[colechristensen]

Market design.

They don't want to be in the server business, they don't want there to be third party VM providers running Mac farms selling oversubscribed giving underpowered disappointing VM experiences to users who will complain.

A bunch of folks want Apple to enter a market Apple doesn't want to enter into. They have tools available which would enable that market which they are kneecapping on purpose so that nobody unwillingly enters them into it. The "two VMs per unit hardware" has been in their license for at least a decade.

[leptons]

>The "two VMs per unit hardware" has been in their license for at least a decade.

I'd be pretty surprised if there isn't a workaround or hack for this.

Microsoft has had limits on some things like RDP on some versions of Windows, but there have always been ways to get around it.

[marmarama]

Sure you can do it technically, but then you have a licensing compliance issue, so no reputable business will do it.

You can run x86 macOS VMs in Windows or Linux too with a little bit of technical trickery, but again, you end up with a license issue, so no-one reputable does it.

[leptons]

I've never really understood how Apple can let people download MacOS for free, and then tell them where and how they can run it - only on Apple's hardware. If I download a copy of Windows or any software ever written, I can run it on any hardware that exists that can run it. But somehow Apple gets to dictate to people where and how they can run freely available software that anyone can download?

[colechristensen]

You struggle with the concept of licenses?

[saagarjha]

You are commenting on the article that discusses exactly that.