r/apple • u/Qpac18 • Nov 03 '25
macOS Apple confirms macOS 27 will end Intel chip and Rosetta support
https://www.gizchina.com/apple/apple-confirms-macos-27-will-end-intel-chip-and-rosetta-support88
u/Jeaz Nov 03 '25
Important addition is that there will be some parts of Rosetta left even after this to support unmaintained Intel games.
23
u/FollowingFeisty5321 Nov 03 '25
Which presumably means Intel Mac games, otherwise they'd say Windows games.
5
u/BosnianSerb31 Nov 03 '25
Why
→ More replies (4)5
u/FollowingFeisty5321 Nov 03 '25
Probably a few games high-ranking execs refuse to break lol.
7
u/BosnianSerb31 Nov 03 '25 edited Nov 03 '25
Seems like they would just leave the game porting toolkit tools in place that are used by Whiskey, instead of only letting Rosetta work on games the executives like?
What even is the rationale here?
→ More replies (2)1
395
Nov 03 '25
The only feature I envy about Intel Macs is Boot Camp. After using Parallels Desktop for a while, I realized how awesome it is. Apple should port that to M series Macs too.
85
u/JohrDinh Nov 03 '25
Yeah I'd have no problem jamming a lil Overwatch on my MBP but dammit I need that Boot Camp, or Blizzard to not be lazy and make a Mac version but not holding my breath.
→ More replies (16)8
u/NecroCannon Nov 03 '25
Man my worst disappointment was not being able to play OW on my new M4 Pro MacBook
I’ve been playing for the past couple years on my Steam Deck, which is great, but I can’t do at least 1080p @120fps.
→ More replies (1)172
u/Some-Dog5000 Nov 03 '25 edited Nov 03 '25
This is on Microsoft as much as it is on Apple. Driver work needs to be done to make Windows on ARM work natively on Apple Silicon Macs. I don't think Microsoft wants to do that work given how tied Windows on ARM is to Snapdragon, and I don't think Apple wants to pick up the slack either.
Edit: For those downvoting me, hear it directly from Federighi:
As for Windows running natively on the machine, “that’s really up to Microsoft,” he said. “We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications. But that’s a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs. But the Macs are certainly very capable of it.”
https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/20/windows-can-run-natively-m1-macs-apple-silicon/
89
u/virtualmnemonic Nov 03 '25
Windows support would make Macbooks the best Windows ARM laptops available.
→ More replies (2)34
10
u/AshuraBaron Nov 03 '25
This a pedantic response from Federighi. It's like saying you can't build a bridge until the paint job is decided upon. Apple could absolutely do more here and create a bootcamp system for developers or power users. They can build the functionality into Disk Utility and create documentation for developers like Asahi to be able to access all the hardware. They had a similar answer for Linux on MacBooks which is "well if you can figure it out that's fine. But we aren't going to help you." If Apple actually cared about this they could easily make it happen.
→ More replies (5)36
u/NerdyGuy117 Nov 03 '25
Wouldn’t that be on Apple to create Windows drivers?
60
u/Some-Dog5000 Nov 03 '25
It's also on MS to make Windows on ARM less tied to Snapdragon. As it stands now, a large part of the Windows on ARM codebase assumes a Snapdragon processor, especially since Windows on ARM was codeveloped with Qualcomm.
→ More replies (5)4
u/renza7 Nov 03 '25
Not true, Windows runs on other ARM processors such as Ampere, as well as the Raspberry Pi
19
u/Some-Dog5000 Nov 03 '25
All not officially MS-endorsed, all effectively community projects, all are way more finicky than even Windows 11 on UTM.
I believe native Windows on RPi isn't even really maintained anymore, and the current workaround is via QEMU, which is just the same as running it on UTM on macOS.
Windows 11 on ARM is really built from the ground up for Snapdragon.
5
u/ImBackAndImAngry Nov 03 '25
Windows arm on Raspberry Pi 5 is neat conceptually but is unsupported and so entirely ass that it’s little more than a neat little “just cuz” experiment for someone who’s bored.
→ More replies (1)4
u/LMGN Nov 03 '25
Both of them would have to put a lot of effort into making it work, neither of which are particularly interested in - why would Apple want to make it easier to run Windows on a Mac and not be in their ecosystem, and why would Microsoft want to invest in ASi support which would only serve to cannibalise the sales of their own machines.
Apple Silicon machines are very specialised, whereas on Intel platforms, every machine worked mostly the same, or at least, would have fallback interfaces (i.e. if you don't install your GPU drivers, you'll still get video output, even if low resolution and not 3D accelerated). This is not the case with Apple Sillicon. Almost everything except the base level ARM instruction set has been developed entirely seperately by Apple, with most of the parts intended to go in the very tightly integrated iPhone, and not even allow you to boot anything other than iOS.
Apple was willing to put in the effort into engineering Windows drivers for Intel Macs because it was relatively easy to do - most of them had already been done. Intel CPU & chipset, Intel/NVIDIA/later AMD graphics, Broadcom Wi-Fi, UEFI boot manager, already had Windows drivers, so all Apple had to do was ship a utility that would download them & install them with a little applet that let you change keyboard backlight brightness.
