To all Windows guys, which complain about that they cannot build for Mac, but won’t buy a cheap used one:
AWS has Mac VMs, also with the M1 Chip. You’ll pay as you use it, so it’ll be affordable. You can also implement the VMs into a CI/CD Pipeline, cause over the AWS-API you can boot and shutdown the VMs programmatically. So it you have set it up once, the whole build-process can be automated and be very cheap.
The curious thing is, that not many Windows guys are complaining but Apple folks that it’s not Apple’s fault, as Xojo claims being able to make it work :-). My 50 cents: I’m happy that Xojo is not wasting resources on this. Just because you are so brilliant that you could achieve it, doesn’t mean that Apple wants you to do it. I mean that’s similar to being able to make macOS run on non Apple hardware - it does work, but it’s nothing Apple supports you to do 
- plus, if you are serious in developing for macOS, you should test your outcomes on “native” macOS.
Rather than immediately assuming and decrying “arrogance and a lack of concern”, it might be worthwhile to consider other things you might be ignoring.
Dropping 32-bit support probably had a lot to do with the impending multi-year transition to Apple Silicon. I don’t have any first-hand knowledge about this, but from a systems engineering perspective, it makes sense. They needed to eliminate legacy 32-bit support to have a MacOS build that would run on both Intel and Apple Silicon processors. And that would be sustainable.
There was plenty of notice for developers to transition their software to 64-bit. Most products made it to 64-bit in time for the Catalina release, and those that didn’t were updated shortly afterward. Anything that didn’t get updated to 64-bit between the Catalina and Big Sur was an essentially unsupported piece of 3rd party software going forward.
The “average user” doesn’t need, care, or pay attention to things such as “32-bit” or “64-bit”. They simply want software that works. The “average user” won’t (and shouldn’t) feel that they’re being treated poorly by Apple for dropping 32-bit support, because it’s not their job to worry about that. That’s what developers are for. 
Even better, a new M1 Mac Mini for $699 is all anyone would need. 8GB/256GB as a configuration is fine to use for Xojo development. Attach your existing display(s) (up to 2) and use existing keyboards and mice. This is really what’s needed, because it’s least expensive hardware that can be used to build and test MacOS-built applications for both Intel and Apple Silicon. You can’t test Apple Silicon builds on Intel Macs. But you can (and should) test Intel builds on any M1 system, simply by running them in Rosetta2 emulation mode.
Sure, but you still need an Intel Mac, if you want to test for anything older than Big Sur. At least for the time being, as there is no way to run an older macOS via virtualization on M1. Though, you can as well steer that via marketing: BS release only.
Yes, you’re right about that. A mid-2012 laptop or Mini would do the trick without needing virtualization, since you can install and run any MacOS from the past 8 years. (Not that you would want to - the last 5 or 6 at most should be enough
Just thinking out loud…
Why not shift this problem to the cloud? I just did a quick search for virtualized macs in the cloud. For example here is one such service…
I am not recommending this particular service, but bringing it up as an example that such services exist. Maybe such a service might be viable.
Another take on this is xojo could provide a virtualized service in the “xojo” cloud that could perform the need tasks.
Again, just brain storming here.
Xojo Cloud is build on Linux. So this won’t be possible.
I think, every good developer, who cares for his/her customers, should test its software on the OSs which he supports technically. Testing a software for MacOS, needs a device with MacOS, dead simple.
A windows-dev, who simply wants to check a box with “build my crap for the OS I don’t care about as well” should never complain about a function which exists on one OS and not on another (untested) one.
My 2 cents 
What I was referring to is that xojo could build out servers that run the tools that xojo needs to complete the compile for macOS like actool which Greg mentioned. Then people can subscribe to the service which will become an extra revenue stream for xojo. It is all software, so it is all possible. The only consideration is it cost effective.
Second consideration: should Xojo support bad business ethics ;-), and developing tools allowing the Windows developers to deploy stuff they haven’t tested on macOS … I don’t really think that we have many people in this forum and in the Xojo customer base who are working this way. Perhaps citizen developers, but most of them will probably understand that it is not a good approach. And if one wants to share his/her app with uncle Sam, who is an Apple fan boy, @Lars_Lehmann described a cheap way achieving this or one could always ask here for support.
That is not xojo’s concern. Xojo’s path is to develop a tool chain that allows the users to build applications seamlessly.
Have you looked into “Theos”? It’s the toolchain I use in the iOS Builder that I built in 2014 (should still be content in the forums regarding this) and still maintain for personal use. Theos is primarily for jailbroken device, but can be used with valid apple certificate to compile for non-jailbroken devices. The Theos toolchain permits cross-platform development/compilation to iOS/MacOS across Windows/Mac/Linux and includes ldid - for signing apps without XCode, plus all the other XCode tools (minus the XCode IDE). The toolchain has been rebuilt for ARM64 as of February. Just a thought
**A Mac is needed to rip the XCode framework from, and copy to the toolchain path for use. Once the framework is copied though, a Mac is no longer needed. The Mac framework can be found across the web for download without having a Mac - but if you have a Mac, the latest framework should be available for use. The Theos toolchain has been maintained since 2011 and may be found on Github for perusal.
you are right, I can’t speak for Xojo and don’t want to, but I can speak for myself that I would personally never develop for a platform I have not tested my apps on, that’s why I’m seeing no benefit for any user.
Do you have any link ? I tried to search to no availal.
Thanks
I think they are only planned: New – Use Amazon EC2 Mac Instances to Build & Test macOS, iOS, iPadOS, tvOS, and watchOS Apps | AWS News Blog
Apple M1 Chip – EC2 Mac instances with the Apple M1 chip are already in the works, and planned for 2021.
But AWS has probably some beta-tester instances, where it might already by available, don’t know.
I missread the last announcement of AWS:
It is coming early 2021.
Apple M1 Chip – EC2 Mac instances with the Apple M1 chip are already in the works, and planned for 2021.
However, MacOS VMs are already here
haha, same post 
So yes, M1 Macs are coming, Intel Macs are already there
There’s nothing new about that. Back in the mid '90s, when my kids were little, they had a Windows/Mac game on a CD-ROM, that didn’t run worth a lick on our Performa. We put the CD in a PC and it seemed fine. On the Mac it would consistently crash if one went beyond Level 1 or 2.
This is where I learned the concept of memory leaks. On the Mac, the game simply was not releasing memory when a level was concluded. My workaround was to copy it from the read-only media onto the hard drive where, as was common in “Classic” days, one could raise the allocated memory in “Get Info”. This fixed nothing, but bought us a little time.
This was around Apple’s nadir, so I suppose the developers presumed that Mac users would blame the Mac. “Hey, it compiled and I saw the splash screen!”
Cool :-),
BTW these guys https://www.macincloud.com are usually the first ones having the newest and greatest, as they are Apple only. But a search for M1 doesn’t even bring up an announcement. But I didn’t do a deep dive in.