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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.