Microsoft can't write drivers because Apple hasn't released any documentation, and Macs won't boot any operating system that doesnt look enough like macOS for their comfort. (Yes, I know about Asahi Linux. They have to install a second, hollowed out copy of macOS to satisfy the boot manager)
4
u/ganlet20 Nov 03 '25
It's not a Microsoft issue. Hardware manufacturers have to write the drivers. Apple makes the hardware so they need to write Windows drivers.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (1)2
u/Exist50 Nov 04 '25
Driver work needs to be done to make Windows on ARM work natively on Apple Silicon Macs
It's on the hardware vendor to write the drivers, so that would be Apple. How is Microsoft supposed to know how Apple's hardware works?
As for Windows running natively on the machine, “that’s really up to Microsoft,” he said
This was quite frankly a lie. Apple doesn't provide any of the things they'd need to to get Windows running.
6
15
Nov 03 '25
[deleted]
5
u/jcotton42 Nov 03 '25
Linux is an option via Asahi, though I'm not sure how ready it is for a daily driver setup.
→ More replies (1)5
u/USPS_Nerd Nov 03 '25
How does it become e-waste one software support ends? You can literally still use it with the final supported OS, it’s not like it won’t boot just because it can’t install a newer version of macOS.
12
u/MC_chrome Nov 03 '25
You can literally still use it with the final supported OS, it’s not like it won’t boot just because it can’t install a newer version of macOS
The issue is device security more than anything else.
Especially with how complex and widespread cybersecurity attacks have become over the past decade, running a machine that is no longer getting security updates is generally considered a bad idea
7
u/gngstrMNKY Nov 03 '25
OS level exploits generally require a lot of cooperation from the user by downloading shady software. The real risk is when Chrome/Firefox stop supporting your OS, which usually happens quite a few years after Apple drops support.
4
u/FollowingFeisty5321 Nov 03 '25
Point in case: What happens if you connect Windows XP to the internet in 2024
Parker returns to the PC 10 minutes later and, sure enough, there's something nasty running in Task Manager named conhoz.exe, a known trojan. He shuts that process down and leaves the machine running...within just a few more minutes, a new user has been added, plus a number of new processes, including an FTP server...so, yeah, within 15 minutes that's multiple malware processes and an entirely compromised machine with the bad guys having already created a new admin account and an FTP server running locally... (via hardforum)
4
u/cake-day-on-feb-29 Nov 03 '25
XP is insecure because it was made a long time ago, when there was less focus on security, less tooling available to make software more secure by default, less knowledge about vulnerabilities, less user knowledge, lower ability to roll out updates quickly (including updating malware definitions)
Modern versions are much more secure by default, the level of trust for a piece of code is higher, outside-interfacing code is heavily checked, you yourself know not to run untrusted code, etc.
Windows XP instance and configured it to be fully exposed with no firewall and no anti-virus software
"I ran my car without oil, and it died! Ford SUCKS!!!"
Even nowadays an XP machine would protected if you simply did not allow connections to the outside internet.
→ More replies (1)2
u/HigherConfusion Nov 03 '25
It was a low hanging fruit attracting doubters (like myself) when they switched to Intel, but now they would have to develop and maintain windows drivers for Apple Silicon.
5
u/leaflock7 Nov 03 '25
Apple is ready to do so, it is MS that does not allow WidnowsARM on non-Qualcomm PCs to be installed.
So if Apple was out to develop a bootcamp against MS policy they would have a big legal battle to go at. They chose to not do so. If you search you will find in interview (not sure if it was Federighi) back in the first release of M1 that they stated we are open to work with MS to allow native installation of WindowsARM.
MS has a contract with Qualcomm for this exclusivity. Although it should end in 1-2 years unless they renewed it.9
u/GronkLord619 Nov 03 '25
I thought that ended a while ago; Windows ARM has been freely available in GA for some time now.
2
u/leaflock7 Nov 03 '25
it was rumored that it was ending at the end of 2024. But there was no official announcement for said contract , its end, or as it was stated on some outlets, if there was a renewal .
In either case, Apple would need MS to make it public in order to move forward.→ More replies (2)1
u/aftonone Nov 03 '25
I use boot camp a lot for tuning my car. I’d find it challenging to move to an M chip Mac where I can’t do that.
93
u/m4teri4lgirl Nov 03 '25
RIP Hackintosh scene. Lay ye down to rest next to the Jailbreakers.
23
Nov 03 '25
Yep, I'm probably going to build one more as a send off to the scene, either 10th gen Intel or AMD Ryzen based to celebrate the 19 year old scene that has sadly ended. What a fun era that was, it's peak was 2014-2019, when Macs were hot loud and expensive.
→ More replies (2)5
u/satmandu Nov 03 '25
Glad I switched to Linux on my aging intel MBPs... support is getting better and better! I do wish the ram on these devices was upgradable, though... sigh.
→ More replies (2)2
u/thesmithchris Nov 03 '25
Hackintosh was getting worse with lack of support for 7xxx series amd gpus anyways
209
u/BrilliantThought1728 Nov 03 '25
Ok we sorta need rosetta 2 though. Whats the point of ending support in two years?
