Hacker News Reader

Comment by saagarjha | Hacker News Reader

An interesting offering from Amazon that is crippled by Apple and MacStadium, who deserve to be raked over the coals for their recent EULA changes. Just read the post on MacStadium's blog: https://blog.macstadium.com/blog/developers-big-sur-and-vind...

Under the new agreement, you must:

* Rent to only one organization

* Rent for 24 hours at the minimum

* Use it for some set of "approved" development work

…among other restrictions. And Brian Stucki is celebrating these changes?! This is a sick joke. You're enjoying a significantly tightened EULA that benefits nobody but yourself, a EULA that means that a single CI build now costs $26 on AWS instead of 50 cents; one that means that more than half the comments here are confused why AWS is ripping people off.

Shame on you Brian Stucki, shame on you MacStadium, and shame on you Apple. Your EULA changes are absurdly hostile to developers, since now they're either going to have to buy Macs themselves or rent from MacStadium-like services. Shame on you both for colluding together for making this situation horrible and then having the guts to write that blog post.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Amazon, I feel so sorry for you. You didn't deserve this.

View on HN

Please don't do the "shame on" trope on HN. We don't want the online shaming culture here (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=online%20shaming%20by%3Adang&s...).

The vast majority of the time, situations are complex than internet users think they are. There are two sides to every story, &c. It's fine to make your point, but please stick to the HN rules and make it substantively and thoughtfully. The fact that rage rants get heavily upvoted makes this more important, not less.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Thank you for taking the time to write that! The comment was rubbing me the wrong way when I first saw it, but I wasn't able to put my finger on why, because I agreed with all of the individual points expressed.

You're right, of course. As I mentioned downthread, I was somewhat angry when I wrote this; Brian has stepped in to provide more detail from his side. I'm still a bit resentful, but I understand that displeased or not ranting on Hacker News is not something I should have done. I'm not ready to apologize to the people I included for the concerns I mentioned yet, but I am sorry (both to them and Hacker News itself) for commenting in this way. The blog post gave me a specific set of things to be mad at and I let that get the best of me.

Brian Stucki here. If I had the power over Apple that you think I do, I definitely would have pushed for iPhone Socks first.

Joking aside, the software license agreement was certainly a cause for personal celebration. It might be helpful for you to compare macOS 11 to previous versions. (Linked in my post.) If I/MacStadium did anything, we showed that there was a need for this sort of service and that both Apple and developers would benefit with some official way to do it. Amazon joining is further proof of that.

I’ve always pushed for the safe road at MacStadium (and my company Macminicolo before that) even if it meant losing out on gray area business. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve answered “but what if Apple shuts this service down?” Not anymore.

With the new Eula, the guidelines are now set. Doing everything above board paid off.

I get that you're happy because Apple has now explicitly permitted what you were doing.

I'm less clear on why you're happy that they didn't allow more stuff, like renting by the minute or for arbitrary purposes. You seem to depict companies that were doing this as "below board", while you as "above board". This is certainly true now, but before the changes both would have been a grey area - I don't see much of a difference.

Would I be correct saying that you're happy because in one stroke Apple has moved you from grey area to explicitly permitted, and part of your competition from grey area to explicitly forbidden?

For the record in no way I think that Apple took this decision to favor you or anyone else except themselves. It just seems that you won a regulatory lottery.

Regulations benefit incumbents. That holds whether the regulations are national laws or corporate policies. When you make new rules, the established ecosystem adapts and doubles down while new players have a harder time getting started.

This is not true at all. Anti monopoly regulations, for example, exist for the sole purpose of privileging new entrants over incumbents. The actions against Microsoft, or the breaking up of AT&T certainly did not help the incumbents.

An example closer to home is that entrepreneurial activity in Silicon Valley is often attributed to California law forbidding non competes in employment contracts. This is regulation, without which, as you see in nearly every other state, workers are severely bound by their employment contracts in the work they can do while and after being employed by a company.

If regulations seem to benefit incumbents, it’s because incumbents exist and therefore can play a role in setting regulations. The counterbalance to this should be public pressure and political action, but incumbents recognizing that do much to dissuade the public from pushing for such action, including convincing people of pithy, but 180 degrees wrong ideas such as “regulations always benefit incumbents”.

> This is not true at all. Anti monopoly regulations, for example, exist for the sole purpose of privileging new entrants over incumbents. The actions against Microsoft, or the breaking up of AT&T certainly did not help the incumbents.

The intended purpose is to help the new entrants, but I don't see Microsoft or AT&T losing anything or their smaller competitors gaining anything after the regulatory action against them.

> An example closer to home is that entrepreneurial activity in Silicon Valley is often attributed to California law forbidding non competes in employment contracts. This is regulation, without which, as you see in nearly every other state, workers are severely bound by their employment contracts in the work they can do while and after being employed by a company.

That's a matter of negotiation. I always (successfully) negotiated with my employer to exclude my personal projects from the contract. I find that employees have a lot more negotiating power than they realize.

> If regulations seem to benefit incumbents, it’s because incumbents exist and therefore can play a role in setting regulations.

I think that's synonymous with the original statement made by OP. You're just providing another reason why it's true.

I don't see ... AT&T losing anything

AT&T lost big. It ended up going bankrupt.

The "AT&T" you know today is not the same company. It is Southwestern Bell, which bought the AT&T brand in the bankruptcy fire sale and renamed itself.

