This is The Question and it applies to every single one of these stupendously wasteful deployments of time, space, energy and capital.

Every single mid-sized IT shop in the world has an urgent and valid use-case to virtualize OSX in an efficient and portable manner. Most individual power-end-users have similar use-cases.

How many hours / dollars / gigatons-of-carbon / calories are wasted on this comically inefficient, user-hostile and gratuitously complex state of affairs ?

> How many hours / dollars / gigatons-of-carbon / calories are wasted on this comically inefficient, user-hostile and gratuitously complex state of affairs ?

Many, many more that are being "saved" by them not bundling chargers in iPhone. Kind of shows you where they stand.

Follow the $$$.

Apple's whole shtick is hardware/software integration; they'd have to make and sell the hardware for the VMs to run on.

Don't they already? Mac Pros are a thing. They even are rack mountable.

This is nonsensical. Apple is a hardware company before they are software. In addition, they would have to provide support for the software running on hardware that they don't know, understand or whatever else.

It would have been more likely for AWS to give specs to Apple, who could have then created a custom job for some extra monies.

In reality though, using Mac Minis is perfectly reasonable. It's likely the cheapest option for both Apple and Amazon.

Who would provide large-scale hardware support to AWS for this approach? Certainly not Apple as it’s not their hardware. Also in a few minth from now people will want M1 cpu’s and you wouldn’t have worked towards that at all. If someone is fine with the Hackintosh experience, there are ways to do it in AWS already now.

It’s an “as-A-Service” offering. The hardware is abstracted and you get you use MacOS and its services on demand. It’d be the same as asking Dropbox what happens when their underlying hard drives reaches end of life from the manufacturers. It’s not our problem.

A patched version of macOS that Apple provided could just be a AMI on EC2. They run it on x86 test boxes internally, at least until they complete the transition to Apple Silicon, so it should be possible.

Apple just doesn’t want to support it, and for developers, they want them to buy Macs to work on and only use VMs when absolutely necessary.

Because Apple is a hardware company. I wouldn't expect them to be supportive of a Hackintosh solution, to the point of making it difficult to operate.

I assume this is the v1 product, and simply preparing for the v2 using Apple silicon (M1? M2?)

Apple sells integrated hardware and software. They don’t license macOS to anyone else. Why would they start now having seen that strategy fail in their corporate history already?

Let's be honest. Nobody is running workloads on Mac Mini servers because they think it's a good server OS or good server hardware. They're doing it to run Xcode as part of a CI/CD pipeline (or some other kind of automated testing) in order to develop applications for iOS devices. No, there is no money in Apple for either licensing out their IP or building their own server brand. It's a loss leader or at best a break-even, low-margin business for them, but it's a compliment to their high-margin businesses (having more/better apps means more App Store revenue and helps keep users on the hardware/software platform). Not having a convenient way to run Xcode in an automated workflow is a strategy tax on their other, profitable lines of business.

Or at least have Apple send them Mac Mini hardware not in a Mac Mini case that would hopefully lead to a more integrated or robust solution than a computer sitting in a sled. Would this be beneficial?

Mac sold outside of a shiny brushed aluminum case?

Jony Ive rolling in his grave.