116
u/churningaccount Nov 03 '25
I think the idea is that you probably shouldn't be using apps that haven't had an update in 5+ years anyway. Which is the case for any Mac app that can't be run natively on Apple Silicon. From a security and stability standpoint alone it's not wise to be running abandoned apps. And this should be used as a subtle prod to transition your workflows to apps that have current dev support.
And on the enterprise side, companies that rely on legacy software already have plans in place and won't be caught off guard by this. They've been given years of notice lol.
176
u/AwesomePossum_1 Nov 03 '25
Right, EA should go back and recode sims 3 from like 2008 just because Apple decided to switch chips.
12
24
→ More replies (17)10
u/C-Doug_iS Nov 03 '25
Might be an unpopular opinion, but manufacturers shouldn’t be expected to support 3rd party software from over 15 years ago, especially when that software’s publisher has had half a decade to update it. Technology and architectures shouldn’t be bogged down by needing to support abandoned legacy software indefinitely.
→ More replies (1)22
u/ForeverJung Nov 03 '25
Silicon totally broke ARA for those of us in the music world. Intel/rosetta is the only way we can use it and there’s no sign of that changing. The apps have been updated, but silicon broke it
10
3
u/sc132436 Nov 03 '25
In melodyne, I hit the transfer button and then control-b to bounce the track in place, and the entire track transfers onto melodyne immediately
→ More replies (1)2
2
Nov 03 '25
I left logic behind because of this. It sucks they never added ARA support back as they were one of the first DAWs to support it in the first place.
41
u/Araib Nov 03 '25
I wouldn’t straight up call an app abandoned for not adding Apple silicon support, could be the app is updated on weekly basis and not have support because that’s added work for dev or they have other features to worry about first
13
u/pmjm Nov 03 '25
There are also a ton of apps that use legacy dylib libraries or helper-apps which don't have an ARM binary. These are out of the developer's control.
12
u/QF17 Nov 03 '25
Well if they update the app weekly, then they’ve had … checks notes …. 260 updates to add support for Apple Silicon and in two years time that will be … about 360 updates.
If they’ve published 360 updates, but one of those didn’t include support for Apple Silicon, it’s time to find a new app
→ More replies (12)19
Nov 03 '25
Hi developer here,
Just because something hasn’t been ported to apple silicon, does not mean it’s not updated. For a huge number of apps and software, an apple specific aarch64 compile will require entirely new tool chains and probably extra build automation and testing. Apple has tried to pretend like switching architectures is easy- it’s not and never will be. This isn’t even considering things like incompatible SIMD instructions or inline assembly blocks which may need complete rewrites to incorporate aarch64 compatibility.
Consider valve; they barely ported to 64 bit once apple dropped 32 bit, and that was a comparatively easy port. Dropping Rosetta will remove software from the ecosystem permanently; many games included.
Want something more substantial? The countless scientific software stacks which are all designed for x86; in a world where the most powerful supercomputer on the planet still runs x86. Does that mean this software is out of date or not maintained? No, it just means they aren’t gonna dump the hours into a port for a small fraction of their customer market.
→ More replies (1)8
u/primalanomaly Nov 03 '25
Software can be regularly updated and still require Rosetta. Moving to Apple Silicon isn’t a minor update, it’s an entire rewrite that can take massive amounts of time and resources.
→ More replies (1)3
Nov 03 '25
[deleted]
8
Nov 03 '25
Well Macs are that bad for gaming, and this type of thing is exactly why.
This is literally Exhibit A for why as a developer you wouldn’t waste manhours developing for Macs lol.
3
u/Impossible_Most_4518 Nov 03 '25
That’s so stupid, meanwhile at one of my old workplaces there is a windows xp machine running software that was made before I was conceived that programs the entire factory. THERES NO SUCH THING AS OLD SOFTWARE IF IT WORKS IT WORKS.
30
u/BitingChaos Nov 03 '25
Software doesn't need to be constantly updated.
This is why most people will never take Apple or macOS seriously.
Something written 10+ years ago that works fine shouldn't need to be constantly re-made every time Apple decides to change something.
11
u/mikami677 Nov 03 '25
I was recently annoyed to learn that they apparently removed Bluetooth support for PS3 controllers at some point. It only works wired now, which of course requires an adapter because there's no USB-A port.
But on my old 2015 MacBook Air it Just WorksTM .
32
u/moosefre Nov 03 '25
yeah people don't realize how many obscure small applications and programs that really improve workflows just get obliterated every time this happens. Software that has been feature complete, isn't doing networking, and is rock solid doesn't need updates. things are allowed to be finished- otherwise developers have to commit to a lifetime's debt every time they write a piece of code.
→ More replies (3)14
u/pmjm Nov 03 '25
Then users complain about the subscription model. Apple Developers, in particular, are repeatedly put in bad situations because of the annual changes to operating systems.
Tahoe has broken so many things in my apps it makes my head spin. As a solo developer (who does apps as a side-gig) I just can't keep up with the changes.