It did so because AT&T was a more valuable brand than Southwestern Bell. Looks like it worked.

Technically Southwestern Bell was spun off from the AT&T breakup from the 80's.

So basically SBC was one of many companies spun off from AT&T, then it bought up several of the other Baby Bell companies spun off, too. Really, it was AT&T buying AT&T.

It worked on paper, but the victor was still from the same tree.

Microsoft didn't lose anything.

> It is Southwestern Bell, which bought the AT&T brand in the bankruptcy fire sale and renamed itself.

Southwestern Bell was the same subsidiary that broke off from AT&T Corporation. AT&T Inc was the merger of the companies that were originally broken up from AT&T Corporation. Here is the org chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T#Chart_of_AT&T_Baby_Bell...

AT&T became even bigger after the breakup: https://www.businessinsider.com/att-breakup-1982-directv-bel...

You think that AT&T Corporation going broke and selling to a company that originated from the AT&T Corporation, which later renamed itself to AT&T Inc is a good example of a government-imposed corporate breakup?! It literally divested from those companies only to have most of them merge under the same name again.

> Microsoft didn't lose anything.

Quite a few observers, including people internal to Microsoft, felt it cost the company significant momentum at the time, and confidence after.

Before the court case, Microsoft was a brutal competitor (remember the Simpsons episode?). Not so much after.

Regulations can benefit incumbents in two ways.

The best cases occur where they raise a floor uniformly. For example I would prefer to add anti pollution systems to my paint factory, because I live in town too, and I just don't want to pollute. It would raise the price of my paint $1/gal, and not enough customers will chose a product just because it polluted less. Many of my competitors feel the same. If we all do it everybody benefits and nobody suffers relative to their competition. This is even more important in cases where the customer can't signal through the market, e.g. electricity generation. These can benefit incumbents but not necessarily hurt new entrants, especially when they are cap ex rather than op ex (e.g. minimum wage rather than an additional piece of equipment).

There are many bad examples as well, some of which raise a floor asymmetrically. For example FB, or at least their CEO, is willing to have the CDA's section 230 abolished because they have such a dominant customer base and enough cash that they believe they would be able to afford to do the resulting government mandated controls and fight any lawsuits, while a new entrant would not.

> Would I be correct saying that you're happy because in one stroke Apple has moved you from grey area to explicitly permitted, and part of your competition from grey area to explicitly forbidden?

I don't know how any competition would be negatively impacted by Apple implementing these terms, unless the competition was already selling services that were on a short-term basis (below 24 hours).

And to circle back around, this EULA enables MacStadium's hardware hosting competition to enter the market... thus comes Amazon into the playing field. I just don't see how having to compete with Amazon is, all of a sudden, a better deal for MacStadium. If anything, it just highlights the volatile nature of running a business in the Apple ecosystem.

> For the record in no way I think that Apple took this decision to favor you or anyone else except themselves. It just seems that you won a regulatory lottery.

"Congratulations, you're a winner... your prize is to compete with Amazon!" Some would certainly wear it with a badge of honor!

Why wouldn't Apple just let people rent out computers for any amount of time, as long as they don't contain music or movies? I can understand why Apple would wan't someone to pay $3.99 to rent a movie for 48 hours, and then sub-rent that movie a couple dozen times. But why do they care about someone running CI?

Because tens of thousands of devs working on other platforms would be able to rent a Mac for half an hour, build their cross-platform framework code as an XCode project, and then submit to the App Store, without ever touching a Mac, testing on a Mac, and so on.

At least this puts a barrier to entry.

This one!

> I don't know how any competition would be negatively impacted by Apple implementing these terms, unless the competition was already selling services that were on a short-term basis (below 24 hours).

Almosto all of MacStadium post is about those competitors, did we read something different?

And Amazon would be much more of a competition were they allowed to rent by the minute, it's their selling point!

Macstadium competes against other short-term rental companies but also against real Macs, Hackintoshes on physical machines, Hackintoshes on virtual machines (inc EC2), and non-consumption.

Hacks on VMs are a pretty direct competitor I’d think.

> Macstadium competes against other short-term rental companies but also against real Macs, Hackintoshes on physical machines, Hackintoshes on virtual machines (inc EC2), and non-consumption.

MacStadium isn't doing short-term rentals not because it can't but because the EULA doesn't allow it. Anybody doing short-term rentals is doing it on Mac hardware so they can just as easily sell long-term rentals. Aside from MacStadium being a major player in this field, I see absolutely nothing that favors them compared to their competition. In fact, it seems to have created Amazon as a competitor.

And the Hackintosh thing is the reason a Mac hosting companies exist in the first place. If Hackintoshes were allowed, there would be no companies offering Mac hosted hardware. I don't see how that's related to this particular situation tho. Apple created the need for Mac hosted hardware so blaming Mac hardware hosting companies for this is a bit backward.

> Hacks on VMs are a pretty direct competitor I’d think.

The VMs have to run on Mac hardware as well.

Condition: Person X has a need to run macOS for 3 hours for whatever reason. They have a lot of options, including the ones I listed.

Various options have different drawbacks, including EULA violations, but all represent viable alternatives for some (therefore competition) to Macstadium.

It represents an opportunity to MacStadium as well, since they too would be able to sell the hardware by the hour. Currently, the only reason they can't is due to the EULA. There is no other reason why a mac hardware hosting company couldn't sell hourly access to a Mac machine.

