Home Forums Discussions General Discussion SBS is dead! Microsoft moves completely to cloud.

In an announcement at lunchtime EST, Microsoft announced it would be dropping its wildly successful Small Business Server line as it moves everything to the cloud. SBS 2011 Standard will be the last SBS version. Following this, Microsoft will be offering four versions of Windows Server 2012:

Datacenter, Standard, Essentials and Foundation.

When asked what would be the next version of SBS, Microsoft stated, "2011 ill be the final such Windows Server offering which includes Exchange Server and other server component products. This change is in response to small business market trends and behavior. The small business computing trends are moving in the direction of cloud computing for application and services such as email, online back-up and line-of-business tools.

Sandeep and I would just ask that you give us some time to digest this monumental decision. In all seriousness, though, many resellers are up in arms as many of their customers are SBS owners. End, even now just a few hours later, there is an outcry from end users as they feel they are being forced to the cloud.

Stupid decision by Microsoft.

JamesNT

Does that surprise you?

In this case, yes.

I need some time to think about this.

JamesNT

They want to force everyone to Office 365. I plan on just staying with SBS 2011 at least until 2016. Support will be gone but oh well.

I am in shock right now. Being forced to the cloud. No small business will have Exchange anymore. 1200 for Exchange and 900 for Server 2012 Standard. Seems like if you have software assurance 2011 Standard you get 2012 Standard and Exchange 2010. Double the value. Wow Microsoft really killed it...

Mainstream support will be gone - that means no new features. You'll still have extended which means you'll still be able to call Product Support Services and will still receive security updates.

JamesNT

No, Steve Ballmer really killed it. Bill Gates should have never stepped down. He must be regretting things now.

If I were going to design a system that maximized our vulnerabilities as a culture, I could not have done better. Remember Stuxnet. It can happen to us.

Sandeep,

Exchange is $1151 with 5 CALS for standard. CALS are $417 for a pack of 5. Windows Server 2012 Standard will be $750. So we are now at $1901. You can get a good 2 quad core system from Dell for $2000. We are still at the $4000 marker that most systems start at.

This may not be so bad after all, but you aren't going to have the nice little SBS wizards to do all the work for you.

JamesNT

Server 2012 Essentials is $425 for up to 25 users - NO CALS NEEDED.

So you could go like this:

Physical Server = $2000
2012 Essentials = $425
Exchange w/ 25 CALS = $2819 (assuming you buy it all at one time).

Total = $5244

JamesNT

All of the ones I sell are below 3000. $882 for Server 2012 Standard $1151 for Exchange 2010. I'll need CALS for both now. The SBS CAL included the right to use Exchange for $60. Now I need to get CALs for both. Costs will pretty much double.

There's also no telling if Exchange 2010 will run with AD on the "Essentials" server. Since you have no virtualization rights with Essentials, you will need to get Standard.

Could a company like Apple step in with a similar non-cloud based product?

Nope.

So basically not only will the costs be higher, but also extra time will be necessary to configure the server from scratch. Manually adding roles and installing Exchange. No small business is going to pay for that. The costs will be way over 5000. I guess mission accomplished MS for forcing us into Office 365.

jimmie,

Apple is all proprietary. You would buy their server with their OS, and that would be it.

So how will this cataclysm effect peer-to-peer users?

Maybe time to look at: http://www.clearfoundation.com/Software/overview.html

I never thought it would take that long for JBS to chime in, lol.

This is looking pretty good with Outlook, its own mail server, pretty much everything

http://www.clearcenter.com/Software/zarafa-collaboration-platform.html

ClearOS version of SBS. Still in production.

When people are in mourning, it is respectful to let a little time pass before saying anything.

We aren't mourning. We are in denial.

I don't want to be around for the next stage if the Kubler-Ross theory plays out--
Anger stage is next--then Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance
Seriously, can one still run Amazing Charts with a local server or computer and not have SBS and keep their data on site and still function okay??

I am trying to grasp what this means. Will it become increasingly difficult for small business to keep all their data on site and eventually have all data in the cloud with this decisio,n if they want to partake of what SBS has to offer?

You could always run AC without a server and SBS. You can still run it on Dell. You can still run it on Windows Server 2011 Standard.

