
Apple's MacOS Server has a 1.5/5 rating on the Mac App Store - ethanpil
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/os-x-server/id883878097
======
derefr
IMHO, the direct competitor of Server.app in the "SMB office server" use-case
is actually a Synology NAS appliance. Synology's set of first-party OS
packages has 1:1 feature parity (and then some) with every function Server.app
either has, or used to have.

And that's the key-word here: appliance. A NAS is a standalone box that
receives automatic updates, is 100% remote-management enabled by default, can
be easily reset to factory settings, and can't be messed up by employees who
think it'd be neat to run local native apps on it, "since it's a computer just
sitting there."

Plus, since a NAS isn't going to be doing any desktop-OS things, the software
for it can be slimmed down enough to run on lower-specced hardware, making the
appliance itself much cheaper than the sort of machine required to run
Server.app smoothly.

No SMB office-manager who needs this kind of functionality these days would
buy a Mac _or_ PC, to set up server software on it and leave it sitting there
headless in the office. They'd buy a NAS.

And, IMHO, that's why Apple haven't kept Server.app up to date. There's just
no _demand_ for it any more. Not because of the cloud (which is mostly a
_complementary_ use-case) but rather because this software-solution vertical
has now evolved into a turn-key hardware-appliance solution vertical. And it's
one with slim-enough profit margins, that Apple doesn't want to compete.

~~~
_bxg1
> And, IMHO, that's why Apple haven't kept Server.app up to date. There's just
> no demand for it any more.

This seems to be a primary driver of the software-rot found all across Apple's
ecosystem. iOS is generally pretty well-maintained; macOS less-so. Apps like
Music are kept in better condition than, say, Podcasts. Etc. You can almost
directly correlate how unpopular a piece (or feature) of its first-party
software is with how buggy it is. Which I guess makes some amount of sense,
but it really tarnishes Apple's image as a company selling high-end products.

~~~
smnrchrds
Research In Motion (RIM) later renamed to BlackBerry Ltd. 37Signals renamed to
Basecamp. I wonder if at some point Apple Inc. would rename to iPhone Inc.

~~~
close04
Research In Motion meant nothing for most people while the Blackberry brand
was strong and instantly recognizable. 37Signals was also renamed after the
much stronger brand of their core product. Apple and iPhone are both just as
powerful.

Companies like Apple, Nike, Mercedes, Coca-Cola will never completely change
the name (maybe some variations here and there, without touching the core
name) simply because the brand is so recognizable. It would be throwing money
and image down the drain and it would just cause confusion.

~~~
shakermakr
Mercedes is a brand actually owned by Daimler AG...Daimler being the dude who
had a daughter called Mercedes...

In Germany both are known. Daimler the business, Mercedes the car...

Kinda Apple and iPhone...then Mac (aka Mercedes Benz Trucks?!)

~~~
close04
Should have said BMW :). Then again Daimler is far less known across the world
than Mercedes. My point was that when you have a strong brand you don't mess
with it. You go from a weak brand to a strong one, not the other way around.

------
mdread
One man shop pro fotog here. My macOS server 5.6.3 High Sierra is awesome, the
last complete version... File Server with literally decades and multiple
terabytes of raw photos… The ease of the email server is unmatched…. Websites
and Nextcloud, invoiceninja, all just work with minimal php tweaking…. and all
here IN MY OFFICE. I have linux droplets, and am more or less ready to make
the move, but I won’t until it actually dies… but only when I have to. I hope
the hardware (from 2010) holds out forever, but I do have a spare ready and
daily CCC backups and disks rotated to firesafe… at least for me it just
works. Knock on wood.

~~~
cmurf
Unfortunately there's no data checksumming with APFS. Last time I checked,
ages ago, CCC wasn't using a version of rsync that supports checksums. Newish
versions (for a few years) of DNG compute separate checksums for DNG metadata
and raw/image data, but to what degree applications use this to verify the
integrity of the image file may vary.

