> You will need at least one machine anyway to do basic testing on.
You wouldn't if Apple didn't prohibit using VMs. If you want to test compatibility with the actual hardware you probably should have more than one machine anyway.
> This suggests linux is more problematic per sale than mac.
Or that Linux users are more likely to report their problems. IIRC there recently was an article on HN by a game developer who supported Linux in part to get quality bug reports.
”You wouldn't if Apple didn't prohibit using VMs.”
Nitpick: Apple doesn’t completely prohibit VMs; it prohibits VMs not running on Apple hardware running the OS, and puts restriction on why you can run them. https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOS1014.pdf:
”to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using macOS Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use.”
I think one intended use for that is for testing your software with older or beta OSes, but “already running the Apple Software” to me, implies running the same version in the VM as on the host.
I also think they don’t just allow running in a VM because it would make running hackintoshes perfectly feasible, losing them significant hardware sales.
You wouldn't if Apple didn't prohibit using VMs. If you want to test compatibility with the actual hardware you probably should have more than one machine anyway.
> This suggests linux is more problematic per sale than mac.
Or that Linux users are more likely to report their problems. IIRC there recently was an article on HN by a game developer who supported Linux in part to get quality bug reports.