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

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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

VanTheBrand 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	benoau 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		(where "abuse" means using the hardware to run software)
	▲	JoshTriplett 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	leptons an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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.