Hacker News Reader

Comment by sivers | Hacker News Reader

It was scarier then, because it affected my business deeply, then.

Now it doesn't affect me at all - it's just an old tale I can tell, that someone might find entertaining or helpful.

It reminds me of their sudden decision to drop their XServe line, with no explanation or hint of follow-up. We have a guy that has specialized in "enterprise-y" Apple deployments. We have a few XServes here and the default laptop people get is a MacBook. Essentially, years of building domain expertise on this platform have been wiped from his resume, and he's now terrified for his career; he's decided to learn a certain open-source programming language, one which is fairly friendly to Macs and good for scripting (so he can learn while having a practical use, since he's done a lot of bash scripting) as well as enjoying some popularity for web application development. He wants to hedge if Apple doesn't create an analogous replacement.

Jobs is capricious and doesn't tip his hand; the article's lesson of not basing anything on his (or any other person's or company's) whims is a pretty good one.

It's a bit off-topic but if I remember correctly they silently introduced a 'Server' version of the Mac Pro. Running the same X-Server software. Basically all that has changed is the form-factor, which isn't a rackmount anymore, but instead a tower model.

'Enterprise-y' Apple deployments will probably still be an option, just not in a rack.

sigh

Not to continue this off-topic digression too much further, but a Mac Pro running OS X Server is in no way a replacement for an "enterprise" XServe deployment.

For a full explanation, see this TidBITS article:

http://db.tidbits.com/article/11735

tl;dr version: The Mac Pro takes up 4x the rack space and lacks hot-swappable power supplies and drive bays, making it an awful fit for most 24x7 server environments.

Sounds like he's perfectly positioned to help people transition from X-Serves to whatever gives the best migration path.

This is just one of the reasons for my growing distaste for a platform I was once quite fond of - the frankly mystifying decisions with regard to what features and products stay and go. Apple seems to be embracing the "less is more" ethos more and more as time goes by - which is good as far as it goes, but sometimes I think they're taking it too far. Certainly, as this article shows, they've already taken it to an extreme where communicating with the outside world is concerned.

>Certainly, as this article shows, they've already taken it to an extreme where communicating with the outside world is concerned.

And this is probably the biggest reason why Apple continues to be a minor blip on the enterprise market.

I've been modded down twice on HN for predicting that the whole Macintosh line is going to meet the same fate, and sooner than many would prefer. The success of the iOS consumer platforms has brought Apple to a fork in the road, and there are a few signs -- such as the quiet excision of the 'Computer' part of 'Apple Computer' -- that suggest they can read a map.

Soooo... may as well make it three times.

You keep getting downvoted because it's unsubstantiated nonsense that defies logical expectations.

Why would Mac kill their own development platform? Further, look Google as they thrash around desperate to diversify their revenue stream. Do you think it's sensible for Mac to go the opposite direction and pile all their eggs in one basket? Not to mention all the effort that went into creating this new unibody form factor. Should they just throw away all the resources they've put into doing that?

Well, there was an effort in developing the Xserve line as well, apparently it was no problem for Apple to throw the entire Xserve effort in the trash bin.

I think Apple will put less emphasis on the Mac in the next years, simplifying the line and reducing the products in the market, not so fast as he wishes, and this will be a trend in the entire industry, not only Apple. But that's my opinion and not a detailed analysis.

They ditched the XServe because people just weren't buying them in any noticeable quantities. Apple sells a lot more Macs now then back when Macs were pretty all Apple made, so why would they decide to leave all that money on the table?

It's a chicken and the egg thing. People weren't buying them because they were not competitive with other rack servers anymore. By using your logic Apple could just not update the MacPro for a few years and then pull line because 'people weren't buying them.' Apple created the people not buying them situation though.

I'm actually a little surprised that they took this long to make the decision to kill off the XServe. Back during the G5 crash-and-burn they stopped publishing separate XServe sales data, merging it into a collective "G5" sales bin, presumably to hide how drastically and quickly G5 sales tailed off after the initial surge of sales, followed by a lot of disappointment when their customers realized that their performance wasn't anywhere near where Apple claimed that it was.

>I think Apple will put less emphasis on the Mac in the next years

Apple has already put less emphasis on the Mac. OS X has largely stagnated since 10.5 came out in 2007, right around the time iOS started coming into the picture.

And if you look at what's coming in 10.7, it essentially reads like they're trying to turn the desktop into iOS. It's not an approach I'm particularly thrilled about; interfaces that make sense of small, touch-driven displays don't make as much sense on huge, high resolution displays, IMO. But Apple is letting their UI development for the former drive their desktop UI development.

Why would Mac kill their own development platform?

Answered in several other places in the thread.

Owning your own development platform is highly overrated.

Apple, in particular, is never (well, while Steve Jobs or anyone similar is in charge) going to rely on other people for essential parts of their platform again. They've learned that lesson many times.

