There isn’t always a alternative! We use Broadcast cameras from Sony. These cameras use SXS Cards as memory card. Sony doesn’t support with their device driver Apple Silicon. It’s impossible to ingest content to M1 Macs 🤨
Can you not just use a SXS card reader?
The SXS Card Reader uses a Device Driver. These driver is not available for M1
There’s a specific category of developers developing software mainly for corporate customers with hundreds of workstations installed. These customers will not update their whole machine park over night, and the developer is taking a remarkably slow approach to update the software to support Apple silicon. These developers, I have a hunch, have a high probability of not following Apple’s guidelines. Because of cross OS compatibility and specialised hardware integration. Hence is running bad or not at all under Rosetta 2, and will require a big effort to rewrite for Apple Silicon.
For me personally Toonboom Studios is such a developer. They’re making professional animation and storyboarding software. they announced that they’re working on Apple Silicon support earlier this year, but no date. Beta starting spring 2022 I think. Most likely they chose to not make a mid version transition. But letting the transition coincide with their next big update. 1-2 very frustrating years for Apple Silicon users.
Another category of developers is developers of hardware that requires special drivers, such as audio interfaces. This is probably gonna be shaky until the whole family of Apple silicon has rolled out. Still waiting for Apple’s work station architecture to be announced. Some have USB3 with some TB3 compatibility. The new pro series has TB4 which is still relatively new. it’ll be shaky for a few years probably. But they’re doing their best I think. Needs to be super tight and flawless.
This article is a joke, right? Sounds like the author isn't old enough to know how the PowerPC to Intel transition progressed. Apple completed the entire hardware transition to Intel in just over 200 days. Yet they continued to provide Rosetta for five and a half years after the introduction of the first Intel Macs, Jan 2006 to Mid-2011. Why? Because there were literally millions of PowerPC Macs in operation for years after the switch. Same is true now. There are probably over a hundred million Intel Macs in operation, both privately and in enterprise. Developers go where the money is, and currently it is still with Intel Macs. There is only a very small percentage of Apple Silicon Macs in operation now compared to the number of Intel Macs. Apple is also still selling Intel Macs, and will do so well into 2022. The Apple Silicon transition is going very slow because it took Apple 11 months to come out with new models after the first batch, and their flagship Macs, the 27-inch iMac and Mac Pro are still Intel. The pandemic, is the author aware there is still a pandemic going on, has played a huge part along with the world-wide chip shortage in causing major delays with everything.
So telling people to jump ship after 11 months is ridiculous. Rosetta will be around for at least 5 years to support Intel apps running on Apple Silicon, and Intel Macs will continue to be used by people for years to come. Remember, the Apple Silicon Macs aren't great for everything, many people take advantage of virtual machines, something the Apple Silicon Macs do not do well. Intel Mac can run Windows natively, and can also run older versions of Mac OS X in Parallels for older software compatibility, something Apple Silicon Macs will never do (maybe someday Microsoft will be on board with running the ARM version of Windows natively). More people will still be using Intel Macs for years to come, much more than people using Apple Silicon Macs. And it took Apple a year and a half after announcing Apple Silicon to finally come out with Apple Silicon Macs that are worth buying. The M1 Macs were nice low end models, but the lack of memory and features held a lot of people back. People wanted faster Macs with more features, not faster Macs with features cut. Apple has finally fixed that mistake.
Seems like the author is completely clueless to the challenges that many, many developers on the Mac and iOS platforms face. Way to go, this isn't helping.
Seems like the author is completely clueless to the challenges that many, many developers on the Mac and iOS platforms face. Way to go, this isn't helping.
So are you saying because it’s challenging the devs should not support Apple Silicon natively? If so they’re not very good at developing software.
Seems like the author is completely clueless to the challenges that many, many developers on the Mac and iOS platforms face. Way to go, this isn't helping.
So are you saying because it’s challenging the devs should not support Apple Silicon natively? If so they’re not very good at developing software.
