MacVillage.net

Steve Jobs made a very unusual comment as reported by the BBC today [Link]. He claims that “the firm [Apple] could be well placed to double its market share. The article goes on to quote “The great thing is when you have 5% market share, all you have to do is convince another five out of the other 95% to switch and you have doubled your market share,” said Jobs.

This is really not a typical Steve Jobs like comment. Normally he doesn’t like to comment about the future too much. Apple in general is a pretty quiet company considering its user base is a bunch of self described “zealots”. Apple doesn’t say much because its users do it for them.

Doubling its market share is quite a feat, even if it is just getting another 5%. The problem is that most with computers are set in their ways. When a person buys a computer, they acquire hardware, software, and all the trimmings to complement their system. Switching platforms is not always cheap. The cost goes beyond the new computer itself. All the software that needs to be repurchased could be a bit issue. This is not to say that it can’t be done. If anyone is in the position to accomplish this, Apple is the company.

What is interesting is that no specific timeline has been specified. There is no statement if this doubling of the market share will occur in one year or in 10 years.

One way which I think Apple would be able to ease the platform transition for Windows Refugees would be to convince software makers to provide serious discounts for getting the same product for another platform. For example, say a person owned a copy of Adobe PhotoShop 6 for Windows. They can order a Mac version of Adobe PhotoShop 6 for $20. The only change would be the platform. To upgrade to a new version (7.0 for OS X), there would be standard upgrade costs on top of the platform change. If Apple could do this, they would take away one huge burden from potential converts. This is especially so for small businesses.

If Apple could form an alliance with software developers to offer this, there would be a larger migration to Macs. The cost of a transition would be substantially less. There would be a benefit for software developers as well. If a person converts from their PC to a new Mac, it is not only crossing the platform boundary, but an upgrade to a more powerful computer, since I doubt anyone is considering a transition after buying a new PC in the past few months. By providing this cheap platform change, the user is left with this powerful new system, and some cash. Anyone who got a new fast computer knows money in your pocket burns when you have a new computer. You want lots of new software to play with on your computer. That is new business for the developers. If a person doesn’t convert, they may stick it out a bit with their current computer and make do. They won’t have the specifications to buy new software. No sales. Not to mention that the money that they make will be largely profit anyway. A person already purchased the software, you are simply providing a CD with another version, and maybe a manual or a pamphlet. It helps prevent pirating and would give them the income they want. Really all parties benefit.

Overall, I think Apple does have a chance, but unless Apple uses strategy in innovative hardware, software, and business, I don’t see a doubling market share in the near future. Especially in times where many are holding off on large expenses. Easing the burden would be a large step towards converting more Windows users.

I wrote an article earlier this week discussing my beliefs on Apple’s new server, before the official announcement that came a few days later. [Link] It is now time to see how close I came to what Apple created.

I wanted to see several things. Basically I wanted a small, cheap, fast server with all the trimmings. It seems that we really got that. $2,999 for a server is actually pretty good, in comparison to many other competitors from IBM, Sun, and Dell. Apple’s new server isn’t intended to compete with high end IBM and Sun servers, which still would blow the Xserve out of the water, but Xserve really holds its own against these major brands.

I believe Apple summarizes the Xserve better than anyone:

You wanted a 1U rack-optimized design that would let you deploy many more servers in a single location. Wish granted: Xserve lets you stack 42 high-performance units in an industry-standard 8-foot-tall rack with up to 630 gigaflops of processing power.

You wanted vast amounts of space for storing everything from high-definition video to large scientific data sets. Accordingly, Xserve holds nearly half a terabyte of data per machine ? and more than 20 terabytes per 42U rack.

One of the true “Apple touches” is the management software. “Server Monitor, a sophisticated hardware-and-software monitoring and management tool that gives you in-depth visual feedback on all your hardware subsystems.” Says the Apple website. It really gives a ton of information in an easy to read layout. The obvious stuff like network information, had drive status, security settings, temperature of server, power status, and so on are provided in this simple program.

