Should Apple License Mac OS X Out to Workstation/Server Makers

[Rodimus Prime]

Yes they are, and because they made that business decision, why would they suddenly decide to license OSX for the very market they're leaving.

So not to loss entire company networks of computers. You need to remember employees have computers (macbooks, iMacs, Mac pros ect) and really if you want to manage those centerally the only place that has the good tools for it is Xservers. Apple can kiss those good bye as well. They are leave the X server market but they provided nothing to replace it with. There needs to be a replacement. Spin off a company and let that company handle it. Let the spin off have access to a licence copy of OSX server and then let them do what ever they want.

 

[steviem]

That's where I think Apple has an opportunity to cut its losses with the server business, yet still give good tools for managing them. A unix server can do everything an OSX server can. If I could buy a Dell Poweredge or HP Proliant rack mount server, install some flavour of unix that Apple has 'blessed' for use with the OSX server tools and manage it from my Mac with an option of ssh and apple's great GUI tools, I would be super happy.

A lot of the apple specific server stuff is open source already, as things like server manager are literally just nice front ends for regular unix applications.

Hell, if apple released server manager, monitor and workgroup manager apps for iOS, I might just wet my pants!

 

[roadbloc]

Yes

I'd move onto something else if I were you. Apple have hinted enough that they're getting rid of that market.

 

[steviem]

To be honest, they aren't our servers, we just look after them, plus they are still on 10.5.8.

Ideally, I would get them onto FreeBSD because I'm not a fan of servers having GUIs.

 

[vvswarup]

So not to loss entire company networks of computers. You need to remember employees have computers (macbooks, iMacs, Mac pros ect) and really if you want to manage those centerally the only place that has the good tools for it is Xservers. Apple can kiss those good bye as well. They are leave the X server market but they provided nothing to replace it with. There needs to be a replacement. Spin off a company and let that company handle it. Let the spin off have access to a licence copy of OSX server and then let them do what ever they want.

Licensing Mac OS X is just completely contrary to Apple's modus operandi. And they have quarter after quarter of blowout results to prove that their MO has worked.

Instead of spinning off a company, why not let somebody else make something to cater to those who need servers?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Instead of spinning off a company, why not let somebody else make something to cater to those who need servers?

which would mean licensing off OSX server to replace that market it. That is pretty much what I said.

 

[vvswarup]

which would mean licensing off OSX server to replace that market it. That is pretty much what I said.

But that's not my point. Less is more. It's better to have a few products and do a good job of them than to do many projects and do an okay job of them. When Jobs returned to Apple, one of the first things he did was to drastically cut the number of products.

What's so great about the server market that Apple should go against everything they've stood for and license OSX Server?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

But that's not my point. Less is more. It's better to have a few products and do a good job of them than to do many projects and do an okay job of them. When Jobs returned to Apple, one of the first things he did was to drastically cut the number of products.

What's so great about the server market that Apple should go against everything they've stood for and license OSX Server?

It is not the server part that is important but the management side for large deployments of macs. Since Apple has cut off Xservers there is no suitable hardware to manage it any more. Since you really need to be running OSX server to handle OSX deployments in easy format. Increase that to things like final cut servers gone.

This just point out why they need it just for those enterprise environment. Apple is not losing any sells as they are not supply anything in the server market but they do save the deployments for Macs where the money is at.

 

[guzhogi]

It is not the server part that is important but the management side for large deployments of macs. Since Apple has cut off Xservers there is no suitable hardware to manage it any more. Since you really need to be running OSX server to handle OSX deployments in easy format. Increase that to things like final cut servers gone.

This just point out why they need it just for those enterprise environment. Apple is not losing any sells as they are not supply anything in the server market but they do save the deployments for Macs where the money is at.

I agree. I work in a school district that's about 95% Macs and we use a few Xserves for network logins and such. When those Xserves go, we'll be in a bind. Even a Mac Pro isn't good enough, IMO, to replace them. We need redundant power supplies, easy access hard drives, etc.

However, if we get a Linux or Windows server, we lose a lot of the integration we had with OS X Server. And with less integration, I fear that the teachers, administrators, students, & parents will think that Macs aren't that good so why buy one for home?

Sure, Xserves might not sell well, but they just might increase sales of other Apple products. Plus, how many servers does Apple use in its NC data center? A few hundred, if not thousand servers probably. Plus, add in all the service they'd have to provide.

 

[steve2112]

I agree. I work in a school district that's about 95% Macs and we use a few Xserves for network logins and such. When those Xserves go, we'll be in a bind. Even a Mac Pro isn't good enough, IMO, to replace them. We need redundant power supplies, easy access hard drives, etc.

However, if we get a Linux or Windows server, we lose a lot of the integration we had with OS X Server. And with less integration, I fear that the teachers, administrators, students, & parents will think that Macs aren't that good so why buy one for home?

Sure, Xserves might not sell well, but they just might increase sales of other Apple products. Plus, how many servers does Apple use in its NC data center? A few hundred, if not thousand servers probably. Plus, add in all the service they'd have to provide.

As I said earlier in this thread, we are in the same boat. We have several hundred Macs (probably over 1000 with the latest year-end purchases) managed by some software running on XServes. Mac Pros aren't a viable option because of the reasons you mentioned. Also, our software will run on other platforms, but it would be missing several features that are OSX exclusive. If we were allowed to run OSX Server in virtual machines, this wouldn't be a problem.

I find it interesting that as OSX and iOS are gaining more acceptance in the enterprise sphere, Apple is turning their backs on the segment.

 

[whooleytoo]

What do you mean by "should?"

Would it be nice for customers? Yes, because they'd get cheaper and more varied hardware.

Would it be nice for the workstation vendors? Of course, because they'd get another feature to offer customers.

Would it be good for Apple? It would be a disaster, because Apple could never charge enough to recoup the costs of supporting it and the reduced sales from the competition.

For the record, Apple did this in the late '90s with the classic OS. Apple even charged the licensed clone vendors $1000+ per machine, and the program still lost money and devastated Apple's sales.

This is pretty much it! For us, the potential buyers, it'd be great. For licensees, it could be a very lucrative market, with less competition than in the PC hardware market. For Apple - I don't think it would be a disaster, but they have little incentive to do it.

As much as I'd love to have a choice of fast, upgradable Macs; it's as likely as Apple paying out dividends.