Jobs on Xserve: 'hardly anyone was buying'

updated 08:25 am EST, Mon November 8, 2010

Jobs says Xserve cut because of poor sales

Apple chief Steve Jobs in a brief e-mail this weekend justified the end of the Xserve. A French customer pleading that his company depended on the platform was told that sales simply weren't enough to justify sales. "Hardly anyone was buying them," Jobs wrote.

No explanation was given for the poor sales, though Apple's promotion and development of the rackmount server has dropped off sharply in the past two years. It once gave the Xserve the same prominent placement as other Macs on the online store but eventually relegated the server to a much lower-profile text link. The Xserve also skipped the most recent processor updates to the Mac Pro and didn't get the six-core Xeons or other upgrades from earlier this year.

Regardless of factors, existing users have already complained that the current options won't let them use Macs in future server arrangements. No other Macs support lights-out management, which allows IT administrators to control a system when switched off or another unusable state, as well as true redundant power supplies and enterprise-level support. SAS drives and externally accessible hard drives are also unavailable on the Mac Pro or the server edition Mac mini.

By Electronista Staff

(32)

TAGS :

computers, industry, Xserve, Mac Pro, Mac mini, Apple

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

burger

Forum Regular

Joined: Sep 2000

+20

11/08, 08:48am | report spam | close reply

Expectations

I don't really see the Xserve as a product Apple should have expected to sell in mass quantities, but more of a support product for businesses that have the need to use them in a high availability environment. Kind of a nicety for businesses that have put forth the effort to incorporate Macs in an enterprise level environment beyond simple AD binding for OD policy and management, not to mention those that are using them for full blown hosting solutions and file sharing.

Rack space and redundancy are key in almost any business, and the Xserve helped to provide a great solution for this need.

eldarkus

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2004

11/08, 09:10am | report spam | close reply

Plan

There must be another plan in place to get a rack mount server with LOM and redundancies. I just cant see the Mini or Pro being a viable alternative. Or at least I really home so!! I dont wanna move to MS servers

blidd

Joined: Sep 2003

11/08, 09:13am | report spam | close reply

The Apple Xserver was greate value

If you needed a One U file, mail or webserver with unlimited user access, but if my companies salesnumbers of the Apple Xserver reflects the rest of the industry, then Steve is right about the lack of sales sadly.

facebook_Fabio

Via Facebook

Joined: Nov 2010

11/08, 09:19am | report spam | close reply

Mac Os X Server is the next

I'm expecting that in a couple of years Os X Server will follow the same path.
They simply aren't interested in such market anymore.

cmdahler

Joined: Jan 2005

+19

11/08, 09:23am | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

Well, duh...

When Steve says, "Hardly anyone was buying them," my first thought was "No kidding, really?" I mean, when you have a product that you relegate behind a tiny link on your Store page and just basically don't make any serious attempt to market it, it's no wonder it doesn't sell. The enterprise market is not like the consumer market: you don't just throw something against the wall and see if it sticks, or adopt a rather arrogant "if we build it, they'll buy it just because we're Apple" sort of attitude. That sort of thing works with mass consumerism; in enterprise, you've gotta act like you really want or gosh, even need, someone's multi-million dollar thousand-server order to get it. It's telling that Apple didn't even use the Xserve in their own datacenters....

jreades

Joined: Feb 1999

11/08, 09:23am | report spam | close reply

Support...

From what I heard there were also some support questions -- Apple is geared up to provide good consumer support, not so much on the enterprise end where people expect a very different level of involvement with their issues.

I guess that the Xserve was kind of stuck between two markets: the large scale enterprises weren't going to trust their server farms to Apple anyway (and the specs of the Xserve were good, but not *that* good), and the small businesses weren't often in the market for 1U rack mounts when a Mini or a tower would *seem* to do most of what they needed.

j

TheSnarkmeister

Joined: Jun 2007

11/08, 09:42am | report spam | close reply

Very Sad

The XServe was a great product at a great price, it didn't sell because Apple didn't sell it. And things don't get done at Apple when things are taken off of Steve Jobs priority list. Jobs has never had much interest any enterprise products, namely because he is awful at maintaining relationships. He simply doesn't get relationships, not with his girlfriends, not with his children, not with his family, not with his founding business partners, not with his vendors; indeed, pretty much not with anyone he is suppose to treat with respect instead of a mark. With consumers, you can sell them something and walk away, with business, you have to maintain a relationship. Jobs doesn't understand relationships. Virtually ever single business partnership Apple has attempted has failed due to neglect from the top.