Perhaps in the future Apple will see the benefits of having a web-accessible version of this monitoring tool. Apple makes a point this time around about ensuring that it will work great with Macs, Windows, and Unix computers, but the admin is of course a Mac. By using a web client similar to that of Linksys routers and other products in recent years, this could truly be a cross platform product. Obviously this client side program to access the server does have it’s benefits, but only if you are behind a Mac. I would imagine there are many companies with a few Mac groups, and a majority Windows based groups. An admin would need to use a Mac to manage the server. In many cases that is not practical. A cross platform solution would be much better for them. Another reason for a web interface is that it is less constricting. “Cross platform” is a really big selling point for products these days. If it uses a web interface, there is no reason why Apple couldn’t market it cross platform. This has constantly been a problem with Airport Base Station, though there is now finally an “unsupported” windows client available. Since it is the first release, I would expect that the software will evolve as time goes on.

Another problem that I see is that Apple is really pushing Mac OS X server. As I stated in my previous article, Iwould really like to see Apple give an option of OS X server. While it is a great product for many Applications, nobody wants more than they need when it comes to servers. Extra “bloat” just creates more security holes (or potential security holes), and a waste of resources. Darwin, the core of OS X server is prefect for many server tasks. With most software that a business would run being perfectly capable of running in just Darwin, OS X server is just extra. Personally I would like to see Apple offer Darwin on it’s own. I think the savings that would provide may convince many businesses in particular those who need web servers to consider Xserve, which in almost every other way is prefect for the task.

My only other complaint is the lack of customization. I personally would have liked to see more options with the processor speed and number of them, say going down to 733 MHz, more options for disk space, both more and less, and more RAM configurations. I think that the current configuration options are good for several markets, but by simply offering a few more options, Apple would capture a larger chunk of the entire server market. It would allow the Xserve to start below $2,999, maybe even as low as $2,599, and still be a really good server. Then Apple can pull the same trick that Dell pulled on the in the education market. Wouldn’t that be an interesting trick?

Apple briefly mentioned that a high-performance RAID storage product featuring industry standard 2Gb Fiber Channel, will be introduced later this year.

Overall, Xserve appears to be an excellent product. It reminds me of Cobalt (now Sun) Raq servers in appearance, but they seem to be much more powerful then the Raq Pizza’s of the past. Hopefully Apple will see that there are other markets itching to get their hands on a Xserve, they need only a bit more customization in the ordering process, and the savings of using Darwin over full blown OS X server, which is too advanced for some tasks.

Bravo Apple on a server that appears to be the standard in which the market leaders will now aspire towards.

Apple appears to be making several moves in the past year to change the companies position in a variety of markets. It released the eMac to help win back education, it is pushing OS X upon developers in hopes of building the digital hub idea, and this week it will release a rack server intended on capturing some of the server market, as well as to help recapture the business market. Both are critical to Apple’s future.

For the business market, MacManager is really what everyone has been relying on these days. The goal for a business it to manage it’s technology and make it as efficient as it can. They want the ability to store data on a remote server, back up that server on a regular basis, have quick easy access to any file from any computer, and manage user preferences, mail, and programs. Not to mention doing that securely, and so that it quick and efficient.

A rack server would be good for this market, but it needs to be affordable. With the cost of Intel based hardware for an NT server going down, a business can afford to purchase a few hefty licenses of NT then go a bit cheaper on hardware and get several servers. This allows redundancy and lets different groups or tasks are assigned to different servers.

The servers this market is looking for are capable of RAID Hard Drive configurations, meaning several drive bays, fast processors, tons of RAM, gigabit Ethernet, and an optional second power supply for redundancy. Not to mention an effective cooling system to keep everything from overheating.

To succeed in this market, Apple will need to provide powerful servers with software to run them at a low price. They will need to prove to be as cost efficient as Intel based hardware for any change in the market to occur. Size of the server is not so critical in this case since most businesses simply store servers in a back room on site. In most cases they would accept a slightly bigger case if that meant more bang for the buck.

For the web server market, Apple will need to be a bit more cunning. Servers will need to be cheap and scalable. RAID Hard Drive configurations, meaning several drive bays, fast processors, tons of RAM, gigabit Ethernet, and an optional second power supply for redundancy. Not to mention an effective cooling system to keep everything from overheating are all a must. For web servers there is an added challenge of keeping the case small since most servers are co-located to another facility. The more space in the rack the server takes, the more the owner pays.