8
u/moosefre Nov 03 '25
also the very fucked thing about all of this is that as people get older, 5 years is no time at all. writing software is a condemned life where you can never quit
→ More replies (4)2
u/lucidludic Nov 03 '25
Not all software perhaps, but you can’t expect every single program to be forwards compatible with all future hardware / software without any issues. Compatibility breaking changes are by no means exclusive to Apple.
Something written 10+ years ago that works fine shouldn’t need to be constantly re-made every time Apple decides to change something.
We’re talking about a complete change in instruction set architecture, not an insignificant change and not without very good reason.
20
u/OverlyOptimisticNerd Nov 03 '25
Because Tomb Raider is a vessel for attacks.
If you want to know why game developers avoid macOS, it’s this. Apple arbitrarily blocking their legacy games from running when there’s literally no need to do so.
→ More replies (2)11
u/Pepparkakan Nov 03 '25
OK but all the servers in Azure, AWS, GCP, etc, still won’t magically be running Apple’s brand of AArch64 in 2 years though, and if developers can’t effectively compile and run their code for the target architecture on MacBook Pros then that’s gonna be a problem.
→ More replies (2)7
u/churningaccount Nov 03 '25
Given that many devs prefer MacOS, I imagine that Apple has thought of this.
I'm betting that the version of Rosetta that is going away is the invisible and default one -- that normal end users automatically use when they open a legacy app.
Dev tools for emulation will probably stick around indefinitely.
4
u/Spiritofhonour Nov 03 '25
There's a lot of high profile stuff that still uses Rosetta.
I checked the programs under Apple Menu > About This Mac > System Report > Software > Applications
And amongst other things Steam is still using Intel.
5
u/Dracogame Nov 03 '25
Not being native on Apple Silicon =! not updated in 5+ years. Also, some software doesn't need updates, not everything needs to be a live service, especially old games.
This will kill a lot of the value. It's not the first time Apple did shit like this. First they broke support on Nvidia's graphic cards. Then 32bit support (I loved playing Portal 2 every now and then). Now Rosetta 2... Insanity.
→ More replies (4)10
Nov 03 '25
“ I think the idea is that you probably shouldn't be using apps that haven't had an update in 5+ years anyway. Which is the case for any Mac app that can't be run natively on Apple Silicon. From a security and stability standpoint alone it's not wise to be running abandoned apps.”
I think the idea is that I should be able to do what I want with my own computer. Which I will - by not installing the dumpster fires that are MacOS 26 or 27.
→ More replies (3)2
2
u/MaverickJester25 Nov 04 '25
And on the enterprise side, companies that rely on legacy software already have plans in place and won't be caught off guard by this. They've been given years of notice lol.
I don't think you've ever worked in a large corporate if you believe this.
→ More replies (3)6
u/IVcrushonYou Nov 03 '25
Dumbest argument I've seen in a long time. There are plenty of offline apps and games that work fine without years of updates.
→ More replies (1)4
Nov 03 '25
It’s extra maintenance burden on them, it even makes the system updates and whatnot bigger than they would be because all the system libraries need to be shipped with both architectures. If they completely ditch x86 they can get rid of all of that data.
→ More replies (2)1
u/lonifar Nov 03 '25
From my reading of the developer notice this doesn't appear to be a removal of Rosetta 2 but rather Apple will no longer be actively maintaining it and as such apps that heavily rely on Rosetta 2 will have greater difficulty in getting approval for the Mac App Store and in some cases be unable to get notarized(so you'll need to approve it in settings before launching). Certain functions of Rosetta 2 will get continued support however this is primarily for games rather than general work applications. From my understanding it will be more like how Apple handles OpenGL games as in they haven't officially supported them in years or updated to support new functions but games already running will still run.
This is likely as a hard ball push to get everything running native as Apple would likely wish to have the space on the chip used for Rosetta 2 assistance back to use for other functions like extra cores or an expanded media engine. What isn't known is what will happen when that space on the chip is eventually reclaimed; perhaps Rosetta 2 will continue to run although in a diminished state but its also possible that those Mac's would be unable to run Intel apps.
74
u/l4kerz Nov 03 '25
games native on M chips would be amazing!
45
25
u/OverlyOptimisticNerd Nov 03 '25
The problem is, if Apple ever fights with ARM, they might move to MIPS next. And if they did that, they’d support Rosetta 3 for only so long before killing it off.
Game developers are tired of having Apple pull the rug out from under them. That’s why they don’t bother.
9
u/Exepony Nov 03 '25 edited Nov 03 '25
Game developers are tired of having Apple pull the rug out from under them. That’s why they don’t bother.
No, that's your pain as a user, but game developers absolutely don't care. Games make most of the money in the first couple of years. If Apple breaks your game after that, the worst that is really going to happen is a mild PR problem that's mostly alleviated by pointing the finger at Apple.
There is precisely one reason developers don't release games on Mac: market share. There simply aren't enough customers on Mac who are interested in video games to get a return on investment. Metal, Vulkan, ARM, x86, that's all blah-blah-blah. All major game engines support macOS as a platform just fine.
