I wonder if you could "abuse" a service like GH Actions to replace an always-on Mac. I'm not an Apple user, so I don't know how feasible it is.
But using such a (freely provided) service for something it wasn't meant to do is unethical, even tho I think it's a lot less unethical than mining crypto on it.
eh... illegal, depends on how you got access to MacOS and on your jurisdiction as well as the reasons for doing it. (Research, for instance.) The other points, I agree with 100%.
Apple always has the option of fusing their Macs and selling blown ones externally, and then writing their OS to turn off parts of the OS that they use but think you don't need. They haven't done that, but it is always possible that they could.
IIRC this is possible but violates their EULAs for MacOS and likely the DMCA. So if you plan on using it commerically then you may be risking the entire business.
Yikes! How come Apple allows it? I thought they were super stringent about what they allow on their platforms (MacOS might be more lax from what i gather).
Aside from selling hackintosh computers I don’t think I’ve ever heard of Apple going after someone for running macOS on third party hardware or running it virtualized. If you try to make a business out of it they will come after you but they are going after developers.
Nowadays something like BrowserStack feels like a requirement anyways since I’ll never have all the devices I need to test.
It's against the Terms of Service, which may or may not have legal implications based on where you are. However, Apple doesn't really give a shit unless you're going to profit off of it. The Hackintosh community has been around for ages and Apple doesn't do anything unless someone starts selling pre-installed Hackintoshes.
reply