will even be around. They seem to be putting all their eggs in the consumer products basket, and there is a long line of companies that don't exist or are a shell of their former selves who went down that exact same road. AAPL will be at 0 before decades end unless someone stops Steve, and probably even if they do. I'm waiting until WWDC when Apple reveals Lion to short AAPL big time.

  12. Re:No offense, but... by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IBM - Market cap of $182 Billion with $23.7 billion quarterly revenue
    Apple - Market cap of $291 Billion with $20.3 billion quarterly revenue

  13. Re:Fraggin Great by Neil_Brown · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I really did like Time Machine for ease of use, but I will find something for Linux, or create my own based around rsync.

    Having had problems sorting a Time Machine replacement out under Linux, I installed FreeNAS on a spare box - just add and configure the drives, select the option to run a Time Machine server, and you're away - I was very impressed with the ease of use.

  14. Well, maybe they'll learn their lesson by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This has always, always been the Apple way. For better AND worse, Apple is a "We do what we want," kind of company. They set their own path, decide what they think the market REALLY wants, and so on. This has good sides, it leads to them trying new things that other companies wouldn't and ignoring some conventional wisdom. That has lead to some extremely popular products in the consumer electronics space. However the bad side is that they do not consider the needs of their partners, and their clients, in enterprise. They'll change their mind on how shit is done, not tell you first, not give you a migration strategy, and that is that.

    Two good somewhat recent examples would be the move to Intel hardware and the discontinuation of the 64-bit Carbon API. In the case of the Intel transition, everything was kept heavily under wraps. They admitted after it was done that they'd been working on it for years, even using OS-X on Intel in demonstrations, however it was all kept very hush hush. Suddenly PPC was no longer available and it was all Intel. So if you were heavily invested in PPC hardware, well fuck you. In the case of 64-bit Carbon they said it'd be supported, provided beta APIs and so on, and companies like Adobe were using it. Then they suddenly said "Nah, changed our mind, you have to use Cocoa," leaving companies like Adobe in a lurch.

    Apple has never taken enterprise support seriously, their mentality is just not aligned with it. They want to be able to change everything, do what they think is cool at the time and so on. It has worked wonderfully for them in the consumer electronics space, but that is NOT what is needed in the enterprise world.

    Well, perhaps businesses will understand that, and understand that going all Mac has problems because of that. Apple may pay lip service to the business market, but it isn't what they are good at doing. They can and will change their minds on how things are done on no notice and leave you to deal with the results.

    1. Re:Well, maybe they'll learn their lesson by node+3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      - Desktops.
      - Interoperability with the outside Windows world.
      - Sometimes absolutely shitty hardware support.
      - Sometimes kludgy solutions to problems that are elegantly solved by proprietary software.

      I don't mean to say that you can't make an all Linux solution work, but you can also make an all Windows solution work, and an all Mac solution work. For all the problems I listed, there are ways to work around them, but that doesn't make them non-problems, just like every single Windows and Mac problem can be worked around as well.

      There are also scenarios where going monoculture can be no problem. For example an ISP could go 100% Linux, no problem. An art studio could go 100% Mac, no problem. And a stock broker could go 100% Windows, no problem.

      But just as it's the hard and honest truth that going all Windows or all Mac can be problematic, the truth is that going all Linux brings with it its own problems.

  15. Re:It means Linux on the server and iOS on the cli by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not at all, it means that the market for companies that have racks and want to run OS X Server is small. Now they have the Mac Mini Server, they have a product that can go into small offices that don't have somewhere for a rack-mounted system.

    The XServe was never a product that Apple created to sell. They created it because they have a lot of data centres of their own (to drive their site, the QuickTime Movie Trailers hosting, Apple Store, iTunes Store, and so on) and they didn't want to be buying a load of servers from a competitor to run them. They sold it because, having already designed and built it for un-house use there was no reason not to, but the potential market for a rack-mounted OS X box was small enough that it wouldn't have been worth their while designing it just for sale.

    So what does this announcement actually mean? That they are no longer planning on using XServes in their own data centres. My guess is that they're planning on having their ARM team design a Cortex A15 SoC with ethernet, crypto hardware, and SATA on die and make tiny blade servers for internal use. They almost certainly won't want to ship OS X Server for ARM for external use, because supporting another architecture would be a lot of effort for little return, but they might do if the market looks big enough.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  16. Unisys is the "something else" up Apple's sleeve by Ilyon · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Or do they have something else up their sleeve for next year?"