Don't get me wrong, Jobs is a brilliant, driven man who is probably the greatest entrepreneur of the last century, but he has his faults. This is a one of them. It is tragedy, one that could have been prevented if Apple had been professionalized years ago with divisions and divisions managers given autonomy. Instead we still have this cultism, which is fun, and entertaining, and does produce a lot of successes, but occasionally it also results in someone loosing an eye.

mytdave

Joined: Aug 2000

+16

11/08, 09:54am | report spam | close reply

well duh

Of course they weren't selling, Apple foolishly dropped the XServe RAID array, and then they didn't update the XServe for years, and relegated the line to nary a comment on the Apple Store. It's a self-fulfilling demise. And that's the problem. What Steve is failing to see is the whole ecosystem falls apart without an end-to-end solution. The XServe and MacOS X Server are critical to supporting Macs (desktop or laptop) in any business - enterprise or SMB. In turn the Macs are critical to supporting iDevices in business.

Sales numbers are not important, what is important is keeping an up-to-date end-to-end solution for your customers. I fear that the entire ecosystem will begin to collapse with the demise of the XServe. Seem silly? Mark my words. This move sends a message to business owners that Apple cannot be trusted for long term viability. If they can't be trusted with a server platform, why should they be trusted with iPads?

WiseByte

11/08, 09:59am | report spam | close reply

True, but not justified.

I'm sure it's true that Apple does not sell as many XServes as they do everything else, XServe is the only enterprise product they have and if Apple wants server space on enterprise racks, they need an enterprise hardware server.

Of course, Apple sells more consumer products because there are more consumers, but we are not talking about consumers are we? We are talking about big and small companies that needs enterprise class hardware server. People that wants high availability, notification and the ability for remote support.

Killing the XServe is only justified, not by how many they sell vs. consumer products, but by Apple's willingness to stay with enterprise/business customers, who need/want an ecosystem of Apple products from hardware servers to workstations and everything else in between.

I should know because I'm a systems engineer and work for an Apple Value Added Reseller.

Hey, if you wanna let Apple know what you think about this please use this link, as I have:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/xserve.html

iphonerulez

Joined: Nov 2008

-8

11/08, 10:04am | report spam | close reply

When a company is sailing smoothly

it doesn't need an anchor to impede its progress. That anchor was the XServe. Cast off the anchor. Analysts are always looking for under-performing products to find fault in a company so they can downgrade the stock. Now there's one less fault to find. Maybe the Mac Pro will be next to get the axe. I'd guess that there are relatively few buyers of Mac Pros, too. The majority of the world might be moving away from big iron. Either way, businesses don't want anything to do with Mac computers because it's a Windows world and anything that isn't Windows-based doesn't stand a prayer as far as IT managers are concerned.

I'd like to take a peek into Apple's data center. Are they even using their own XServers in there or do they have racks and racks of Mac Pros? Maybe they're using HP blades or something similar.

cutmoney

Joined: Jun 2008

11/08, 10:17am | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

Not surprising

People seem to forget that Apple is in business to make money, if they can't turn a profit on a product they will eventually kill it, that's just good business. Anyone who has owned an Xserve knows that they are an incredible piece of hardware with some serious design. I'm sure the main problem is that, since this is Apple's only piece of true server hardware, that they have to spend a massive amount of R&D money in developing these machines. They are not designed like any other machine and require unique hardware which is not present in standard machines. As such, the money that they make from selling this one piece of hardware needs to pay for the R&D money that goes in to the project, apparently that's just not happening.

I understand the logic of keeping Mac servers on the rack so they can be fully integrated in a company, but there are other options. I'm running a couple of older Xserve G5s for my small businesses and love them. However, I'm sure I could easily get by with a Mac Mini server or two and increase my server performance. And, I'm sure that most businesses are in the same position and have switched over to the Mini for their server needs since they just can't justify an Xserve for most functions. I think Apple will eventually make some updates to the Mac Pro and Mini to add a few of the features lacking on those models for server use (i.e. lights out power, redundant power supplies, etc.) in the future, they still have a few months before the Xserve is killed.

philomath777

Joined: Mar 2004

11/08, 10:44am | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

Spin off?

