"almost entirely avoided" in this context really means "you absolutely need to buy a Mac but you may not need to use it all the time"

Yes but what I got from the article was that 'you have to use Xcode and Xcode sucks/is a pain to use'. In my (limited) cross-platform dev experience you open Xcode to press 'run' so your app runs on device (and you can do this from the command line if you prefer) and to 'archive' which brings you through a wizard to upload your app. So you avoid all of the Xcode pain points.

sort of, I run a VM on Windows using VMWare workstation, involves binary patching the vmware executable, but hey, cheaper than buying a mac.

Also illegal, so not a solution for non-hobbyists.

I don't think it's illegal in my country. Or most of the world really.

Technically it's not illegal as in criminal, but it is a violation of the contract you're agreeing to in the form of the software license. And the macOS software license only permits running macOS on Apple hardware (it can run in a VM, but the VM host must be Apple hardware).

I understand that some of these EULAs aren't enforceable everywhere, in the form of consumer protection laws inhibiting what's basically perceived to be bullying behavior. At least in the U.S. consumer protection laws are weaker, depending on the idea that when consumers are bullied, they'll spend their money elsewhere.

In a global market, asymmetric consumer protection laws aid bully behaviors. The countries were people are safe flaunting EULAs may have higher usage rates of software with unfavorable EULAs, rather than using alternatives with a more favorable EULA.

Another reason Apple is BS. "macOS software license only permits running macOS on Apple hardware", I disagree with Apple so hard here. What a scam.

They've always been this way. There was a short period of time with Mac clones, but there was still a license that said you could only run macOS on Apple hardware, or Apple licencee hardware.

I totally understand not liking the license, but if you click the agree button when installing the software on non-Apple hardware, you're basically lying.

It's against Apple licenses (for macOS and for the App Store)

Apple doesn't write laws and someone with no contract with is not bound by their rules.

If you acquired Mac OS X legally how would this be illegal? I will admit acquiring it legally could be tricky, but that is not what we were calling illegal was it?

Breach of the terms under which the OS was licensed to you. You can acquire the software legally pretty easily: buy a box in one of their retail stores.

The (mostly-untested) theory is that clicking "I agree" on the license is a legally-binding contract between you and Apple. The Mac OSX license repeatedly says that a requirement of the use of the software is that it be used on Apple-branded hardware.

So, "illegal" based on unlicensed use of copyrighted material or based on breach of contract. At least, that's how I understand the argument.

If you're a company, buy a used Mac, then. They're honestly not that expensive, especially considering all of the other stuff you have to pay for as a business.

If you do ReactNative and you don't need to write native code you can avoid this by using expo.

Oh noes, you need the platform of the device manufacturer to develop for it. Whatever shall we do.

Seriously, I can never take this argument seriously.

You've got to buy the device itself? OK, makes sense. You've got to buy PC hardware, but are obligated by the software license to buy it from one particular vendor? OK, yeah, there's a business reason for it, but it's irritating because there's no technical reason.

I can easily develop iOS software without owning an Apple computer...but I can't do it legally. I'm happy I'm not in mobile dev, and this is one reason.