> If you want to run a Mac in the cloud, it has to be a full machine in most cases.
If cloud companies have the opportunity they will divide the resources of that Mac into 30 vms and then meter access to the point where it would have been cheaper to go out and acquire the hardware yourself.
Unpopular opinion, but Apple should stick to its guns and maybe create a physical Mac rack server with legal and technical restrictions on maximum tenancy.
> If cloud companies have the opportunity they will divide the resources of that Mac into 30 vms and then meter access to the point where it would have been cheaper to go out and acquire the hardware yourself.
That’s…how cloud computing is supposed to work? You pay them a premium to set this up. The fact that this isn’t possible is why everyone is annoyed.
If cloud companies have the opportunity they will divide the resources of that Mac into 30 vms and then meter access to the point where it would have been cheaper to go out and acquire the hardware yourself.
Unpopular opinion, but Apple should stick to its guns and maybe create a physical Mac rack server with legal and technical restrictions on maximum tenancy.
Otherwise what is the point of doing it on a mac?