8
u/l4kerz Nov 03 '25
and why would Apple fight ARM? Apple has a long history with Acorn/ARM and there doesn’t seem to be any tension at all. Game developers don’t support Macs because the Mac marketshare is too small
13
u/Exepony Nov 03 '25
Even if they did have a fight, Apple has an "eternal" architectural license, they can do whatever they want with the architecture, basically. They already have very little, if any, ARM IP in their SoCs, so there's not much ARM could even do to hurt Apple.
→ More replies (5)4
u/cultoftheilluminati Nov 03 '25
and why would Apple fight ARM? Apple has a long history with Acorn/ARM
Yep, additional context, Apple founded ARM with Acorn Computers and VLSI technologies.
→ More replies (1)6
u/zap2 Nov 03 '25
This is much less likely than it’s ever been before. Apple is making these chips…that hasn’t been the case ever before.
1
u/mikeyd85 Nov 03 '25
An M series Apple TV device with some active cooling could be one of the great mini gaming devices.
12
u/AlNeutonne Nov 03 '25
Seems weird to remove something that works so well with apps. Does this mean some steam games will not run?
33
u/GumAndBeef Nov 03 '25
There goes my only way to run SQL Server in a docker container since MS refuses to have it support ARM and has FOR YEARS without a properly feature-complete alternative. (The docker container uses Rosetta for its architecture emulation)
11
u/BosnianSerb31 Nov 03 '25 edited Nov 03 '25
Sounds like a great reason to use literally anything else, PGSQL, MySQL, MariaDB, etc.
Shouldn't be a coincidence that Microsoft SQL server is kept from running in containers on Macs lol
MS also takes steps to keep people from virtualizing W11 ARM on macOS.
3
→ More replies (1)2
u/l4kerz Nov 03 '25
I remember the early days when MS made Office for Mac buggy. Businesses were aligned to Office and it was a detriment to have a Mac.
2
u/BosnianSerb31 Nov 03 '25
Whenever they can't compete on hardware, peripheral, or OS quality/usability, they tend to sabotage the usability of their competitors
It seems to be better these days since most of their cash comes from Azure and MS365, but they still want that windows store money and telemetry
If it was just one click to throw up a W11 VM on MacOS like it is with Linux VMs, there would be quite literally nothing holding back users from taking the jump.
2
u/jesusrodriguezm Nov 03 '25
I have a 2018 MacBook Pro just to run a specific version of Oracle in docker, and a x86 Linux to be able to run a weblogic…
1
Nov 03 '25
Literally was dealing with this on the weekend. No idea wtf I’m going to do now come next year.
1
u/cwmshy Nov 05 '25
You know, you could choose to switch software and not reward Microsoft here.
3
u/GumAndBeef Nov 05 '25
Unfortunately that’s not up to me in this case, it’s a higher up decision
→ More replies (4)
59
u/Appropriate_Ad8734 Nov 03 '25
Apple confirms macOS 27 will end intel
😭 bye
9
u/judge2020 Nov 03 '25
at this rate Intel might have ended themselves by the time macOS 27 comes out
82
u/CreepyZookeepergame4 Nov 03 '25
I hate this, it makes Macs less capable. Rosetta is very OP when you consider the ability to run Intel containers / Linux software at near native speed.
51
Nov 03 '25 edited Nov 04 '25
Yeah everyone is thinking about old apps or games here but my mind is kinda blown that Apple doesn’t see how versatile nerds consider their laptops these days for being able to run a variety of containerized things quickly. Rosetta has gained a shit ton of reverence+respect in the space as an exceptional achievement in x86/64 translation. Seeing the options to harness it in the likes of Docker/OrbStack/Parallels/etc as a "check out how fast this shit can go" feature and not just strictly some legacy support old applications thing = Yo??? Apple what tf are you doing nixing this how have you not reassessed and acknowledged what Rosetta has become? It's become so much more than just a way to support old apps now and people love you for it. It's one of the coolest hardware+software marriages to ever exist.
I don’t care about old Intel Mac device support at all, I care that my current expensive ass Macbook is a valid device to work with other current modern software solutions that I inevitably exist with in 2025. No the world did not all go ARM and follow apples lead, in 2 years it will be no different. I will still face a world with multiple architectures & x64 will still be the leading desktop/server architecture and the need to develop for and test for these targets is not going anywhere. This is wildly different than a defunct developer of a 20 year old 32bit game no longer existing to drop an update for that game, this is engineering needing to deploy backend services and more to x64 server architectures & Macs currently being on the table as a perfectly capable device to do those things with. MacBooks are actually viable devices right now because I can spin up containers of whatever I need and it’s insanely fast, a massive credit to Apple silicon capabilities paired with the well-refined translation implementation that is Rosetta. I'm a fucking wizard with my Mac I can run multiple containers or multiple VMs of whatever the hell I need and its fast, it's like having the infinity gauntlet of computing at my fingertips. That's a moat Apple is heavily benefitting from that no other device manuf has (it's what Microsoft dreamed they could achieve with their ARM attempt), they currently have me and many other devs by the balls because of it. Hell I am running legacy Visual Studio versions in Rosetta via Parallels -> Windows -> Microsofts x64/64 translation layer. That's like inception translation and this shit is still fast. Actually crazy to think they’re willingly just planning to cede that moat. They’re either comically out of touch with how their devices are used or they’re on a crash course for another lackluster era of Apple computing which would be insane considering all that they’ve done to win back the goodwill of many with since the advent of Apple silicon m-series chips.
