Apple News, Analysis and Podcasts

It was a sad day for most Mac OS X Server admins when Apple announced they were discontinuing the XServe line because as Steve Jobs said, "They just aren't selling well." No replacement was offered, save for a beefed up Mac Pro and the Mac Mini server option. While both of these may work for some organizations, a real server solution was now missing from Apple's line-up.

Or is it?

As we have watched what ARM processors can do running the iOS, one has to wonder, "How much longer until the A5 (and future iterations) become powerful enough to run more than the iOS?" While Intel struggles at making their chips more power efficient for mobile devices, Apple is on the opposite path to making their A-Series chips more powerful while remaining very efficient.

It's clear Apple has entered the chip race to win. 2010 was claimed to be the "Year Apple became a chip-maker". By releasing the first iPad with the A4 processor and now the iPad 2 with the dual-core A5, Apple is on the fast track for chip making. Note that Apple also purchased chip-makers PA Semi (2008) and Intrinsity (2010).

Apple Server Future

Steve's Xserve comment only referred to the Xserve. The comment did not say Apple was getting out of the server business nor didn't rule out better options — for example servers running A5 or A6 processors. Future Apple servers may not use hard drives but SSD instead or a combination of SSD and XSan. Apple is very likely to take a blade approach instead of the monolithic Xserve approach.

One thing server admins know is that servers use a ton of electricity. This is why Google and Amazon have built facilities along the Columbia river in Oregon. Old smelting plants closed down along the Columbia, but the owners have extremely cheap power contracts for another 50+ years. Just the what the doctor ordered when building a large server farm.

However, if Apple used the very power efficient ARM processors to build new servers, finding cheap electric rates is far less of a concern. This could give Apple a huge and unforeseen advantage. Apple could introduce a server option that is plenty powerful but also incredibly energy efficient. Once again Apple would "think different" like it did with the original iMac, the iPod, iTunes, the MacBook Air, the iPhone and the iPad — catching everyone off guard. As business guru Seth Godin would claim, Apple would purple cow the industry with yet another change in direction that puts them far in the lead.

Don't think Apple has left the server market. Instead watch for the Lion to roar in new ways at the WWDC this June.

2 Comments

1. TheMacAdvocate ~ April 4, 2011 20:40
   One development also worth mentioning on the server front: the advent of Thunderbolt. One of the most cost-prohibitive aspects of setting up a server farm comes from the expense of providing processor interconnects. Thunderbolt has the potential to become a way to standardize the connection between the various switches and bridges that are currently much more expensive to provide.
2. Robert ~ April 8, 2011 14:26
   I missed this when it first came out even though you said you were working on it, sorry. I found a website that shows how Blue/Gene is built, https://asc.llnl.gov/computing_resources/bluegenel/configuration.html, as building blocks. Apple doesn't need to try the supercomputer market again but using this concept on a smaller with it's own processor chips could create the equivalent of server clusters that just might sell. Contract with VMWare to provide ESXi capability (probably patented) and installations could run multiple server-based VMs within a very small box. Since OSX Server is allowed to run virtualized on Apple hardware, this would work. Where I work, this is the new way of providing services, everything is virtualized and runs on clusters of Linux systems or ESXi-based servers. Provide an attractively priced system that takes less power (electricity and cooling) and rack space and Apple could have a winner that would extend to installations with systems other than Macs. If done the way IBM does it, it might not need the same kind of processors interfaces we're used to (ethernet) but could use internal Thunderbolt connections if they are faster than the normal processor bus.

Leave your reply