Option 1: Develop features that all customers want Option 2: Support a new architecture that only a small percentage of customer want (and none of them need, because Rosetta works so well)
Option 2 isn't sexy. It's the equivalent of an Infrastructure & Maintenance Bill.
So, Apple changes its hardware and now we are expected to gaslight the developers who have not and will not convert their programs to the new hardware? Really?
The complexity of such a conversion should not be underestimated. I was the recipient of such a conversion during a corporate takeover: a team had converted an ATM system from Tandem hardware to IBM then during the takeover, they were let go and the mess was dumped in my lap. It was a nightmare with constant ongoing daily and nightly failures and blowups.
But here there is likely a second wrinkle as well: They'll need to maintain two systems: one for Intel hardware and one for Apple hardware.
Apple can't (or shouldn't) wash its hands and walk away from this. It has a moral and ethical obligation to support all of its stakeholders -- which includes both vendors and customers.
This article is a joke, right? Sounds like the author isn't old enough to know how the PowerPC to Intel transition progressed. Apple completed the entire hardware transition to Intel in just over 200 days. Yet they continued to provide Rosetta for five and a half years after the introduction of the first Intel Macs, Jan 2006 to Mid-2011. Why? Because there were literally millions of PowerPC Macs in operation for years after the switch. Same is true now. There are probably over a hundred million Intel Macs in operation, both privately and in enterprise. Developers go where the money is, and currently it is still with Intel Macs. There is only a very small percentage of Apple Silicon Macs in operation now compared to the number of Intel Macs. Apple is also still selling Intel Macs, and will do so well into 2022. The Apple Silicon transition is going very slow because it took Apple 11 months to come out with new models after the first batch, and their flagship Macs, the 27-inch iMac and Mac Pro are still Intel. The pandemic, is the author aware there is still a pandemic going on, has played a huge part along with the world-wide chip shortage in causing major delays with everything.
So telling people to jump ship after 11 months is ridiculous. Rosetta will be around for at least 5 years to support Intel apps running on Apple Silicon, and Intel Macs will continue to be used by people for years to come. Remember, the Apple Silicon Macs aren't great for everything, many people take advantage of virtual machines, something the Apple Silicon Macs do not do well. Intel Mac can run Windows natively, and can also run older versions of Mac OS X in Parallels for older software compatibility, something Apple Silicon Macs will never do (maybe someday Microsoft will be on board with running the ARM version of Windows natively). More people will still be using Intel Macs for years to come, much more than people using Apple Silicon Macs. And it took Apple a year and a half after announcing Apple Silicon to finally come out with Apple Silicon Macs that are worth buying. The M1 Macs were nice low end models, but the lack of memory and features held a lot of people back. People wanted faster Macs with more features, not faster Macs with features cut. Apple has finally fixed that mistake.
I will be very surprised if Apple doesn't kill Rosetta and cut off Intel Macs in the next two versions of the operating system after Monterey.
The author was around for not just the PowerPC to Intel, but also the 68K to PPC shifts - and so was I. All three shifts, including Intel to Apple Silicon came at different times in the company's history with incredibly different market forces, software delivery mechanisms, and customer dynamics acting on the company. Once upon a time, the Mac was the product that brought customers to other Apple products. It hasn't been that way in a decade, it's been the iPhone for a very long time, and 1) those folks that bought a M1 Mac because of the iPhone were perfectly fine with the "nice low end model" M1 Macs, and 2) they do not give a crap about older processor technologies.
Seems like the author is completely clueless to the challenges that many, many developers on the Mac and iOS platforms face. Way to go, this isn't helping.
So are you saying because it’s challenging the devs should not support Apple Silicon natively? If so they’re not very good at developing software.
Option 1: Develop features that all customers want Option 2: Support a new architecture that only a small percentage of customer want (and none of them need, because Rosetta works so well)
Option 2 isn't sexy. It's the equivalent of an Infrastructure & Maintenance Bill.