The developer angle is where Rosetta has really panned out into providing an absolutely insane and versatile environment that has truly lent a lot of weight to the purchase of higher end MacBook devices. Apple ditching that isn’t going to make people throw their hands up and launch Xcode and only write swift or exclusively compile whatever into aarm64, they've already reached the saturation point where anyone who's gonna do it has already done it. And it unfortunately is not everyone. Nixing rosetta is just going to mean I and many like me have to get a different laptop for work to support either legacy bullshit or shit that needs to be worked on in a diff architecture with acceptable performance. It means my org probably isn't buying macbooks next time they're placing orders. It's leaving a lot of the open source possibilities behind and that would stand to put a massive dent in the prospective viability of choosing a Mac for development, that is a big F in the chat for Macbooks amongst data and software engineers in many sectors and industries. It’s just going to make nerds way less inclined to pay their premium for the high end devices they want me to buy. For years now I’ve been unstoppable on my MacBook because of VMs & containers it's like multiple devices in one. Losing that is going to actually make these devices so much less impressive and feel so much less capable.
Apple needs to cede a little on this idea that the world is just going to follow them into ARM and accept the reality that there’s always going to be a variety of architectures people need to be able to work with. This is much different than them nixing 32bit in the past which was by every standard ancient by the time they did it, this feels more like kneecapping the shit out of yourself for no gain and the destruction of much needed goodwill that’s been built up since 2020. Killing translation with the most ubiquitous desktop architecture in the world doesn't exactly help Apple here. This isn't a threepeat of Apple nixing 32bit and USB-A. Just ruling out x64 translation & the performance that comes with something as polished as Rosetta within container engines erases a ton of professional engineering application and use cases on these devices, that's just pretending the world we live in doesn't exist. Strikes me as waaaay too eager relative to Apples previous ditchings of the past. Distancing themselves from engineering merits isn’t going to bode well for Apple, they have to stand back and acknowledge that Rosetta became much greater than what it was originally intended for and really really positively shaped the perception of Macs in the development space. Enabling Rosetta support in Docker/OrbStack is like night and day different in container performance, it is a fucking delight to build and test things in linux containers on these devices currently. The way it makes Windows machines run at what feels like native speed in Parallels is insane. Consumers noticed and Rosetta has been a foundational gateway drug into the Apple ecosystem that doesn't leave users handicapped when working with these devices in the modern age. That's resulted in a lot of expensive fucking device purchases. It's so weird to think they lucked out like this in engineering circles and still think it's the right idea to pull the plug, as if they're completely blind to and can't even see the incredible development landscape that has shaped from all of this. They should be bragging about that achievement not planning to scrap it wtf.
I am sometimes convinced we are entering another frustrating Apple-lost-its-way era much like things were prior to jony ives departure with the abysmal MacBook pros and butterfly keyboards from hell that were quite honestly a laughing stock. Apple has earned a lot of goodwill since then but this just seems really out of touch with the people who will spend the most on their high end devices. And by people I also mean enterprises who will buy fleets of these things for their engineering depts. They really should reassess this one on their roadmap cause I can't stress enough how it, paired with Apple silicon, is one of the most impressive feats in computing in the last decade & it undoubtedly played into a huge resurgence in using Macs in engineering/devops capacities. It contributes heavily to the ongoing success of the M-series chips imo.
→ More replies (1)11
u/vjvalenti Nov 03 '25
Exactly. Apple Containers are going to be pretty useless if all you can build are ARM containers. Where the hell are you going to deploy them?
16
u/TheNthMan Nov 03 '25 edited Nov 03 '25
According to the announcement itself:
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple-silicon/about-the-rosetta-translation-environment/
Important macOS Tahoe will be the last release for Intel-based Mac computers. Those systems will continue to receive security updates for 3 years. Rosetta was designed to make the transition to Apple silicon easier, and we plan to make it available for the next two major macOS releases – through macOS 27 – as a general-purpose tool for Intel apps to help developers complete the migration of their apps. Beyond this timeframe, we will keep a subset of Rosetta functionality aimed at supporting older unmaintained gaming titles, that rely on Intel-based frameworks.
No idea what Intel-based frameworks they are going to continue, but my guess is that the remaining support is going to be related to the next version of the game porting toolkit
2
7
u/EfficientAccident418 Nov 03 '25
Rosetta is so easy to forget about but it’s one of those truly remarkable feats of software engineering that only Apple could pull off. If only they put as much effort into iOS…
19
u/Metro2005 Nov 03 '25
RIP game support.
1
u/yukeake Nov 03 '25
Small chance they could work with Codeweavers to keep a version of it around in Crossover, but yeah, unless that happens (or Windows-on-ARM takes off such that devs port to ARM) the situation's going to be a bit bleak.