Hi, thanks for weighing in. I'm sure you picked up that I'm pretty mad, but I'll try to tone it down a little bit. I'm not an Amazon employee or someone who is personally harmed by this or anything, aside from being a developer for Apple's platforms who occasionally looks around for CI services. I'm mostly arguing about the principle of the thing.

Anyways: I read your blog post back when it came out. Whether Apple took your input into account when making the EULA, I don't know; I am sure that you must have some sort of amicable relationship at the very least. Running services "on the border" like this is never easy, but I would think that your business model (which includes buying a huge number of Macs) has probably kept Apple mostly on your side. I know the work you've done to keep it this way and to be honest, I was happy for you when Apple announced their rack-mountable Mac Pros and gave you a mention at the Mac Mini event.

The problem from my side (at least where you and MacStadium are involved) mostly lies with the blog post you wrote. Look, I get it, Apple's changes make the EULA work for you. That's great! But I'm sure you also realize that spelling this out clearly in the way that they did means that the "gray area" becomes a black area for basically everyone else. What I didn't appreciate is you calling it a "gray area" and coming up with rationale for why what they want is not reasonable. Apple came in, almost certainly looked at your business specifically, made its rules to hurt developers and these companies, and now you're writing blog posts about how Apple is your friend and you were right all along. It feels like you've decided to start singing praises for a bully that decided to leave you alone, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

There's still a huge hole for a service that lets you rent a Mac for the a couple minutes so you can build your Xcode project. It's not your fault that doesn't exist, it's Apple's. But could you maybe not publicly celebrate that Apple has created a situation that happens to help you and make it generally worse for others? Can we stop trying to normalize or even argue that sharing a Mac is something wrong, something that Apple would think is ruining the "performance experience" you should get from a Mac?

>aside from being a developer for Apple's platforms who occasionally looks around for CI services

So, you give him all this shit and you're not even using his service?

>There's still a huge hole for a service that lets you rent a Mac for the a couple minutes so you can build your Xcode project. It's not your fault that doesn't exist, it's Apple's.

If we're talking for CI of builds, sure. But in that case, one wouldn't be much affected (the C in CI means continuous, so you wont just rent for a few minutes).

Otherwise, as a user, I'm quite satisfied with less developers being able to build XCode projects and submit apps without even owning a Mac to test them on. Looks like it would bring a delluge of poorly ported apps based on cross-platform APIs and only tested in non-Mac platforms (if that).

I like you and I think your posts are generally high quality, so I am going to say that an elitist "screw people who cant afford an overpriced mac" is not a good thing imo.

Will we get some lower quality apps, sure, do those already exist? yeah. It just sounds like gatekeeping for not much benefit.

It's important developers (or their QA people) be able to use the device they're publishing to.

Is that why web developers have their hands on every iteration of every device on the planet? Or do they have some sort of tooling that emulates that experience for them?

No, but that's why the web is a subpar experience to native...

No :) the reason is profit margins - native has turned right over to web in electron land.

>I like you and I think your posts are generally high quality

Thanks! I try to add the ocassional low quality comment for balance :-)

>so I am going to say that an elitist "screw people who cant afford an overpriced mac" is not a good thing imo.

Well, my intented meaning was more like "Don't create/sell apps for a platform you dont even own to test in".

The main reason to go for "by the minute" builds on the Cloud for a machine you don't own is to either help with porting to an architecture you don't use, or to churn apps with some cross platform framework to a platform you don't use/care about.

I think the latter would be more frequent.

If they were mere poor hobbyists guys legitimately coding for the platform, they'd own a machine, either new, or second hand, or whatever. It's when you don't code in the platform, but only want to target it for selling that you have an issue...

> The main reason to go for "by the minute" builds on the Cloud for a machine you don't own is to either help with porting to an architecture you don't use, or to churn apps with some cross platform framework to a platform you don't use/care about.

You can also go for "by the minute" builds on the Cloud for a machine you do own. Suppose the developers and testers have Macs on their desks, but you still want to have your CI run in the Cloud. Now I'm not an expert on cloud pricing so I could be wrong, but I imagine you could benefit from paying by the minute in that case, depending on the specifics of your situation (builds per day, time per build, total cost of ownership of having a build farm in house).

If cost is a barrier to entry, then an old used Mac is going to be significantly cheaper than any AWS offering.

Yes, I think I reserve the right to judge him for a decision that hurts iOS/macOS developers as a whole. Can't I judge Facebook for being a privacy violating nightmare even though I've never had an account with them?

As for your other comments: I know what CI is; I use it daily! The way my CI runs (which is how most CI is!) is that a when a commit gets pushed a machine gets spun up to build it, then a few minutes later it shuts itself down once the compilation is complete. Why would I want to pay to have a Mac for an entire day in this scenario? I'd have to be pushing code every few minutes to have any hope of efficiently using one machine.

And believe me, I hate cross-platform garbage apps just as much as you do. But I am not in favor of putting arbitrary restrictions on how people can write their apps. Xcode used to be a soft-requirement to build apps and look how well that worked out: native developers have to stick with it all the time, even when it's acting up and being buggy, and developers who couldn't care less have reverse engineered it to the point where they either generate an Xcode project from a source tree and build from the command line, or they just package their own app bundle themselves with the magic bits that Xcode would usually apply. Trying to stop people from making garbage apps by limiting their tooling options rarely works. And, in fact, I personally know people who go services like MacStadium (VNCing in) to use Xcode for the couple days it takes to set up a build system with the right certificates and profiles, then they never touch a Mac ever again. It's the native developers with their own Macs who want to use a fresh machine to build their code for Mojave or something that they aren't running on their personal computers.

