toggle

AAPL Stock: 556.97 ( -4.31 )

Columnist on Apple server strategy

updated 11:35 pm EST, Mon January 12, 2004

Apple server strategy


Columnist Mark Hall comments on Apple's recent endeavor into the with the Xserve and RAID products. "What's stunning is that Apple's marketers will price the Xserve system at $3,999," says Hall, Apple is the "the price leader for dual-CPU servers." Hall points out that in addition to savings on hardware, Apple does not charge per-client fees for Mac OS X, in contrast to Microsoft's 25-user enterprise license for Windows adds $2,500 to the price of a Dell PowerEdge 1750. Jon Moog at St. Cloud-based RiskWise, which runs credit checks for large financial institutions, says "Dollar for dollar, the systems are cheaper than Windows machines."


by MacNN Staff

print
email
(13)

TAGS :

 audio

Related Articles

Recent Articles

toggle

Comments

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    01/13, 01:07am | report spam | Reply |

    duh

    we have been saying this for years.

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    01/13, 02:09am | report spam | Reply |

    Huh?

    What do you mean you get unlimited # of users for one flat fee of $1000. How can you call this better than the per seat/per user pricing of MS Windows?!?! Sure, you could save tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in purchasing OS X server, but with Apple charging FULL PRICE for each update, its going to cost you sooner or later...

    Anyway, how can anyone trust a server OS that doesn't charge based on the processors used or the number of users. Everyone knows all the good software charges outrageous and weird licensing money!

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    01/13, 02:24am | report spam | Reply |

    MS stopped upgrades too

    You know the comment about charging full price for server upgrades is pretty ignorant.

    Microsoft stopped offering upgrade pricing for their server products. MS and Apple are in the exact same kettle on this issue. They both have subscription plans for upgrades or full price versions.

    So if you have a copy of Windows advanced server 2000 and want to upgrade you are going to be paying another $2500 plus the cost for client access licenses to upgrade.

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    01/13, 02:52am | report spam | Reply |

    Um

    I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm rather than ignorance.

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    01/13, 03:22am | report spam | Reply |

    Re: Huh?

    What do you mean you get unlimited # of users for one flat fee of $1000. How can you call this better than the per seat/per user pricing of MS Windows?!?! Sure, you could save tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in purchasing OS X server, but with Apple charging FULL PRICE for each update, its going to cost you sooner or later...

    Never heard of Mac OS X Server Maintenance?

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    01/13, 07:54am | report spam | Reply |

    re: Um

    "I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm rather than ignorance."
    The second half was sarcastic, the first half didn't quite achieve sarcasm. Needs some reworking.

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    01/13, 08:05am | report spam | Reply |

    Biggest challenge

    The biggest challenge is mindshare and installed support infrastructure. I just had a talk with the chief of security for a very, very large state agency.

    From a mindshare perspective, when and if they consider a non-Microsoft solution, it is a LINUX one they pursue. And even LINUX is not considered for the desktop. It is only for servers. As an organization, Macintosh does not even make it to their discussions.

    When I brought up Macs to the security officer that Macs should be considered in the server room for various security reasons (and costs), he said that they would have to retool their IT department if they introduced even a single Macintosh. They are simply not trained to support it. Yes, I went through a variety of possibilities for why he wouldn't but, being a state agency, he reminded me that they have policies and procedures for everything and a Macintosh was not in the paperwork.

    So, in my opinion, Apple is taking the right approach to the enterprise, put out the right products for their current user base. Make them with more and better features than the competition for less price. Plan on being in the business for the long-haul to give bureaucracies time to make the adjustments.

    In other words, take a very long view on the business much as Microsoft would. It is a worthwhile market to be in so be prepared to be in it forever.

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    01/13, 08:19am | report spam | Reply |

    re: Biggest Challenge

    Did you then point out that training and even certification in Mac OS X Server is far less expensive than any other platform and that it is so easy there is no reason why anyone certified in anything shouldn't go ahead an add Mac OS X certification along with all of their other certifications?

    After all if they were moving from Windows to LINUX, they are going to have to re-familiarize themselves with LINUX even if they had certification.

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    01/13, 08:41am | report spam | Reply |

    Re:Biggest challenge

    What you say is so true. IT departments where I work only contain a few people who understand macs. Many good useful staff understand the technologies only the way microsoft have done it. I tend to think its a case of better the devil you know.

    But if Apple can keep coming out with good compatible products like they are doing then maybe they will start to gain mindshare but it will not take just a year or two.

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    01/13, 09:35am | report spam | Reply |

    IT decisions

    It is definately true that if an IT department has no experience with anything but windows, they won't reasonably consider anything else.

    It is completely ridiculous for an IT department to consider switching from Windows to Linux without considering the mac (unless they are using existing servers). The Mac does everything Linux does, and does it easier and generally with better admin tools. Additionally, in general, if you wanted to, you could use the mac the same way you use Linux.

    So if the mac is cheaper, and they don't want to stay with windows, they should at least look at it.

    As for policies and procedures....maybe they say "Linux" and maybe they say "Unix." Even if they say "Linux" the mac is a reasonable thing to consider as it is effectively the same from the perspective of underlying operating system. (Linux is also an offshoot of unix).

    I have heard many many times from non mac people that the mac is based on Linux....because they consider Linux = Unix.

Show More Comments

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

 
close
Photo
toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

iHome iW2 AirPlay speaker

iHome generally isn't known as a luxury brand when it comes to audio, but it is prolific -- the company's docks and speakers are every ...

Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover

One of the iPad's main weaknesses has always been productivity. It's not a question of apps; while it has taken a little time for a na ...

Logitech UE Air Speaker

If maybe a little more slowly than Apple would like, AirPlay is becoming a staple of the wireless speaker market for iOS devices. The ...

toggle

Most Commented

 

Popular News