As for software, Apple may have an advantage. Darwin, Apple’s open source initiative is a great OS for a web server, when on it’s own and not combined with Mac OS X. Darwin is simple, compatible, and very compact. Exactly what is needed for a server. It is also a UNIX operating system, so it is compatible with many languages such as PHP, PERL, and can have many other products ported over.

Apple will need to provide a load balancing solution before any larger site would even consider using Darwin as their OS. A large site runs on several servers, all of which may be hosting the same files. A complete load balancing solution allows all the servers to stay in sync and ensures that load is evenly distributed.

If I were in Steve Jobs position, not only would I be a wealthy man, but I would strongly consider pushing pure Darwin with Apache, PHP, PERL, Sendmail, and other UNIX software before I would push Mac OS X server. In this situation, most wouldn’t want OS X server. Including it with every software will only raise the price and turn away potential buyers.

I must admit I am a bit reluctant to say that an Apple Rack server will be successful, but I am also hesitant to say it will be unsuccessful. The idea of a rack server pits Apple against its worst enemy, and no it’s not Microsoft, it’s Apple. Apple must go against it’s history to successfully launch a rack server. Apple traditionally sells expensive hardware. The server market is one where cost is a serious issue. The server must pack a lot of power into a small price tag, if it doesn’t there may not be a good reason for an IT professional to want to get an Apple server.

From the way I am looking at things, for a server to succeed in both of these markets, the base model needs to start at $1400 for a basic rack server with one power supply, an IDE hard drive, low end processor, and 256 MB RAM. The farther away from that price Apple gets, the less of a success this new rack server will be.

And as far as size goes, I would hope for 1U - 2U considering Apple did manage to make the cube, but I would think 3U - 5U would be more likely to allow for more hard drives, more effective cooling and expansion.

I would hope that Apple doesn’t push it’s Mac OS X Server to hard, but pushes the hardware. An option to buy the hardware without OS X server in favor of Darwin would be a really good move on Apple’s part.

So lets all sit back, and wait to see what Apple reveals this week.

To avoid the dozens of emails, MacVillage.net is running on a Sun Enterprise web server running Solaris. Unless an Apple server becomes really reasonable as far as price and power, there wouldn’t be a good reason to change over. Not to mention the obvious financial burdon of new hardware (which could be remedied with the link below).

Apple this week unveiled a new computer dubbed the ‘eMac’ (e is for education) [Link]. The new Mac is only available to educational purchasers, not to the general public. The computer (shown to the right) is very similar to the iMac G3, so the question is, will it help Apple?

Most likely the answer is yes. The eMac may look a bit like the infamous iMac G3, but it really isn’t. First of all it has a G4 processor (700 MHz, making it quite up to the standards of the new iMac G4. Secondly it has a Flat CRT. Because the screen is flat, there is less glare, thus making the display much nicer on the eyes. That screen is also 17 inches. The iMac was only 15.

Other than that it is basically an iMac. It contains similar software packaging (OS X is available, but OS 9 is also included). It contains a CD-ROM or CD-RW. The computer is extremely simple, but that may be just what educational customers want.

The new computer starts at $999, so it falls in the “sub $1k” category. Most believe this is a major breakthrough, since most school districts are looking to buy as many computers as they can for as little as possible. It is very desirable to have a low student to computer ratio. A low cost is a good way to get there.

Apple recently released Remote Desktop, a software package for network administrators to help manage Macintosh computers. [Link]

Apple obviously is looking to defend it’s education market, a market it has until recently been the big contender. In recent years companies like Dell have introduced computers cheap enough to entice some budget strapped school districts to switch platforms.

The question is, will it work. In my opinion, I think it will make a big difference. Most schools don’t have the money to upgrade computers every few years. As a result, there are many 5400’s still around. With the introduction of OS X, any beige Mac is considered outdated. Upgrading to new iMac G4′s, or PowerMacs, is expensive, making PC’s look pretty enticing. Now with a cheaper alternative, schools may realize that it is worth upgrading, and you can now take advantage of OS X. This is a serious push for OS X. I think it will pay off in the end. It shows that Apple intends to get OS X into the classroom.