Image silent data corruption via bitrot can be frustrating. Without a regime
to prevent it, it spreads into all backups. And typical workflows depend on
backups for eventual migration to new storage which allows any corruption to
be replicated via the backup strategy. You end up backing up the corruption,
unwittingly.

~~~
mdread
I don’t use APFS on the big spinning drives where the pix are. But they
definitely are on my iMacs and MacBook ssd’s. Yea Lightroom has a Validate dng
feature... of course it locks you into Adobe.

~~~
mceachen
PhotoStructure maintains SHAs of all files, but I currently assume the user
has updated the file if the SHA changes. PhotoStructure validates files before
it imports them to keep corrupted images out of your library.

How do you think I could discriminate between file corruption and the user
making an edit to a file?

(Perhaps if the mtime and filesize doesn't change, but the SHA does?)

~~~
cmurf
In a non-destructive workflow, the image data is never modified. The image
data checksum should never change. Rather, the edits are a kind of "edit list"
stored in metadata, which can itself be optionally (separately) checksummed.
If the metadata is corrupt, it can be discarded, effectively resetting the
image back to its original pre-edit state. Yes, you'd lose the edits.

The location for metadata depends on the application. For DNG workflows, the
metadata is a separate location in the DNG file, with separate metadata and
data checksums. For other workflows, the metadata is in a sidecar (a per image
file), or stored in a database managed by the application.

------
oneplane
To be fair: while they did leave all the classical 'server' type use cases out
in the cold and are making it worse every release, it's not actually the
future or the best practice to still roll out.

We are in between the legacy 'directory' based networks with authentication
etc, and the more robust and expansive beyondcorp type setups. Do you really
still need classical 'user' and 'group' membership things? Network accounts?
Local web servers? Pretty much anything of significance is in a private or
public cloud, if only because the fast pace and scaling. All that is left is
basic file sharing that is sometimes done locally, and even that is becoming
more and more stupid to implement in a workflow or business process.
(regardless of your OS or vendor)

There are of course still some true file-based processes where Apple is still
used a lot, but even that is no longer local-file-only; a lot of the still and
motion processing is done either super small locally or simply distributed to
dedicated systems like render farms. And for the 1-man-photo business all of
the local stuff still works and you really wouldn't have gotten anything out
of 'server' anyway.

The most problematic holdouts are the likes of Adobe who refuse to write
applications that play nice with NAS-type filesharing so that just leaves you
with file syncing instead.

~~~
Spivak
Uhh what? I'm with you that the days of the "trusted internal network" are
coming to an end but you're insane if you think that directories are going
away. LDAP has certainly fallen out of favor but every SaSS user management
platform / service is just implementing what are essentially "noLDAP"
directories.

What do you think is providing the authentication and user management in those
private clouds? OpenLDAP, FreeIPA, ActiveDirectory, Keycloak?

And even when you move everything out of the office to a datacenter you still
need all normal IT stuff that you needed in your little office rack just in
the datacenter now.

The only part of the "old-guard" IT stack I see disappearing is the office
file server.

~~~
derefr
> What do you think is providing the authentication and user management in
> those private clouds?

SAML. Yes, the provider's own network probably hosts a directory service as
the default SAML backend, but for integrating with enterprise clients who
already have their own directories? SAML. Now, rather than making ACL
assertions about local users, you have to make ACL assertions about _what ACL
assertions_ each foreign directory is allowed to make on behalf of its own
"guest" users in your environment.