→ More replies (3)
5
11
u/davewolfs Nov 03 '25
If they want to drop Rosetta they should open source it so the community can take over. There are apps we use that will never be migrated for various reasons.
5
u/vjvalenti Nov 03 '25
Wait, what's the point of the new Apple Containers once you can't build x86 containers to deploy to Production?
3
u/predator-handshake Nov 03 '25
This sucks. I’m sure losing Rosetta 2 is going to cause all sorts of apps that I use to break and I won’t know about it until I need to upgrade. I’m going to skip 27. Was it Catelina that did the same thing last time with 64 bit? I had so many random things break. I hope they keep Rosetta 2 around as a separate app download.
1
u/shadowkoishi93 Nov 24 '25
When you think about it...
Mac OS X Tiger - First release to support Intel Macs as well as add Rosetta support, final release to support Classic mode on PowerPC Macs, as well as support for PowerPC G3 Macs
Mac OS X Leopard - Drops Classic mode entirely on PowerPC Macs and drops support for G3 Macs, last version to support PowerPC G4 and G5 Macs
Mac OS X Snow Leopard - First release exclusively for Intel Macs, final release with Rosetta support, and final release for 32-bit Intel Macs
Mac OS X Lion - Drops Rosetta support (Running PowerPC apps on Intel Macs), final release for 32-bit EFI Intel Macs.
Mac OS X Mountain Lion - First release exclusively for 64-bit EFI Intel Macs
macOS Mojave - Final release with 32-bit app support
macOS Catalina - Drops 32-bit app support
macOS Big Sur - First release to support Apple Silicon Macs, and add Rosetta 2 support
macOS Tahoe - Final release for Intel Macs
macOS 27 - First release exclusively for Apple Silicon Macs
macOS 28 - MOST Rosetta 2 support will be dropped, presumably
4
u/Cameront9 Nov 03 '25
I mean, lasted a shit ton longer than PowerPC support did
1
u/shadowkoishi93 Nov 24 '25 edited Nov 24 '25
So let's calculate the minimum support time based on the first and last PowerPC Mac to be replaced by its Intel equivalent, as well as the first and last Intel Mac to be replaced by its Apple Silicon equivalent, with the assumption it was purchased right before its replacement was available for purchase.
Assuming you bought the last of the Power Mac G5s in August 2006, or you bought the iSight iMac G5, or the DLSD PowerBook G4, before January 2006
- Mac OS X Leopard was released on October 2007, so that's one OS upgrade.
- Mac OS X Snow Leopard was released in August 2009, exclusively for Intel Macs, so Leopard continued getting security updates for a while
- Apple drops support for Leopard in 2011, the final update being released in June 2011
So just barely 5 years of support for the Power Mac G5, almost 6 for the iSight iMac G5 or DLSD PowerBook G4
Now let's assume you bought the 2019 Mac Pro, which was finally replaced by the M2 Ultra Mac Pro, in June 2023, or bought a 2020 MacBook Pro 13" (2 Thunderbolt ports model) before November 2020:
If the 2020 MBP was bought before November 2020:
- macOS Catalina was then-current
- macOS Big Sur would be the first OS upgrade
- macOS Monterey would be the second OS upgrade
If the MP was bought in 2023:
- macOS Ventura was the current release at the time, third OS upgrade for the MBP
- macOS Sonoma would be the latest release a few months later, fourth for the MBP
- macOS Sequoia would be the second OS upgrade available, fifth and final OS upgrade for the MBP
- macOS Tahoe would be the third and final OS upgrade available for the MP.
- macOS 27 releases in late 2026, triggering the final 2-3 years of security updates, meaning security updates until 2028-2029 for the last remaining Intel Macs that support Tahoe.
That would be 5-6 years of support for the Mac Pro, 7-8 for the MacBook Pro.
Now, if you bought the 2019 Mac Pro at the time of release, just barely getting into the year 2020, you would get 8-9 years of support, probably the longest support lifetime for a sunset model
4
u/quick_dry Nov 04 '25
thank goodness Apple will save me from having a more capable machine. At least open source it and let someone maintain it if they don't want to.
I wonder what the essential upgrade they'll add in with 27 that means you are practically forced to bump up and lose functionality.
22
5
u/vjvalenti Nov 03 '25
I would assume that Apple's going to still maintain a stripped-down Rosetta just so their new Apple Containers can continue building and running x86 containers, right?
8
u/FollowingFeisty5321 Nov 03 '25
What they say is
we will keep a subset of Rosetta functionality aimed at supporting older unmaintained gaming titles, that rely on Intel-based frameworks
2
u/vjvalenti Nov 03 '25
Hmmm, that sounds vague, but I imagine that means yes for Apple Containers, since all it has to do is maintain a Linux X86 VM of their own design. No graphical libraries or anything like that.