Maybe a case can be made to eliminate the 24 hour minimum by focusing on reducing carbon emissions Why force someone to rent for a day when they need it for an hour?

“This 23 hours of global warming is proudly sponsored by the Appleverse.”

Let's start by killing crypto-coin, which is basically global-warming-as-money...

True dat

Your article sounds as if it had previously not been allowed to offer such services. Or was it a grey zone before?

This seems like an absolutely bizarre take on the situation. You don't really think Apple added those EULA terms for MacStadium now right? They were clearly added for AWS! MacStadium just happens to be happy that there's crystal-clear red lines.

These rules are 100% down to Apple, absolutely nothing to do with AWS and MacStadium in terms of decision-making.

Apple don't want the perceived value of their machines to become lower, want to make sure there's no possibility of performance issues due to multiple tenancy, and want to make sure this doesn't become a way for people to have a personal Mac without having a Mac.

Maybe in another year or two, assuming nothing came out of this which Apple didn't like, they might loosen the rules slightly.

The terms seem to be a perfect fit for MacStadium and a poor fit for everyone else, including AWS. Do you think AWS wants to bill by the second…with 24 hours up front? Does this match their business model at all?

It's really not Apple's business to try to protect people from "performance issues due to multiple tenancy". People who buy these things already know how this works.

No I'm sure AWS don't want it either.

And it absolutely is 100% typical of Apple to do this kind of thing. They don't want third party companies to provide offerings which might cause them problems or degrade their brand/perception.

I'm not at all saying these terms were added to benefit AWS. More that they were a condition of Apple doing this first official cloud partnership.

It's also 100% in line with Apple's recent trends of being hostile to developers. It's absolutely absurd to have to rent an server for 24 hours to do a single build. It's incredibly wasteful to have this much hardware sitting around and doing nothing.

Is there anything to stop someone renting the servers and running a build service on them, thus subdividing the use of the resource?

Just the EULA. Whether that holds any weight with you is up to yourself to decide. But AWS and MacStadium are going to make you click-agree to Apple's EULA before granting access.

Recent trends? Apple has been periodically screwing developers since always. Ultimately Apple just sees developers as a necessary evil to sell their products, but making life easy for them is not a priority.

Or maybe MacStadium’s model was based on the completely predictable direction and steps Apple would take when it came to licensing such activity.

For example, it wasnt hard to predict that a company which basically gives away its OS for free, and nearly makes all its money selling the hardware to run the OS would start with licensing terms that led to more sales of macs.

I have to disagree with this idea that Apple Computer is concerned with performance on hardware that's being shared through a service like AWS. If Apple has any concrete concerns, it's that developers would prefer to pay Amazon for the time they need on a Mac rather than purchase an entire Mac for themselves. It's an anti-developer move.

This idea that Apple is worried about an EC2 instance replacing a personal Mac is way, way, out there. What is much more likely is that a developer buys a lower cost, not Apple laptop and uses that to connect to a Mac on EC2 for the few tasks that require a Mac. Again, it's an move _against_ developers, it's not designed to make the lives of developers any easier.

Not a lawyer, I do wonder if such terms would hold up in court. I can see the case for EULA around virtualization when you're running multiple instances of macOS. But say I just buy a bunch of Mini's and rent (full access to) them out (bare metal, full system) per hour, rather than 24hr. Or for non-"development" work, whatever that means. Could Apple really put up a good case in court?

It seems unlikely that they could successfully sue me if I buy a bunch of Macs and give some people physical time-limited access (say, students in a classroom). What makes the difference? Remote access? Charging rent? I'm not sufficiently invested in these matters for a deep dive, so hoping someone with legal knowledge could chime in.

This does sound absurd, how would people react if a car manufacturer would try to raise arbitrary limitations against car rental businesses?

It sounds absurd, but NVIDA has been doing it for a few years, so it certainly can be done...

Inevitably, this inconsistency will be resolved, but not in the way you or I would like. Tesla is already removing features that previous owners unlocked at sale of the car.

You’re describing the first sale doctrine. Unfortunately, it doesn’t apply to digital licenses; at least not today.

Depends on if the courts look at this as a hardware issue or "digital" software one. I have a feeling they would look at like renting physical hardware in which the first sale doctrine would absoltely apply.

of course like with anything in the legal system it will take a company like Amazon that has their own team of $1,000/hr lawyers to face up against Apple's team of $1,000/hr lawyers in order to get a precedent setting case

You are welcome to do anything with the physical hardware: you just can’t run the software.

Time for a European startup to shine!

'tis the time of year to wish for miracles. :)

That looks like a loophole for Apple. I wonder if soon you'll have to log in with your biometric identity document in order to use it plus always recording camera will ensure only the person who is licensed to use it, use it.

To use MacOS you have to first agree on their Terms, and through this they can legally block you from using it in certain ways. Like the famous "It is only legal to run OS X in a virtual machine if the host computer is a Mac." rule.