    Yes, they have something else up their sleeve. Did anybody notice Apple's "enterprise services agreement" with Unisys? http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Apple-Unisys-Agree-to-Enterprise-Services-Deal-Report-788654/ Did anybody notice the 54% drop in Unisys's profits, along with a drop in server sales? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unisys-3Q-profit-sinks-54-pct-apf-3818156357.html?x=0&.v=1 So, Unisys is an enterprise computing company looking for a way to save its server business. Apple is consumer electronics company with enterprise ambitions, enterprise software, but no enterprise distribution network. Apple just announced it is dropping its server hardware line, a little over a week after announcing the deal with Unisys. I know it is fashionable to dismiss Apple's enterprise computing ambitions. I was at an Apple Developer's seminar a couple years ago where they were showing off the new version (then) of MacOS X Server. The entire focus of that seminar was on how Apple was adding features to MacOS X Server (and even licensing things from Microsoft) to make OS X Server more suitable for the enterprise. I predict Unisys will start offering MacOS X Server on Unisys server hardware soon. Apple may even end up buying Unisys.

  17. Re:It means Linux on the server and iOS on the cli by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, I think the previous post is probably right, at least in the long run.

    If there's one thing the popularity of iPhone/iPad had demonstrated, it's that most people don't really use their computers much. They have a hugely capable desktop machine that they use for "facebook", email, and "youtube", and that's about it for most of them.

    I'm a pretty hardcore penguinista myself, but even I doubt that a standard full-service (by today's "PC" standards) Linux desktop will ever conquer the market, or even a large minority of it. However, I think the current "desktop" market is mostly doomed outside of "enterprise" and hardcore power-user settings. Now that "consumer" gadgets have gotten cheap and powerful enough to do what the great majority of "users" seem to do with their computers, there's no need for it any more. All those people who are "completely befuddled when they don't see the start button" will be migrating their way over to even-simpler environments like Android and iOS and perhaps Windows 7 Series 7 Phone 7 Series (or whatever they were calling it), which I actually kind of expect will cannibalize BlackBerry for corporate users.

    My personal prediction: Microsoft is busy fossilizing into the New IBM (firmly embedded in many "corporate" environments but fading out of the "consumer" market), while Apple clamps down on its users and gets increasingly ruthless with its market control to become the New Microsoft. I expect Linux to grow solidly on the internet server side and on corporate servers.

    I actually expect the Android/Apple landscape in the "consumer" side to end up looking a lot like the Microsoft/Apple market now - I'm guessing we'll end up with a solid majority made up of various Android devices, with Apple being a minority (but a relatively large and reliable one).

    There, a free wild prediction, and you didn't even have to look at ads on ZDNet or some other commercial publication to get it.

    tl;dr: Yes, I agree that Microsoft will likely hold onto the "traditional desktop" market for as long as that market stays around, but I don't think that market is going to exist for that much longer now.

  18. Re:For us it's a big loss by trapnest · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why does everyone think Apple stopped making servers? They just stopped making xserves.

  19. Re:It means Linux on the server and iOS on the cli by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's a whole lot of speculation.

    The way I remember it, Apple sold a lot of Xserves into media environments, for digital video processing, basic file storage, etc. Musicians and A/V professionals have a natural affinity for Macs and little interest in maintaining servers, so a plug-and-play server that worked with their Macs was a natural choice. Unfortunately, it's not a particularly large market.

    Xserves were nice machines, but building and maintaining bulletproof server hardware -- including continually producing new models that keep up with the ongoing upgrade cycles from Intel and other component vendors -- just doesn't make sense if the products aren't competitive in the market. And Apple's servers weren't going to be competitive until it started shipping models with Linux and/or Windows Server as an option. Instead, Apple tried to be Sun and found out it simply didn't have the expertise and market savvy to be Sun -- and then, look what happened to Sun.

    They almost certainly won't want to ship OS X Server for ARM for external use, because supporting another architecture would be a lot of effort for little return, but they might do if the market looks big enough.

    So they're going to use it exclusively in-house, to the extent that they're going to replace all their Xserves, but they don't have enough faith in the ARM port to sell it? Just the fact that they put it into production use in-house means they'd have to "support" it. I think you're reaching.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!