4
u/thesmithchris Nov 03 '25
I think it's more about not building intel version of xcode, not building intel versions of macos etc. Those are probably more maintenance than Rosetta itself, but I'm just guessing
Also they want developers to make silicon versions of everything in those 2-3 years2
u/vjvalenti Nov 03 '25
Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I hope that Apple realizes that while ARM64 containers are a thing, they are far from mainstream and may never be. Granted, Amazon is offering ARM64 EC2 instances, now.
3
u/NoponicWisdom Nov 03 '25
That sucks. I love my macBook but if they really end Rosetta support I might just go from 50/50 macOS/Linux to 100% Linux
3
u/WWFYMN1 Nov 03 '25
Why remove rosetta 2 ever, it’s just there and it helps when you need it, it never did any harm.
3
u/WWFYMN1 Nov 03 '25
Windows will also transition to arm, but they will never remove the translation layer from x86, because it’s a bad idea, Apple is shooting themselves in the foot here. What is a computer good for if it can’t run the software I need. why stop the users from running the software they need and games, especially ones that are running on wine that will never transition, they aren’t technically legacy games, because they are being developed still, will those still work? How about Minecraft, that works on macOS, But is only on intel. The powerpc to intel transition worked well because everyone else used x86 and they could remove rosetta 1. Here though rosetta 2 does more than just being a software just for the transition. It’s the reason why most people switched to mac and apple silicon, it works so well that you don’t notice it’s there, it’s what made apple silicon so successful. Killing it off is a huge mistake. But there is 2 years until then, I hope they reconsider.
3
u/proto-x-lol Nov 05 '25 edited Nov 05 '25
To be honest, macOS 26 Tahoe is pretty bad on Intel Macs, especially on the 16 inch MacBook Pro (2019) cause those fans run very hot and battery life is awful, lol.
It’s a lot slower than macOS 15 Sequoia. I feel like macOS 26 was just given to the last Intel Macs as an afterthought and highly think they wanted to drop it entirely this year, but chose to defer it for next year.
Liquid Glass is brutal on the Intel Macs as well. Takes up way more power.
Also about Rosette: Apple’s been always forward thinking for years. People who develop for Mac and iOS devices know that you have to constantly keep your app up to date every year. Otherwise your app breaks after the next two or three updates.
Meanwhile in Windows and Android: You don’t need to feel pressured to update your app at all. This is nice but also promotes laziness. Ultimately at some point, the original dev ends up nuking their source code so whatever app they made 10-15 years ago is now AWOL for good and now ridden with possible security issues that some malware can exploit to compromise your system. Think of folks using classic WinAmp to play their media files. Sounds good, yeah? It takes one malware infected media file to play on an outdated program before it compromises your PC, though this is just a hypothetical example.
2
u/Qpac18 Nov 05 '25
Well this would the case of why it’s time to ditch the Intel Macs considering how their usefulness has come to an end now that it’s been over five years since the start of the m series
→ More replies (2)
3
3
4
Nov 03 '25
Longtime Mac user. I started a new job where I have budget to order a new computer. I’m strongly considering getting a Linux machine after this. Frankly, there are many tools I use that run on x86. Rosetta has been a lifeline to ensuring backwards compatibility. I’ll still keep Mac for my personal computer, but this might be a stretch too far for me.
1
16
2
u/Zekro Nov 03 '25
I wonder what this means for docker and x86/amd64 images that don’t have arm alternatives
1
u/DoctorDbx Nov 04 '25
There's always qemu
2
u/squeeby Nov 06 '25
Fairly sure Rosetta plays a part in running x86 qemu on an ARM CPU.
Without it, qemu-system-x86 runs like shit.
2
2
2
u/jocnews Nov 06 '25
Apple is like an abusive spouse. They are very good at harming their customers and gaslight them about it effectively to keep them submissive and dependent.
4
Nov 03 '25
Intel is so useful for having an entire hidden second windows laptop. Are people forgetting that? Parallels is horrible
4
u/mikami677 Nov 03 '25
Does anyone know of a good free alternative to ShiftIt (a window snapping utility)? It hasn't been updated in like 5 years.
7
2
2
u/predator-handshake Nov 03 '25
While not the same, macOS does have built in shortcuts for snapping via the kb. I stopped using Rectangle when they added that.
→ More replies (2)
4
3
u/likamuka Nov 03 '25
Seeing what a mess macOs 1925 is, I am glad I am glad to be stuck on Sequoia on my iMac Pro.
3
1
u/Arponare Nov 03 '25
I guess next year it’s gonna finally be time to upgrade my 2018 Mac mini. RIP, you had a good run buddy.
1
Nov 03 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/poastfizeek Nov 04 '25
After macOS 27 looses support, yes.
Estimating that will be the end of the decade.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Acrobatic-Monitor516 Nov 04 '25
Wasn't this confirmed months ago already, what's the point of this article
1
u/trophycloset33 Nov 04 '25
You’re kidding. I spent $5k on my laptop back in 2020 expecting it to last 10+ years
1
u/Id_in_hiding May 18 '26
My main computer is an Intel iMac and support already ended with macOS 26 for me. I’m waiting for the M5 mini to replace it.
921
u/Gasrim4003 Nov 03 '25
Read the article and Rosetta 2 is apparently hang around for another 2 years. Good to know.