As long as nobody comes along and closes your development platform of choice, there's really very little to be afraid of when it comes to cross-compilation and emulation.

No man is an island, and certainly no corporation the size of Apple is one, either. Vertical integration shouldn't be considered a religious matter.

"Vertical integration shouldn't be considered a religious matter."

Somewhat irrelevant, as Apple has demonstrated fairly convincingly that they do consider it such.

Really? I would argue that switching to what amounts to commodity hardware with custom bios in a custom case is a move away from vertical integration.

Now, you could say that Apple didn't fab it's own PPC chips, but the x86 mac hardware is sure a lot more similar to everyone else's hardware than mac hardware has ever been before, and it's probably saving Apple rather a lot of money.

Of course, you could also argue that this trend is reversing, with the Apple platform now being driven by ARM devices that are far more, uh, custom. but you kind of have to do that right now, because the market for cellphone chipsets/motherboard layouts isn't as mature as the market for desktop/laptop chipsets and motherboard layouts.

I'm just pointing out, Apple is perfectly happy to use commodity stuff, when they think that commodity stuff is better/cheaper.

That's great, as long as their stockholders understand that they're investing in a church, rather than a corporation. (A church that actually has to pay taxes, no less.)

This is what's frustrating about trying to have discussions with you. You say "answered" and then provide your opinion on the matter. Spewing out your opinion on something isn't "answering" anything. It's, at best, painting a picture of a possible scenario.

You may think owning your own development platform is overrated but you haven't demonstrated that at all and not everyone agrees. Worse you go on with this controversial opinion and built an entire alternative universe based on it. Are you a writer for the Enquirer or something?

You say "answered" and then provide your opinion on the matter.

(Shrug) Don't ask questions if you don't want people to answer them.

Macs accounted for 27% of Apple's net sales in FY '10. Mac sales were up 26% over the previous year. In comparison, iPods accounted for 13% of net sales and, and grew only 2% over the previous year.

Why, precisely, do you expect Apple to just throw away 25% of their business?

Dropping the mac line doesn't necessarily equate to terminating OSX.

Think of it this way. Imagine that Apple just came out of nowhere and released the iPhone, iPad, and iPod line. Do you think their next move would be to launch a line of proprietary computers?

If you pitched that idea to Jobs, you'd probably be looking for work the next day. It would be that dumb.

Maybe or maybe not, but that doesn't matter. They already sell computers and have lots of customers who want to buy them. I don't know much about business, but I would still have to say that it sounds just stupid to suddenly stop selling them.

There's a big difference if one product line that used to take 70% of business is down to 25% because of declining sales OR if it is because of fact that some new product line got to be so wildly successful that it overshadowed the former champions.

I believe that iPod was supposed to be a complement of Mac but then it and its siblings grew so big that actually now other products are selling Macs.

What would they write the iOS apps with? Mac OS X is critical to all of Apple's products.

See my other point. Does Sony have to build a line of proprietary PCs so that people can develop for the PS3?

Of course they do, the most recent one is called the "PlayStation 3 Reference Tool", and costs about $10k to a qualified developer.

That's just a specialized version of the console used as a hardware debugger. They probably make about 200 of those a year. Actual development work is done on a perfectly ordinary Windows PC.

I think it's a valid prediction, but I don't think they'd accept programmers for Apple products using non-Apple products; I don't know what they'd do. But their servers are all (I hear) XServes, and they basically eat their own dog-food, so I'd expect a follow-up of some sort.

Without MacBook Pros, I don't know how they'd develop new versions of iOS. Systems coding on iPads? Would they actually use Linux? Neither seems likely, but I wouldn't put it past them to beef up iOS to the point that their devs are using it, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if their new server line were to be based on 16-core ARMs running some form of iOS.

I think it's a valid prediction, but I don't think they'd accept programmers for Apple products using non-Apple products; I don't know what they'd do.

Sony doesn't mind people using PCs to develop for the PS3, and game development is murderously complex compared to anything developed for iOS either inside or outside Apple.

But their servers are all (I hear) XServes, and they basically eat their own dog-food, so I'd expect a follow-up of some sort.

You could be right but if there's a case for Apple to be in the server business, I sure don't see it.

Well, let me upvoted you for a change ;-)

But what makes you think the Macintosh line will be abandoned by Apple? Mere aversion to product diversification? They discontinued the Xserve ("nobody buys the things"), but I have the impression that MacBooks and iMacs are selling quite well.

I think it'll eventually make sense for them to focus on non-computer products because those are the ones that are selling insanely well. The local Apple stores are so full of customers and browsers that I'm surprised they haven't had problems with the fire marshal, and it isn't because people are mobbing the Mac displays. Computers, even Macs, are heavy on support costs and light on profit margins.