One thing is, they could write anything in the EULA, I was just wondering how much it is actually enforceable (even with a click-through "consent".

Second, I wonder on what legal basis they can actually impose usage restrictions of a whole Mac (hardware+software) via an EULA as long as I don't breach any copyright (which I don't think I do if I rent out usage of the entire system for a few hours).

AFAICT (again, not a lawyer), everything rests on section 1.J.[1] "Except as expressly permitted in Section 3, you may not rent, lease, lend, sell, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software." being enforceable. (Section 3. contains the infamous terms for Leasing for Permitted Developer Services with the 24hr restriction). I don't know if such terms would hold up in court. If I read the thing correctly, the the EULA forbids people from lending their MacBook to a friend, or even resell it, which strikes me as quite absurd.

[1] https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOSBigSur.pdf

I have a hard time believing 1.J.[1] could be enforced as it sounds like you cannot sell your MAC, use it in a work or school environment. Apple can't risk to prove the point in court because if it is enforceable no organisation will touch their products.

I think the wording is ambiguous enough that it takes an actual court case to resolve.

In a broad interpretation, the prohibitions on rent/lease/lend/sell of "the Apple Software" would apply to the whole system (harware+software), which would forbid me to sell my old Mac. This would never hold up in court. But in a narrow reading, where the prohibitions only apply to the software, separated from the hardware it does not look like there is anything stopping me from renting out (access to) the entire Mac to a single user[1], for whatever purpose and duration I want. So those 24hr and "development purposes" would be moot.

[1] There's probably more than enough precedence to uphold number-of-users restrictions of software, e.g. Windows Server CALs.

Here’s a question: can a Mac be sold more than once in a 24 hour period?

If you are in the US, it doesn't necessarily matter whether the terms would hold up in court. The question comes down to how deep your pockets are and how much money you are willing to spend to fight Apple. Apple certainly has deep pockets. There aren't a lot of companies that can take the financial hit to fight against a behemoth in court.

There's a limit to the power of deep pockets in court, especially if the remedy is not $billions. Many civil cases spend more time on damages than they do the actual dispute at hand.

Taking a particular perspective and not really talking about the legalities, I can see some not so savory “non-development” work particularly when no one is seriously going to try putting macOS as a production machine for running SAAS apps, except perhaps using some of those specialized, bespoke chips:

- running apps in the cloud, not for q/a, but as a farm for adclicks and fraud. People already do that - farm for generating and submitting low quality games primarily to sell ads. People already do this. - Use backup images on systems with Secure Enclave in order to crack the encryption. Someone security company whose clients are state level actors, and increasingly, law enforcement, are doing this with iphones. I don’t know if a mac cloud makes this possible for other hardware - The M1 is an Apple exclusive SoC with a lot of bespoke, specialized chips, and unified memory, and is only going to get faster for future Macs. I can see people trying to access a cloud for that, while ignoring the branding that links consumer, end-user experience with “Apple”. (Esp since Nvidia has bought ARM, and that RISC-in-cloud is becoming a big deal)

I am not saying those are a good enough reason to set the ELUA the way Apple did, but that I get why Apple might do this.

The flip side from my perspective. A monthly dedicated host on MacStadium is much cheaper than running an AWS Windows 2019 Server ondemand, or even with Reserved Instance pricing.

Why does that matter to me and the company I work for? Because Unity is behind on their Linux version, so CI builds are going to run on either Mac or Windows. I don’t really care that much about elastic compute for this, though being able to use AMIs matters more. The main reason we have not moved to using Macstadium dedicated hosts is that I would need to set up something like Chef as configuration management for what would be essentially a fleet of pet servers.

But if our team wants to deploy to either Mac or Windows as production systems ... I would be discouraging them from doing so.

I wonder the degree to which this is about apple trying to reduce their services crypto workload? When developers say they "want a mac instance" they often "want a mac instance that can talk to apple services like a normal mac instance" in order to sign apps and such. I'm not sure but I think arranging for that capability probably involves round trips with apple services to get required key signing artifacts into place ...

If instances are totally ephemeral in the same way as we are used to with linux vm's maybe that runs the risk of creating a real problem for apple services?

Does this mean Apple explicitly allows re-sale (os license follows used laptop if you sell it), and explicitly forbids renting. (I can rent you my laptop, but then there's no way for you to legally run OS X on it)?

The thing that Stucki is celebrating can be summed up with this line from the blog post:

> I’m happy to have an absolute guideline from Apple

Before this, it was a legal grey area. Now at least the rules are spelled out and are clear. More importantly, they are the same for everyone. I think we could all argue over what the "right" limits might be (or if there should be any), but at least MacStadium, AWS, and whomever else wants to rent out cloud-based Macs now know where they stand.

The legal gray area where Apple specifically called out their service by name in a presentation and how great their Mac Minis would be for their usecase?

Who else was offering Mac Mini rentals prior to this change? MacStadium appears to be the only major player in the space prior to Amazon jumping in.

Macminicolo has been around since at least 2005. They were acquired by MacStadium in 2016 though.

Macminicolo appears to have been Brian Stucki's company (as he said in his original post) and it was acquired by MacStadium: https://blog.macstadium.com/blog/macstadium-and-macminicolo

I really fail to see what Brian Stucki did wrong? He’s subject to the whims of Apple licensing way more than AWS is.

