Apple has always sucked at properly embracing properly robust tech for high-end gear for markets outside of individual prosumer or creatives. When Xserves existed, they used commodity IDE drives without HA or replaceable PSUs that couldn't compete with contemporary enterprise servers (HP-Compaq/Dell/IBM/Fujitsu). Xserve RAID interconnection half-heartedly used fiber channel but couldn't touch a NetApp or EMC SAN/filer. I'm disappointed Apple has a persistent blindspot preventing them from succeeding in data center-quality gear category when they could've had virtualized servers, networking, and storage, things that would eventually find their way into my home lab after 5-7 years.

▲

donavanm 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Enterprise never ever mattered, and there arent enough digits available to show your “home lab” use case in the revenue numbers. Xserve, the RAID shelves, and the directory services were kinda there as a half hearted attempt for that late 90-00s AV setup. All of that fell on the cutting room floor once personal devices, esp iphone, was realized.

By the time I left in ‘10 the total revenue from mac hardware was like 15% of revenue. Im honestly surprised theres anyone who cared enough to package the business services for mac minis.

So if everything else is printing cash for a HUGE addressable consumer market at premium price points why would they try and compete with their own ODMs on more-or-less commodity enterprise gear?

▲

SoftTalker 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Seems like I remember the main reason Macs survived as a product at all was because you needed one to develop for iOS. That may be an exaggeration but there certainly was a time when Macs were few and far between outside of creative shops. Certainly they were almost unseen in the corporate world, where now they are fairly common at least in laptops.

▲

pjmlp 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Macs survived because Apple got a cash injection, survived long enough to come out with colorful iMacs with an hockey puck mouse, still running on Mac OS 8, and the iPod.

Requiring one for doing iOS development they were already back into the green.

▲

raw_anon_1111 an hour ago | parent [-]

It’s a myth that the “cash injection” from Microsoft saved Apple.

Microsoft gave Apple $250 million. The next quarter Apple turned around and spent $100 million on PowerComputing’s Mac assets.

Apple lost over a billion more before it became profitable. The $150 Net wouldn’t have been make or break.

Now Microsoft promising to keep Office on the Mac was a big deal

	▲	pjmlp a minute ago \| parent [-]
		One way or the other, it was a cash injection from Microsoft.

▲

PunchyHamster 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For Apple, datacenter stuff is low margin business

▲

spacedcowboy 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Considering that Apple is moving away from Linux in the datacenter to its own devices, I'm not sure that's the case. The apple machines aren't available to the consumer (they're rack-mounted, dozens of chips per PCB board, custom-made machines) but they're much less power-hungry, just as fast (or more so), much cheaper for them to make rather than buy, and natively support their own ecosystem.

Some of the machine-designs that consumers are able to buy seem to have a marked resemblance to the feature-set that the datacenter people were clamouring for. Just saying...

	▲	mcculley 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> dozens of chips per PCB board Have there been leaks or something about these internal machines? I am curious to know more.
	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

Terretta 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I'm disappointed Apple has a persistent blindspot preventing them from succeeding in ... things that would eventually find their way into my home lab after 5-7 years.

I can see the dollar signs in their eyes right now.

Aftermarkets are a nice reflection of durable value, and there's a massive one for iPhones and a smaller one for quick flameout startup servers, but not much money in 5 - 7 year old servers.