Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon EC2 Mac Instances

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 511 posts

Re: Amazon EC2 Mac Instances

#271

Post by oxfordmale »

nix23 wrote: post #218
oxfordmale wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

>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.

Re: Amazon EC2 Mac Instances

#272

Post by throwaway24824 »

jedberg wrote: post #117
dash2 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m pretty sure if Amazon wanted to negotiate custom terms, they’d have the clout to do so. This is an alliance between two giants.

I doubt Apple supports this in any way. It means that if you want to develop Mac/iPhone apps, you no longer have to buy Mac hardware. I'm surprised they aren't making this harder .

Apple use this themselves.

Re: Amazon EC2 Mac Instances

#273

Post by andybak »

phire wrote: post #202
dfabulich wrote: post #149

Amazon lists the price of mac1 instances (running on rack-mounted Intel Mac Minis) at $1.083 per hour, $9,487 per year. You have to pay for 24 hours up front, after which they bill by the second. https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/dedicated-hosts/pricing/ They don't yet display any reservation pricing for mac1 instances, but they do offer a "savings plan." https://aws.amazon.com/savingsplans/pricing/ If you pay for three yea…

With the pricing, 24h minimum and "only developers" restriction. it seems like there are exactly two usecases for this service. 1. You are a big company who needs Mac CI and your IT department has a strict "Cloud Only" restriction. 2. You are a developer for a cross-platform App who doesn't own a mac, but needs access to a real mac every few weeks or months for debugging/releasing.

My use case is that I need to build for a recent iOS device but I don't want to upgrade my Macbook to an os version that doesn't support 32bit apps.

But the 24hr thing kills it for me. I will never get 24 hours use out of it. Maybe a few hours. Why am I paying for the other 21 hours?

Maybe someone can wrap this SaaS in a other Saas and sell timeshares in a virtual Mac.

Re: Amazon EC2 Mac Instances

#274

Post by floatboth »

withinrafael wrote: post #255
floatboth wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CI runners are kinda different than VM hosting. I mean sure you could abuse them to run sshd and interactively use them for a while :D but the service as intended is that you don't "rent" the VM in any meaningful way, it's fully theirs , they just run your one single job on it and show you the logs.

Prior to Big Sur, it's my understanding the macOS SLA explicitly disallowed this. Snippet: > 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, red…

You could argue that the CI service is the "one user", and it doesn't make the software available over the network, it only makes logs available over the network.

This seems like a gray area, "does running a build on your behalf constitute renting out the build environment to you" is a very hard question.

Re: Amazon EC2 Mac Instances

#275

Post by throwawayffffas »

ampdepolymerase wrote: post #185
thayne wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strategically it makes sense. Apple is a hardware company, so making it difficult to run their OS in the cloud means more people need to keep buying their hardware. Microsoft has their own cloud, where they don't have to deal with the license requirements they force on other cloud providers, which gives them a competitive advantage over their competitors (when it comes to windows servers). The key is that these compa…

Does Microsoft have to follow its own EULA? Will it be an antitrust violation if they don't?

No, Microsoft owns it's software it does not need a license to use it.

Re: Amazon EC2 Mac Instances

#276

Post by sydd »

saagarjha wrote: post #172

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…

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

Re: Amazon EC2 Mac Instances

#278

Post by thinkingemote »

You cannot use these as servers.

You can only use this for: "Permitted Developer services."

This is defined as "continuous integration services, including but not limited to software development, building software from source, automated testing during software development, and running necessary developer tools to support such activities."

(from: https://blog.macstadium.com/blog/developers-big-sur-and-vind... )

So, no servers and no hosting stuff, and no personal use of desktop applications like Photoshop etc

Re: Amazon EC2 Mac Instances

#279

Post by thinkingemote »

ianmobbs wrote: post #48

This could be huge for the ecosystem. For example, there are ways to use third-party iMessage clients (e.g. through Matrix) that require you to keep a server running on your local macOS machine signed in to your AppleID - this could let developers create hosted versions of those services

running servers (or anything personal) on these instances are forbidden.

Re: Amazon EC2 Mac Instances

#280

Post by hobby-coder-guy »

lultimouomo wrote: post #266
BGStucki wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 diff…

Why did you say he is happy that apple “doesn’t allow more stuff”?
Post reply on HN