The license changes basically allow nobody other than MacStadium to exist–throughout the blog post he gloats about how their business model is a hand in the new EULA's glove. And, of course, MacStadium been in contact with Apple to work this out, as he mention at the end. What has clearly happened is Apple asked them what the EULA should look like, or suggested a EULA based on what MacStadium is doing, and they went along with it. There is no way they didn't know that this would hurt everyone else's business (actually, he mentions this in the article, so he is writing this with full knowledge of that fact).

Even if MacStadium was not involved in this at all, making a blog post about a change that hurts your competitors and talking about how you are somehow better than them and deserve to exist is remarkably poor taste.

Apple's angle here is that everybody who needs a Mac has to buy or rent one. That seems super obvious.

It also happens to align them with people who are in the business of selling or renting Macs, sure. But the point is not to screw AWS or MacStadium's competitors. The point is to sell Macs.

The obvious side effect of selling more Macs is that it hurts AWS and MacStadium's competitors. Developers don't want to buy more Macs from Apple that they don't need. Apple knows this and has known this for decades and so their actions are essentially the same as telling developers to suck it up and buy new Macs.

Which isn’t strange, seeing as their business is selling macs. Having a Mac is not some fundamental right or essential for survival. It is just a product.

If your complaint boils down to not liking what Apple is doing then why are you still using their platform? If you are using it privately then it's on you. If you are using it professionally and your company is paying for it then it's your job and responsibility to put up with it but it also means you're not on the hook for the extra expense of renting a Mac.

Yeah, I think that pretty much nails it. If putting up with all Apple's BS and extra costs puts you in the red on their platform professionally then the business decision seems obvious.

I disagree.

I'm pretty sure that MacStadium didn't limit their rental to one customer per hardware box out of spite for their customers, but because that's what Apple expected of them. So their were being held to a higher standard than some of their competitors, who had much higher profit margins by putting multiple customers on one machine.

So I think he is justifiably happy that Apple created a fair competition by clearly spelling out the legal rules for everyone.

The fact that Apple's official rules are close to what they were doing adds additional credibility to this interpretatio, because it suggest that they were following Apple's guidance before it became legally easy to enforce

I wouldn't put any blame for how these rules look like on MacStadium, because if Epic cannot negotiate with Apple on eye level, I'm confident that MacStadium never will. It's probably more like they received their future laws as dictated by their fruit-shaped God.

I have no problem with MacStadium's business model; in fact, I have seriously considered renting Macs from them in the past specifically because of their service of providing a dedicated machine for an extended period of time. In that case we were looking at running extended builds and the cost of downloading Xcode, then our source tree, then running a build for hours on a per-hour service was fairly competitive with what was being offered by MacStadium. That we didn't choose it was mostly chance and external factors.

What Apple did here is create a monopoly for MacStadium, at least in the near future, and remove services like AWS from consideration completely. Brian's claims that they were simply offering their services in a way that "felt right with what Apple would have wanted" is marketing drivel. I don't care if I am getting a single core out of four, I'm not trying to browse Safari on this machine. Just run my builds and give me what I pay for; that's how CI works for literally everything else.

> What Apple did here is create a monopoly for MacStadium

Why can't any business rent out physical Macs on a 1:1 basis on the same terms as MacStadium? It looks like they can, and if so then it's nothing favorable to MacStadium specifically: it's just not favorable to fractional renting like AWS.

You cut that quote off a bit early.

"What Apple did here is create a monopoly for MacStadium, at least in the near future"

I don't see what the bit I left off ("at least in the near future") changes.

There's nothing structural that favors MacStadium over other businesses with the same model.

Other than MacStadium already having that business model and their competitors that are hurt not having that model. They'd need to put in effort to transition at the very least.

That's nothing like a monopoly in anyway though. It's just a business that had the correct business model.

…that Apple randomly selected, so now they’re the only thing that handled this right now. It’s a monopoly in that they are the one that exists and other things cannot, legally, since they had a business model that they must now change.

What makes you think that Apple selected this business? Don't you think it's more likely that this business simply reduced it's risk exposure by asking Apple what it's plans for Macs in data centers are? Apple is making the rules, not some third party company that is following them.

> It’s a monopoly in that they are the one that exists and other things cannot, legally, since they had a business model that they must now change.

This is nothing like a monopoly.

It's like Netscape had a monopoly on browsers because they were the first to ship when HTTP 1.0 was finalized.

“Needing to put in effort” is not a marker of anti-trust.

Small-m monopoly. Apple picked their business model and killed off the others; for now they’re the only game in town. I’m not claiming they’re going to use their position to control the market or anything.

Aren't you misrepresenting this situation quite a bit? When it comes to business you are always on the hook for your own mistakes. If your company engaged in a risky business model then as the owner you are personally bearing that risk.

There is nothing dishonest about asking Apple about its future business plans and following Apple's rules. If you base your entire business on skirting rules then don't come crying when they are suddenly being enforced. It's on you to make your business work.

> Brian's claims that they were simply offering their services in a way that "felt right with what Apple would have wanted" is marketing drivel.

It's not only marketing drivel, it's a downright strange statement. I mean with which other product would you consider the wishes of the anthropomorphized business which created the product in terms of how you use it? Normally the product is meant to serve the consumer, not the other way around.

> So I think he is justifiably happy that Apple created a fair competition by clearly spelling out the legal rules for everyone.