A common argument is "Well, what do you think people are using to develop for all those iPhones, iPods, and iPads?" The answer to that one is, "What do you think people are using to develop for XBox 360s and PS3s?" It's true that you need a Mac to write iOS apps, but that's an arbitrary corporate policy, and not an inherent requirement.

They do have problems with customer numbers in stores and a fire limits. At my closest apple store on a saturday there is often a queue to get into the store with security controlling the numbers. It is one of the small store designs though

At the Back to the Mac event, Tim Cook pointed out that Apple's Mac business, if spun off into its own company, would be #110 on the Fortune 500. The Mac isn't going anywhere.

Spinning it off into its own company might actually make a lot of sense. Anyone who doesn't think there's a huge, morale-killing war brewing inside Apple between the old-guard Mac cult and the young iOS Turks hasn't spent time around any large companies.

Apple isn't your typical BigCo though. Your predictions about the existence of bureaucratic infighting and turf politics ignore Apple's nature. First, Apple is run more like an enormous startup. Second, iOS and OS X share a LOT of engineers. You are arguing that Apple's engineers are at war with themselves. Third, Steve wouldn't stand for it.

>First, Apple is run more like an enormous startup.

So? There were turf-wars and in-fighting between product teams when Apple actually was a startup.

>Third, Steve wouldn't stand for it.

Most accounts I've heard are that Steve was a driving force in that early in-fighting. Of course, he's 25 years older and has probably matured some, but I don't know that I agree with the assessment that he wouldn't tolerate it.

And how do you expect iOS devs to create their mobile apps?

How does Sony expect PS3 devs to create their games? Even though you can't plug a couple of monitors and a keyboard into a PS3 and run emacs and GCC on them, there are still plenty of "apps" for game consoles.

Jobs isn't capricious, he's an asshole. I have two friends who both had the misfortunate position of being Jobs' personal IT bitch at Apple. He fired my one friend, and I quote, "because I'm tired of struggling to understand your gimpy voice". Jobs is added proof to the argument that nice guys finish last.

I don't doubt that jobs is an asshole from time to time. You kinda have to be to get where Apple is today, from where they were. But unless you were present at the firing of your friend, or he recorded it, I don't think it's 100% fair to quote Jobs, especially out of context. Just because he can be an asshole at times, doesn't mean we get to slander and spread hearsay. Your friend wasn't doing what his boss wanted. The boss said something mean for whatever reason. Anyone in a long term relationship has said something mean. So if an employee isn't the right fit for the company, chances are, every once in a while, something mean will be uttered when they are canned. You're making to much out of it. Unless that's the typical way Jobs fires someone. Then he truly is an asshole.

"Your friend wasn't doing what his boss wanted. The boss said something mean for whatever reason. "

Are you sure? For all we know, Jobs really did fire him for his voice.

Fine. He was fired for not having the magic ability to change his voice in order to please his asshole boss. My only point was that he shouldn't be quoting someone unless it's first-hand. We have no way to verify it.

We have no means to verify 99.99% quotes in the news, yet we assume they are true.

Without giving too many details away, my friend was chosen by Jobs to take this role, pulled away from one at Apple where he was very happy, given a promotion and a raise, then fired 6 weeks later. The quote is from his blog (which I'll not post due to his desire to be discreet) but I trust him, and he says it's verbotem, and knowing his speech impediment very well, I find the story very believable. Further corroborated by having worked for a friend a few years back who had this same position as well (more successfully and for a longer period of time, neither knew each other btw) before he got fired on the spot while Jobs was outraged over something (my speculation is he spilled some spinach goop on a mock turtle neck and decided to take it out on somebody).

Its confusing to say you're quoting from a blog, a pretty public place normally but this quote has the expectation of discretion. but the quote cannot be found on any blog using google. I don't know. Maybe this ain't a quotation as most people understand it, even if secondhand. Is it more accurate to say you are paraphrasing?

Right, sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you'd decided to jump on some kind of "Steve Jobs is evil" bandwagon. The story seems balanced, probably more balanced than it would have been if you'd written it back in 2003 (I'd wager.)

Was it scary because it was Apple or because it was a big company that you had no influence over?

Any big company. Anyone who I had promised my clients I could deliver them to, then changed their mind.

Really more my fault than Apple's, for promising something to my clients before I had a signed contract in my hand.

But the way they made it sound at that initial meeting, with the full pitch, immediate contract, and short timeline, made it sound like the contract was a small technicality.

Lesson learned, as usual. ;-)

I think you are far too forgiving. Jobs' language initially indicated Apple wanted all music in the store. Later he reversed his position entirely and seemingly spitefully. Apple does great things, but Jobs does have a reputation for expecting loyalty from companies they do business with. I suspect we'll see more moves from Apple like blocking Adobe's Flash to iPhone app tool (at least until presumably the FTC pressured them). That and a bunch of other great products.

So Apple hasn't changed tactics in 7 years? Or are they still same old same old?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com