They're essentially making it harder for small business to keep business onsite without outsourcing/going to the cloud. Subscription-based services are better for their profit margins. Not so good for us. Also, there is an increasing dependence on the internet.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/sbs/arch...omes-windows-server-2012-essentials.aspx

Good site, but the comments tell the story. I recall when Steve Jobs' own board fired him. Apple nearly went belly up. He came back and built it back into an empire.

Bill has to come back. Steve Ballmer has to go. He can't even get the tablet right.

Agreed. This has to be the biggest mistake. I like how one of the guys is saying we have to adapt and learn the new system. I have absolutely no problem with that, but that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is the customer. They don't realize no one is going to shell out several extra thousand dollars to get the same functionality the old SBS offered.

Exactly, this is why car companies have the Lexus and the Scion. Both good cars, but they are aimed at different consumers.

For every company with 5,000 employees, there will be 50 with 100. Do the math.

It's like Steve, Apply has: iPhone, iPad, iPod, iNano, and soon to have iThis and iThat.

You got beat by all of them. Just look at yourself on YouTube. You laughed a iPhone because it was $500 and had no keyboard.

But, you have Windows 7, the Office Suite and SBS. They can't touch that. Now, you are going to eventually give up two of them and move to a retro GUI in Windows 8.

They need to get their act together. I hope this situation is rectified. I won't be recommending the server 2012+Exchange combo unless the person really wants it.

On the good side, it appears the overall pricing for Windows Server 2012 has gone DOWN.

http://www.aidanfinn.com/?p=13042

JamesNT

There is no good side. Unless you are larger business with a need for one of the packages he lays out. His entire blog post is based on virtualization. Most small businesses don't even know what Hyper-V is. While I applaud Microsofts move to fewer servers, it should be three and not five, SBS Standard should be in it.

Why doesn't Microsoft come right out and say it. We are losing money on SBS. Which I don't believe. To force users to have to use the cloud and, therefore, losing SQL, Exchange and SharePoint is a death blow to many Partners and end users.

Most Microsoft Partners make their living off of SBS. Most end users look to the partners to purchase SBS. SBS Standard created a nice niche` for small businesses. This is why it is called Small Business Server. Raise the price. Who cares. To have the three added features already included and no roles to figure, it was the perfect server.

When Steve Jobs used to give a keynote address, his listeners couldn't wait to see what he had next. When Steve Ballmer gives a keynote address, his listeners just hoped he wouldn't bring Microsoft any further down.

It must be about time for AC to shift to running on Macs!

Not even funny. Macs would be even worse.

JamesNT

MACs would be great for clients. I just don't know of any great server OS made by Apple.

I do think Jon would be able to expand his business if he wrote code for Apple.

I regularly use this Mac to talk to our managed environment - works fine. Of course, my dev-box talks to them as well, and it is a CENTOS6 box - it works fine as a client as well. And of course, AC is running on Windows, and that instance is in turn running on Linux environment.

For the most part, client OSs are pretty fungible these days. My dev-box has several different ones [XP, W7, UBU12, RHEL6, and room for several more], more than I typically get started at any one time. Have ISO, can boot and run.

It seems that MS has opened the door for many more Linux server installs in the next few years. My perspective is that practices need to do what is best for them, and if MS is making choices that drive them away, they will have to choose what is best for them.

I'll start doing Linux server installs [or managed instances] if that is what folks want/need.

I must have overlooked it. I just saw iServer right between iPod and iPad. Considering one would have to buy their one proprietary OS and hardware, I imagine the price would be about nine grand.

And, since Apply has to offer Microsoft Office for Mac, they would need Microsoft SQL Server for Mac.

And, before Apply lovers jump all over me, this post was born out of my post which was pro Mac.

Getting back to Microsoft. Another thing that will hurt their business is something they do all the time. In some crazy way, I think it helps them with the general user, but in the server market it's a distraction.

This server can do this many HyperVs, and this one this many cores, and such and such.

Make two servers. 2012 Standard and 2012 Premium. Put SharePoint, SQL and Exchange on the latter, but allow the same amount of RAM, CPU and HyperVs. It's just ridiculous.

The way I look at it is, if you have to make a table, it's too confusing.