~~~
gravitas
SAML is a middle tier between the endpoint (user app) and directory (ADFS,
LDAP, etc.) and not a single solution on it's own, it doesn't store data - it
provides a means for leveraging that data defined by the schema (e.g.
posixAccount and groupMember). It's generally equivalent to pam_sss, nss-pam-
ldap and friends at the systems layer of your average Linux. They are
complementary, not replacements for each other.

~~~
derefr
The difference is that, in practice, if you're "just" a large non-IT
enterprise _or_ "just" a cloud provider, then you're not implementing the
whole solution any more, only half of it.

If you're, say, Box, you're implementing only the endpoint, and mostly don't
need your own directory, because all your customers bring their own. If
you're, say, IBM, you're implementing only the raw directory, but rely on
cloud providers to actually interpret it, rather than hosting any of your own
Intranet. And if you're Joe SMB, then you're implicitly using GSuite as your
SAML-exposed directory through OpenID Connect, and you don't need an IT
department for this at all.

(And even if you're an enterprise who _also_ writes your own cloud services,
then this is still a change for you, because your endpoints are probably now
written "generically" with a SAML interface—treating your own directory as
just one among many, talking to it through a public exposure—rather than
interfacing directly to it as a privately-configured PAM binding on your
servers et al. In other words, now your services [and the departments
providing them] are _decoupled_ from your directory, because they both just
see each-other through the lens of SAML, and so don't know that your company's
employees are any different than a client company's employees.)

~~~
gravitas
My 5k-10k person company directly refutes your parenthesized comment, you are
making incorrect assumptions about how everyone runs their businesses.

------
code4tee
Former big time user here. The product slowly declined from its own operating
system to a buggy app.

We really had no choice but to migrate onto other products and these days even
hard core Mac folks use AD for directory, Exchange for email and 3rd party
products for device management.

------
mattl
Mac OS X was first released as Mac OS X Server 1.0, the commercial release of
Rhapsody, and then released as Mac OS X Server for Cheetah, Puma, Panther,
Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard, before being released as a standalone update
to Lion, and then hitting the App Store for $19.99 for all future releases.

------
xd1936
They've taken out so many features, what's left in it? User credential
management/enrollment and...?

~~~
mrpippy
and Xsan. Everything else is either in the base OS (Content Caching), or open-
sourced/abandoned (Calendar/Contacts Server)

------
rvz
Changelog for 5.10:

> Device Enrollment: Enable FileVault support on first user login

> Send all traffic through VPN

Great work Apple!

> Release date: Apr 1st 2020

Oh dear, Nevermind.

------
nemacol
I setup a mac mini with this software (3rd quarter 2019) and I can tell you it
deserves every bit of that 1.5 rating.

No magic left in there at all.

Ended up dropping it and using the functionality of Airwatch.

------
bluedino
Performance was mediocre compared to Linux. Everything that it shipped with
was outdated. There was a weird mix of GUI tools and commandline to get
anything done. And to top it off, things were (at the very least) just-
different-enough to confuse someone who thought, "I know Linux this will be
easy."

~~~
monadic2
This is the first time I have heard a kerberos/ldap setup referred to as
“easy”.

------
cjamesd
Ironically, this leads me to trust the rest of the reviews on their site.
Maybe they're not all fake.

~~~
sleepless
True, but in germany they disallowed rating macOS Catalina. That's a very
shady policy - having a rating system for all developers, but excluding your
own most prominent and important software from store reviews. Just one of many
hilarious Apple moves.