It's too bad Jobs wouldn't spin off Xserve to another subsidiary (eg. like FileMaker), but I suppose development would languish.

Inkling

Joined: Jul 2006

11/08, 10:53am | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

Out-source

Too bad Apple doesn't seem interested in doing the right thing and outsourcing to someone who does sell a lot of high-quality servers. The sales volume of Linux and Windows models would keep the hardware costs for those with OS X reasonable.

jdonahoe

11/08, 10:58am | report spam | close reply

Apple lied about how easy they were to use

Apple lied about how easy they were to use. When we bought our G5 xserve we were told there was complete integration with both Macs and PCs. We were never able to get a windows domain under the Primary Domain Controller to show up for the windows users in the department. We were told that the server was easy to use and the software to link it with Macs, Windows, and Linux was available out of the box. Once we bought it and tried to get it to work, nobody responded with anything more than "yeah, I don't know about that". Don't get me wrong, the Mac users love the Xserve with mail, web, and file serving, but it's hard to get PC users to use it or support it if they can't see it or the domain that is supposedly running or any folders or files with spaces in the name. It's been very frustrating. We would like to upgrade the aging server, but it's hard to justify when half your users, PC specifically, don't see any point.

mhartt

Joined: Jul 2010

11/08, 11:47am | report spam | close reply

What about partnership?

I doubt we've heard all of this story yet. Combined with Apple's recent discontinuation of Java distribution, this may point to some sort of new alliance with Oracle/Sun. What if that big North Carolina data center was full of Sun boxes running a version of OS X server? Once its capabilities are established Oracle/Sun could offer licensed versions to enterprise customers within its considerable sphere of influence, probably reaching more customers than Apple. Apple could achieve better sales of OS X server without actually having to manufacture the hardware and Oracle benefits from having Apple as a rather large customer. The collaboration would probably have other benefits for each as well. What if a future version of OS X server ultimately replaced Solaris?

(I can just hear Steve now: "Oh by the way, we've been running OS X server on all these Sun boxes in our data center for a while now and the performance is just remarkable. We think IT departments are really going to want this.")

The recent Apple/Unisys deal is similar, but on its face seems more about advancing mobile (iPhone, iPad, Powerbook) to the enterprise -- a market where Oracle/Sun has no competing products. Let's wait and see what Steve's up to. This is an area where a partnership might be a boost for Apple's enterprise success.

facebook_Joseph

apple needs xserve clones

Understandably xserve was for a niche market, but it is an important niche market. If businesses are going to deploy lots of mac desktops, they need someone to run OS X server on to manage them well. Video and audio pros liked the xserve for its ability to slide into racks. Its not a lot of customers, but it is some very loyal customers who may no longer see a reason to stick with Mac if Apple is no longer so interested in the more niche needs ot pros. They can do well elsewhere for cheaper.

So how do you support such a niche and have it make business sense? Clones! Have a partnership with HP or Dell or someone to make server class machines that contain a special chip of dongle for running OS X on them. It would be a minimal cost to both companies, and help keep OS X relevant to Pros.

donmontalvo

Joined: Oct 2009

-1

11/08, 12:00pm | report spam | close reply

It's about time...

...we just need Apple to guide us on moving the LAST TWO sevices off Apple Xserve. Apple Software Update Server (SUS) and NetBoot.

That's it. The only two things holding us back from giving Apple Xserve it's final kick in the behind.

Let Apple do what it does best...consumer products. Apple workstations are awesome. Apple servers are unnecessary, at least for the majority of services. AFP is far better on a decent Wintel/ExtremeZ-IP box than it is on the beefiest Apple Xserve.

