Hacker News Reader

Comment by m463 | Hacker News Reader

why would they want to compete with their cloud strategy?

Because macOS Server was a large reason why companies bought the Mac Mini.

Companies maybe. I bought the last of the previous generation to have a small desktop with redundant internal drives. A Mac Pro would have been budget overkill.

At the time is was useful, as the Mac desktop was my daily driver. Unfortunately current macOS versions are really sluggish, so its currently a home "server" running Fedora 31.

The 16GB RAM limit is becoming a bit of a problem, so I will likely replace it with an Intel NUC.

The Mini I bought last fall has 32GB of RAM.

Think so? I didn’t know Apple even made a server package since 2010 or so. I bought a Mini so I could have a low cost, decently specced desktop Mac hooked up to my two large monitors at home. An iMac was too expensive and I’d rather use standalone displays anyway. We also have lots of them in my wife’s office for the same reasons.

I mean, companies literally made rack mounts for Mac Minis, to install 6-8x of them at once in proper server racks. They didn't build this because no one was using it.

The post I was replying to said that was a large part of the reason to buy Mac Minis.

First, even though there were quite a few decent-sized Mac Mini deployments like you're describing, I'd be genuinely surprised if that accounted for a decent chunk of Mini sales overall. Some, sure! But most? I wouldn't expect it.

Second, does any of that require running Server? We have a database and application server in the office here, but it's not running Server: it's just plain macOS running daemon processes.

I feel that at least 80% of Mac Mini sales are for server.

Why would people buy that over the iMac for daily use?

At least a decade ago, it wasn't that uncommon for me to see Mac minis kicking around as "office worker" desktops in places that gave developers Mac laptops. Get one of those, bring your own cheaper display, plug in a wired keyboard, and go. My suspicion is that "cheap desktop" has always accounted for more Mac mini sales than it's usually given credit for.

Note that "server" is a role you might use a Mini for, but "Server" in the article's title is a specific software package. You can have a server not running Server.

Also, I bought a Mini for my desktop because it's tiny, cheap, and powerful, and I can use my own screens.

build/render farms are far more likely than the MacOS Server tools.

Mobile developers build huge mac mini rack farms because they need to virtualize osx on top of Apple hardware for CI/CD/testing/store releases (or they used to back when I last worked in mobile dev). That's the bulk of where I've seen MacOS used to control and provision minis (usually with plenty of ansible/chef/etc as well).

Related: https://www.macstadium.com/

Why would a mobile (iOS) dev need to virtualize OS X?

10+ devs running integration tests/etc that require different xcode targets, branches, etc. I haven't done this in years but it was a pretty basic mac mini farm 8+ years ago when I did do it with macos + ansible. I really doubt it's changed much (albeit 3rd parties like testflight/etc might be better integrated nowadays). It's a huge reason Macstadium, etc exists where you can just rent mini farms.

fwiw, TestFlight got absorbed into Apple through an acquisition. so they’re first party now.

To run Xcode.

Way cheaper than a Mac Pro to run Filemaker and a small fileserver on. They even made a Mac Mini Server that came with dual HDD's.

I have a Mini running stuff like that but it's not running the Server package. I don't think Server was ever very popular, even on Macs that were being used as servers.

"Technology right wing" (my phrasing) numero uno apple fanboy John Gruber used to post so much about Mac mini colocs. Haven't seen much from him lately about that stuff.

I don't think this would actually compete. It would more likely be a compliment for certain kinds of usecases.

Apple just doesn't seem to care to put in the effort. I don't think their neglect of MacOS Server has anything to do with trying to protect their cloud offerings. Even a wildly successful MacOS Server strategy wouldn't be that much revenue versus some of their other lines, but it could provide real value and help to certain kinds of businesses and users.

Cook takes Jobs’ zealotry for pruning (which he probably developed in reaction to the struggles of “first” Apple) as religion. Anything that doesn’t make boatload of money gets cut or left to rot.

Macmini and OSX Server were products for niche markets that “second Apple” is completely disinterested in.

Apple could - in a very short time - revitalize os x server just by allowing icloud to redirect to the server.

Think "apple id/icloud in a box".

That would be actual privacy.

I'd venture it had more to do with not being able to actually compete at an enterprise level. Far more profitable to sell to individual users than take on the much greater cost of sales for server products. If it's just a server they couldn't compete anywhere near as profitably.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com