~~~
dolguldur
Also, if you cancel any subscription (maybe just to make sure it doesn't
accidentally get renewed), you get to keep however many days you have left.
Not so with their own free one year Apple TV subscription that came with the
latest phones. If you cancel that, there's an alert telling you you'll lose it
immediately. Clearly tilting the playing field again and again.

~~~
labcomputer
That's only true for free trials.

If you _pay_ for Apple TV+ / Apple Music / Apple News and then cancel, you can
keep using it through the end of the period you paid for.

------
Angostura
I remember when it was first launched - at the same time as the Mini and it
was absolutely awesome. Then it rotted.

------
Aqua_Geek
I think the team that was working on this has been disbanded.

------
chipotle_coyote
While it's a shame that the OS X, er, Mac OS Server "app" has basically been
killed over the last few years (maybe more than a few at this point), I
suspect it just wasn't selling very well. I know it had some great tools for
configuring and setting up some services, but if you're a engineering-focused
company you're probably going to use Linux for office servers; on the
business/office side, you're very likely going to just go with Microsoft; if
you need web or server hosting, you're almost certainly doing it off-premises,
not with a Mac mini stuffed in the corner.

That mostly leaves enthusiast and small office scenarios, most of which can
get by just fine with "non-server" macOS. After all, they've always literally
been the same operating system. My Mac mini is a headless media and file
server and has, in the past, been the printer server as well -- and all of
that's enabled just by clicking boxes in the "Sharing" control panel. (Heck, I
could even turn on "content caching" to have it keep a copy of all macOS/iOS
software updates on it, which would be great for a small-to-medium office.)

------
ChrisMarshallNY
Yup. It stinks. They made a decision to leave the backbone/infrastructure
market. I don't blame them. The main thing about MacOSX Server, is that I
don't trust it to be around too much longer. A Linux box will be around, in
one form or another, forever.

However, it's easier for me to buy some canned solution; either pure software,
an SaaS, or a hardware solution.

------
divbzero
For context, the majority of server features were removed in macOS Server
5.7.1, with a few features migrated to macOS High Sierra and the remainder
left to be handled by open source alternatives. The initial announcement from
Apple was discussed on HN in 2018. [1] [2]

[1]: [https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208312](https://support.apple.com/en-
us/HT208312)

[2]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18113147](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18113147)

------
shp0ngle
What was XSan exactly?

The only thing I know is that it had a really nice icon and box art.

~~~
reaperducer
"X" because it was MacOS X, and "SAN" for Storage Area Network.

Shared local storage, like for video production houses. At the time, it was
ludicrously fast.

It also worked with Windows, Linux and Unix machines. Pretty much anything
that supported Fibre Channel connections.

~~~
sabujp
ohh i remember those days. Was using Xsan with 2 xserves attached to
infortrend eonstors. I spent so long trying to get it stabilized and
reformatted the entire FS so many times. Eventually got rid of osxserver and
learned how to install gentoo linux on the xservers. Tracked all the issues to
a faulty riser card in one of the boxes (but had to use linux to get the low
level details)! Eventually went GPFS and trashed the xserve hardware as well.

------
roboyoshi
IMO Apple deserves all the hate on this one. It was good once. Thank god I
moved on to proper servers with linux. They should just kill it and let the
community take over.

------
KiDD
Real admins run linux anyways and should have no problem implementing common
services. Supporting every little mom and pop that doesn't understand DNS,
ports, file permissions or network users, which is generally looking for the
cheapest solution will be be trying to integrate the lowest of the low end
equipment and may cause even more problems beyond the control of Apple to be
able to reliably support. What most small business need are just a NAS with
network printer support.

------
mrweasel
Well 2.3 now, but that’s based on 4 reviews.

------
Razengan
This is literally just a link to an App Store product page.

------
olliej
it still exists?

------
animalnewbie
Apple underestimates the intelligence of it's professional users.

~~~
rch
Not really, Apple has simply pivoted to focus on the much larger consumer (or
prosumer) market.

------
m463
why would they want to compete with their cloud strategy?

~~~
pwthornton
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.

~~~
toyg
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.

------
minikites
I'm beginning to think Apple isn't very good at making software that its users
want or need because their focus is flashy fluff that demos well on stage.

~~~
ulfw
I can't remember a Server demo on stage. Must have been more than a decade
ago. So I am not sure what you're getting at.

------
jsjddbbwj
Why was this submitted? To prove Apple does not manipulate the ratings of
their listings? :P

~~~
pwthornton
I assume to show how neglected this has gotten. MacOS Server used to be a lot
more popular and a lot more loved.

I understand this isn't a remotely core part of their business, but I don't
understand why you would want such a quarter-assed product out there with your
name on it.

A small team, which Apple can afford, could keep this a good offering that
helps out certain kinds of Mac users.

~~~
mywittyname
This seems like a great opportunity for some small team that wants to get
acqui-hired by Apple in a few years for a cool billion. I doubt the domain
will get much love because it is a niche product that lives and dies on the
whims of a mega-corp. But a small startup could probably bootstrap itself to
profitability. Worst case is they get a good five-ten years of being your own
boss until the market dries completely or Apple finally decides to compete
(but not buy your company).