Don Montalvo

11/08, 01:13pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

wishful

@ mhartt: A partnership would be cool, but I'm afraid that's most likely wishful thinking. Apple is incapable of developing a successful long term partnership, cause they don't know how to get along with anyone.

ggirton

Joined: Nov 1999

11/08, 01:18pm | report spam | close reply

so sad

i always wanted to have one of those. its just that my server needs in the home are rather limited.

tdellos

11/08, 04:30pm | report spam | close reply

If they sell so few

Than the impact of allowing OS X server to run on a Virtual Machine should be minimal. I'd love to do this and I think being able to do so would minimize the impact of Apple ending production of the Xserve.

jnennemann

11/08, 08:51pm | report spam | close reply

Simple answer to the problem

Virtualize... Apple need to alter their licensing on OS X Server to allow virtualization. Then you can use any enterprise class, load balancing, cluster with anchovies on top to host your Mac OS X Server instances. Imagine it... Mac OS X Server running on a blade server cluster in ESX. That would actually be pretty cool.

qazwart

Joined: Apr 2001

11/08, 10:57pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

It's not Apple's Market

For most businesses, even Apple shops, XServes were just not worth the premium in price. The big problem was finding system and network administrators familiar with the technology. Even Apple shops had stopped buying XServers and started using Linux servers.

Over the last two years, there have been some wonderful administrative open source products that can monitor and maintain networks on Linux machines. Since Macs work well with Linux servers, since Linux servers are cheaper, and since it is much easier hiring Linux specialists, the demand for XServers dropped. Apple's placement on their website reflected the sales.

One of the things Jobs learned during his exile was to not fall in love with things so much that you can't junk them when you need to. There have been a lot of projects Jobs loved, but let falter when the market simply wasn't there.

Apple's great success is due to its ability to move its limited resources into new areas as they pop up, and to concentrate on what they do best. Jobs was the one who pushed the XServes as a way to help Mac desktop sales. Apple needed a server that was Mac friendly. Linux servers can now fulfill that purpose.

what-a-day

Joined: Oct 2010

12/22, 03:31pm | report spam | close reply

Apparently Apple will not use loss leaders

The XServe stood as a commitment to a small market segment. A segment that for planning purposes needs advance knowledge of upcoming changes. Not possible for Apple to work with anyone other than themselves, for self gratification. Planning for Apple is a internal function not to be shared with outsiders until launch is imminent. Go figure.

05/25	Third-gen iPad coming to Philippines...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...
05/24	Yahoo releases Axis 'visual search'...
05/24	Apple airs two new Siri commercials...

05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/25	Google picks up webOS Enyo team, Open...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...
05/24	Yahoo releases Axis 'visual search'...
05/24	Google’s 7-inch tablet ships next month...

05/23	Google launches redesigned Search app...
05/22	Leaked next-gen iPod touch part hints...
05/22	Hulu Plus updates with iPad Retina...
05/22	TiVo Stream to push TV to iPhones,...
05/22	Hands on: TouchType case for iPad,...

03/02	Save $330 on refurb. 15.4-inch, 2.4GHz...
03/01	Pre-owned 8GB iPod touch 2G, drops...
02/29	$150 off Nikon Coolpix S80 Compact...
02/28	Plantronics BackBeat 903 Bluetooth...
02/27	Refurb. Seagate 1.5TB GoFlex Portable...

Jobs on Xserve: 'hardly anyone was buying'

updated 08:25 am EST, Mon November 8, 2010

Jobs says Xserve cut because of poor sales

on its way...

Expectations

Plan

The Apple Xserver was greate value

Mac Os X Server is the next

Well, duh...

Support...

Very Sad

well duh

True, but not justified.

When a company is sailing smoothly

Not surprising

Spin off?

Out-source

Apple lied about how easy they were to use

What about partnership?

apple needs xserve clones

It's about time...

wishful

so sad

Apple makes servers??

If they sell so few

Simple answer to the problem

It's not Apple's Market

Apparently Apple will not use loss leaders

Login Here

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

Electronista Marketplace

Jobs on Xserve: 'hardly anyone was buying'

updated 08:25 am EST, Mon November 8, 2010

Jobs says Xserve cut because of poor sales

Related Articles

Recent Articles

on its way...

Expectations

Plan

The Apple Xserver was greate value

Mac Os X Server is the next

Well, duh...

Support...

Very Sad

well duh

True, but not justified.

When a company is sailing smoothly

Not surprising

Spin off?

Out-source

Apple lied about how easy they were to use

What about partnership?

apple needs xserve clones

It's about time...

wishful

so sad

Apple makes servers??

If they sell so few

Simple answer to the problem

It's not Apple's Market

Apparently Apple will not use loss leaders

Login Here

Recently Commented Articles

Related Forum Posts

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

Electronista Marketplace