3 ms·

That would make more sense except they don't even have an option to pay for it.

VanTheBrand 7mo ago
The option is you have to buy another machine. There are mac ec2 instances and several mac cloud hosts that all would abuse this if they could, instead to stay compliant they buy more machines.
- JoshTriplett 7mo ago
  And thus they need a massive datacenter full of systems, rather than a pile of paid licenses. And macOS remains a toy for use only by individuals that is a massive pain for developers to support.
- benoau 7mo ago
  (where "abuse" means using the hardware to run software)
- leptons 7mo ago
  I tried to launch a MacOS instance on EC2 recently (on my work account), and was blocked. So I asked the IT dept and they said it's stupidly expensive to run a MacOS instance on EC2, and that they would just send me a Macbook Pro instead. I wish I were kidding.
  - thealistra 6mo ago
    You should be happy that you have such a financially aware IT dept. The machines are truly expensive and after managing a farm of 150 Mac minis at work I can tell why. It is like 3 days running the EC2 buys you a Mac mini? And you can only rent the machine in day increments
- wqaatwt 7mo ago
  Well yeah and Apple wouldn’t be able to abuse its pseudo-monopolistic market position. That would be so sad…
jonnrb 7mo ago
Yes they do. It's called "another Mac". And I'm not even being snarky here: I legitimately think someone at Apple thought this through and said "yeah if they need more than 2 VMs running at the same time, there are probably multiple users and they can each get their own Mac".
- stingraycharles 7mo ago
  Nah, Apple has been extremely restrictive about virtual machines in all kinds of ways, e.g. the minimum terms anyone is able to lease out a VM or Mac to someone else is 24h, making cloud-like workloads practically impossible. For some reason, Apple really doesn’t like virtual machines, and it’s much more intentional than just “probably multiple users”. It’s extremely frustrating.
  - leptons 7mo ago
    Frustrating for you, hilarious for me. I had no idea they had hobbled MacOS in this way. It doesn't surprise me at all really, and it's pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure why people keep giving Apple their money, especially tech-savvy people that would want to run VMs.
    - cowboylowrez 7mo ago
      yeah I'm glad I paid extra for linux on a used dell, I'd hate to be slumming in some poverty ridden ghetto like mac users with their vm limits
    - stingraycharles 7mo ago
      Because we have customers that use macOS and both x86 and apple silicon are build targets of ours.
    - stephenr 7mo ago
      I run up to a dozen Linux VMs at once on my Macs. I've never hit the referenced limit because it isn't a limit on running VMs it's a limit on running macOS, and I hardly ever run macOS VMs. I'm not sure why people don't use Mac's are so obsessed with telling people who do use Macs that they're wrong, and yet here we are.

The option is you have to buy another machine. There are mac ec2 instances and several mac cloud hosts that all would abuse this if they could, instead to stay compliant they buy more machines.

JoshTriplett 7mo ago
And thus they need a massive datacenter full of systems, rather than a pile of paid licenses. And macOS remains a toy for use only by individuals that is a massive pain for developers to support.
benoau 7mo ago
(where "abuse" means using the hardware to run software)
leptons 7mo ago
I tried to launch a MacOS instance on EC2 recently (on my work account), and was blocked. So I asked the IT dept and they said it's stupidly expensive to run a MacOS instance on EC2, and that they would just send me a Macbook Pro instead. I wish I were kidding.
- thealistra 6mo ago
  You should be happy that you have such a financially aware IT dept. The machines are truly expensive and after managing a farm of 150 Mac minis at work I can tell why. It is like 3 days running the EC2 buys you a Mac mini? And you can only rent the machine in day increments
wqaatwt 7mo ago
Well yeah and Apple wouldn’t be able to abuse its pseudo-monopolistic market position. That would be so sad…

jonnrb 7mo ago

Yes they do. It's called "another Mac". And I'm not even being snarky here: I legitimately think someone at Apple thought this through and said "yeah if they need more than 2 VMs running at the same time, there are probably multiple users and they can each get their own Mac".

stingraycharles 7mo ago
Nah, Apple has been extremely restrictive about virtual machines in all kinds of ways, e.g. the minimum terms anyone is able to lease out a VM or Mac to someone else is 24h, making cloud-like workloads practically impossible. For some reason, Apple really doesn’t like virtual machines, and it’s much more intentional than just “probably multiple users”. It’s extremely frustrating.
- leptons 7mo ago
  Frustrating for you, hilarious for me. I had no idea they had hobbled MacOS in this way. It doesn't surprise me at all really, and it's pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure why people keep giving Apple their money, especially tech-savvy people that would want to run VMs.
  - cowboylowrez 7mo ago
    yeah I'm glad I paid extra for linux on a used dell, I'd hate to be slumming in some poverty ridden ghetto like mac users with their vm limits
  - stingraycharles 7mo ago
    Because we have customers that use macOS and both x86 and apple silicon are build targets of ours.
  - stephenr 7mo ago
    I run up to a dozen Linux VMs at once on my Macs. I've never hit the referenced limit because it isn't a limit on running VMs it's a limit on running macOS, and I hardly ever run macOS VMs. I'm not sure why people don't use Mac's are so obsessed with telling people who do use Macs that they're wrong, and yet here we are.