Thing is he's only happy because those rules are good for them. The way he talks about renting partial CPUs being somehow 'wrong' and makes them look like a ripoff is misleading. Just because you can get a VPS or hourly billed CPU time does not mean you can not get a full machine as well. But cost matters a lot, especially to smaller developers.

> Apple created a fair competition by clearly spelling out the legal rules for everyone

I think it could be argued that it shouldn't be Apple's place to set the rules of the competition. If MacStadium is correct, that the best experience is one-user-one-machine, then their business model should win out. It's not fair competition to rule out all other business models.

Sure, but that's copyright for ya. Apple gets to dictate the ToU for macOS. You can say that it shouldn't be Apple's place, and I agree, but macOS isn't free software.

I'm not arguing this isn't legal. I'm arguing against the previous commenter's assertion that this is justifiable.

> What has clearly happened is Apple asked them what the EULA should look like

It's clear that you have never worked with Apple. This is not how Apple does business. Apple sets the terms and you either agree or GTFO.

Apple will work with you if they think it is beneficial to them.

> The license changes basically allow nobody other than MacStadium to exist

This simply isn't true. Any business can follow Apple's licence and do exactly the same thing.

Maybe those companies should focus their business in countries where EULAs have zero legal value, like EU countries.

Though some of their statements probably don't apply, I think EULAs apply in EU. Software license do apply.

Software patents are still not recognized, let's hope this continues for a long time.

EULA apply, but there is legislations in EU that make terms prohibiting you from reverse engineer, sell, rent or automating null and void.

Do you have a source for this?

European Computer Program Directive. Art.6 for the reverse engineering bit, but the rest is there too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Programs_Directive

EULAs definitely apply in the EU. As do software patents. But as always, things are a bit more complicated than either you or pjmlp summarised. eg

- EULAs cannot deny permissions that are allowed under consumer rights.

- It's also worth adding that software licences behave slightly differently to EULAs in that software licenses are designed to provide additional rights above what copyright laws typically allow (this is particularly true in the case of open source licenses) where as EULAs are often (though not always) designed to place restrictions on top of existing consumer rights. Hence why they're often considered invalid.

- I'm not 100% on this specific point as it has been a few years ago since I've investigated it but there was once some contention about whether it's even legal to place a licence agreement to the user after said user has already purchased the product. However companies could still use an EULA to revoke support -- much like a company can revoke warranty if they suspect the device has been opened up (eg the tamper strips). The rules here might have been clarified in court since I've last investigated this point though.

- "The European Patent Convention states that software is not patentable. But laws are always interpreted by courts, and in this case interpretations of the law differ. So the European Patents Office (EPO) grants software patents by declaring them as "computer implemented inventions"." source: https://fsfe.org/activities/swpat/swpat.en.html

- Even the FSFE (Free Software Foundation Europe) quote above only tells half the story regarding Software Patents within the EU. There are some restrictions on what counts as a "computer implemented invention" plus also there are also national level patent offices that override the EPO at a local level. Wikipedia has some good summaries about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur...

EULA may not have much if any force in some jurisdiction, but that's typically for private individuals. Corporations can reasonably be expected to have lawyers to understand legalese, for one.

Not saying the EULA would definitely be enforceable, just that it's not that simple in this case.

A little dramatic, eh?

Apple obviously doesn't want companies like AWS to be renting Mac Minis as some sort of VDI solution. That's consistent with the (shitty) practices of Microsoft with respect to Windows, which confines Windows 10 hosting to Azure services.

Given the nature of Mac, an AWS MacOS service is unique in that it's very clear who the manufacturer of the underlying hardware is. Apple, given it's control-freak nature wanted to have a model that accommodated both their needs and the provided a clear, multi-provider model to do what developers need.

Microsoft simply doesn't do what you are saying.

Windows 10 hosting is not confined to azure services, you can even bring your own license to AWS, or host your own terminal services, or run your own virtual apps, or literally anything.

I was imprecise in my wording. You cannot bring a shared Windows 10 virtual desktop to any provider that is not Microsoft Azure. Azure uses a delivery model based on tech for education customers that allowed 4-5 K-12 students to work from 1 PC via thin clients, and that model is only available on Azure. (And it's really cheap.)

If you do BYOL of Windows 10 on a non-Azure cloud service, you need to meet specific Microsoft EA requirements, and you must run on dedicated hardware. If you look at the AWS BYOL model for Workspaces, it very similar in cost to the Apple on AWS model. (https://aws.amazon.com/workspaces/pricing)

As far as I know, before these changes selling virtualized macOS was not allowed at all. That is what Brian was celebrating, to see some approval.

As far as I am aware, the new changes are clarification to the old terms, which didn't really say much at all. The situation where you have a clear "no" is significantly worse than the one where there's no specific rule prohibiting it. Many companies can and have decided that the latter was good enough to offer a service off of; no company with a competent legal department is going to offer such a service now.

It is still not allowed to virtualize macOS and rent that virtualized macoS: lease hardware and software ”in its entirety to an individual or organization”

The wording and language in that blog post is absolutely wild. Its demonstrably and undeniably better to have access to smaller virtualized Mac instances, or per-hour/per-second billing, or general use. Undeniably. There is literally no cogent argument I can think of to the opposite, on any of these points, but I understand why Apple is making these guidelines; If I had to follow them, I wouldn't be happy about it, but similar to the App Store guidelines you just gotta do what Apple wants.

That post exudes happiness at the guidelines, like an oil company that just got a regulation passed banning solar energy. I understand the happiness at finally getting validation that Apple is alright with this business model, but that's separate from exuding happiness at the terms of that validation.

AWS are offering the first ever officially supported macOS virtualisation, I would call that a milestone. Given the costs, you would only use these instances for "approved" development work only. It is aimed at larger companies where maintaining a MacBook Mini build server is relatively expensive. Such companies will be using more than one instance of a MacBook mini to have a level of redundancy in case of a failure. If they are used in earnest, such instances would have to be replaced at least every year with old instance disposed off professionally (scrambling hard drive contents, etc). Yes the instances are expensive, but there is a definitely an use case for these.

> AWS are offering the first ever officially supported macOS virtualisation

AWS is offering dedicated bare metal Mac Minis for rent with virtual NICs and virtual storage powered by AWS Nitro, there is no macOS virtualisation.

Technically no, but the word has come to mean something different. Because even bare metal instances come under the same APIs, security, architecture and usage model as the other "real" VMs, the difference is very slim now. We can think of them as VMs of a specific size with a minimum billing time and get on with using them with our existing tooling.

Virtualization means virtualization. Nobody's changed the definition of a VM.

> but the word has come to mean something different

No, it hasn't. If you're using "VM" to include bare metal, then you are using the wrong term for something. The definition of the word "virtualization" has not changed.

You can call them EC2 instances then. They aren’t VMs at all.

I think you’re using the terms incorrectly. This is “Hardware as a Service” not a “virtual machine.” Yes, AWS Nitro provides extensive management services for both, but they are fundamentally different things even if you access them in similar ways.

The new instance name is “mac1.metal” just like AWS’ other hardware as a service offerings:

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-amazon-ec2-bare-metal-i...

Neither is it first. MacStadium have done this for years.

GitHub Actions, Semaphore CI, CircleCI, Bitrise, they have all done actual virtualisation of macOS for a number of years too. Yes it's a slightly more specialised problem domain, but nothing about this is correct.

>at larger companies where maintaining a MacBook Mini build server is relatively expensive.

That makes no sense, sorry.

If you are a startup, you can have your MacBook Mini in the office. As a larger organisation, you will need a dedicated server room for it limiting access to authorised staff members. You are likely going to need more than one, as you don't want your developers sitting around doing nothing if your MacBook Mini fails. You also need to allocate IT budget to maintain your devices and to replace them on a regular instance.

what the hell is a "MacBook Mini"? You keep repeating the same phrase over and over so it can't be a typo.

Mac Mini

iMiniMac sounds better i think ;)

But if i already have a dedicated server room for sure i dont pay Amazon to use theirs, that just makes sense if your full on AWS already.

It's not virtualisation.

> and shame on you Apple

> (...)

> either going to have to buy Macs

Why not ditch the entire Apple ecosystem while you still can? Show them that we, developers, don't like feudal lords that like to tell us what we can and cannot do with our systems. So others won't dare to copy them.

Because there's money to be made by not "ditching the entire Apple ecosystem."

If you were able to run a business that was fun, that made you money, and that enabled you to help other people have fun and make money (i.e., your employees), would you not do that out of principle? I'm genuinely asking.

> Because there's money to be made by not "ditching the entire Apple ecosystem."

That's very shortsighted. You can make money without Apple. And by doing so, you show that you value open, generic compute systems. Also, the prosperity of your business won't be at the whim of Apple.

You could also make money by selling paperclips or by creating satellite constellations. Which path you choose comes down to interest, expertise, and luck/chance.

All businesses have constraints. In this business, you're subject to the Apple EULA. In others, you're subject to government regulation or pricing pressure due to commoditization. That's not short-sighted — no industry is forever, and there's money to be made now. Why not deploy their expertise toward financial success (and, presumably, fun)? There's demand for these services — someone's going to fill it.

For folks who don't value 'open, generic compute systems' over 'putting food on the table', the closed nature of Apple's ecosystem is just the reality they need to deal with. They're not making a moral tradeoff, just a practical one.

Are you suggesting MacStadium and co should shut down their businesses out of principle? Will you employ them once they do? Where will their customers go?

If you're ok with saying "shame on you Apple" every time they pull a trick like this, then I don't know how to convince you.

I'm just saying that as Apple gets more power this may get worse, hence the shortsightedness remark.

Link to Apple's EULA:

https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOSBigSur.pdf

Under: "Leasing for Permitted Developer Services"

The EULA applies to leasing the whole OS. I don't need a whole virtual Mac to run CI jobs. It doesn't sound like there's anything stopping anyone from offering a Mac CI job runner that gets shared with multiple organizations at the same time.

There are some fairly broad usage restrictions in section 1.J.[1].

Except as otherwise permitted by the terms of this License or otherwise licensed by Apple: (i) only one user may use the Apple Software at a time, and (ii) you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be run or used by multiple computers at the same time. You may not rent, lease, lend, sell, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software.

Make of it what you will.

https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOSCatalina.pdf

if I've mac with accepted EULAs and share it via network to wife, kids or neighbor (might be even wife/neighbor used it to do some business activities) - how it does works from legal perspective? is it will viewed as EULA violation?

Luckily there are still cloud services that you can use for iOS CI like Bitrise.

...or Codemagic.io

Why do they restrict the use to development work?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com