Option 2 as it pertains to native Apple Silicon software is the metaphorical example of a boulder rolling down a trench. You know where it's going, but you don't know precisely when it's going to roll over you.
When do you build the scaffolding to get out of the trench?
Call me crazy, but isn’t that what Rosetta is for? For something like Dropbox, doesn’t that pretty much do the trick? I totally understand for complex apps. I don’t understand why people would leave Dropbox over it. Maybe I’m missing something.
Call me crazy, but isn’t that what Rosetta is for? For something like Dropbox, doesn’t that pretty much do the trick? I totally understand for complex apps. I don’t understand why people would leave Dropbox over it. Maybe I’m missing something.
That's a good point:
-- Hardware? It doesn't do anything productive
-- OS? It doesn't do anything productive either
-- Applications? Those are what do the work.
A good analogy is the human body: heart, lungs, digestive system, etc. don't do anything except support the parts that do the productive things: Muscles and Nervous system(s). Without those things, there is no need for a support system.
Who would buy even the greatest hardware or OS without applications that run on it?
If your posts "keep getting deleted," it's not because we object to your opinion (which is clear based on the wide array of it on display here), it's because you violated a commenting rule. A link to them is conveniently posted at the bottom of every forum thread.
It's time to review them, if this is you. Feel free to repost your opinion, without the rule-breaking part.
Seems like the author is completely clueless to the challenges that many, many developers on the Mac and iOS platforms face. Way to go, this isn't helping.
So are you saying because it’s challenging the devs should not support Apple Silicon natively? If so they’re not very good at developing software.
Option 1: Develop features that all customers want Option 2: Support a new architecture that only a small percentage of customer want (and none of them need, because Rosetta works so well)
Option 2 isn't sexy. It's the equivalent of an Infrastructure & Maintenance Bill.
Option 2 as it pertains to native Apple Silicon software is the metaphorical example of a boulder rolling down a trench. You know where it's going, but you don't know precisely when it's going to roll over you.
When do you build the scaffolding to get out of the trench?
When you need to. When the removal of Rosetta is on the horizon. Not when Apple are still selling Intel Macs.
This article was written by someone who doesn’t understand:
Managing Complex change Interdisciplinary Thinking Systems Thinking Software Development Devops Business Management Budgets and Economics Project Management And so on…
or maybe they do understand these things and they were just having a bad day…
Take Abelton Live as an example. It has a huge, and constantly growing number of plug-ins that will need to be recompiled. It will take time and a lot of effort to do that.
So, Apple changes its hardware and now we are expected to gaslight the developers who have not and will not convert their programs to the new hardware? Really?
The complexity of such a conversion should not be underestimated. I was the recipient of such a conversion during a corporate takeover: a team had converted an ATM system from Tandem hardware to IBM then during the takeover, they were let go and the mess was dumped in my lap. It was a nightmare with constant ongoing daily and nightly failures and blowups.
But here there is likely a second wrinkle as well: They'll need to maintain two systems: one for Intel hardware and one for Apple hardware.
Apple can't (or shouldn't) wash its hands and walk away from this. It has a moral and ethical obligation to support all of its stakeholders -- which includes both vendors and customers.
You can build for an intel device on an M1 Mac. This does mean testing on an intel Mac but that is surely possible for large corporations.
Heres the thing, an App written in object C, swift, or even C++ that had been changed for the 64 bit upgrade, would just compile for ARM. No matter how many lines of code.
The problem is most macOS developers are not solely macOS developers, in fact they might not be using the Apple toolchain. These are the guys in trouble. In many cases they don't care, which is I think what the author is implying. I would certainly take the recommendation, had I not ditched dropBox years ago.
I had a look on my Mac to see what is running in Intel under Rosetta ( you can see this in Activity monitor). Teams, WhatsApp and associated helper apps are all running in Intel. Chrome and helpers are ARM. There is one apple system process which is still Intel, which is com.apple.speech.speechsynthesisd. Did they forget?
The network sniffer Charles is Intel, as is Sourcetree the repository manager. Slack is surprising in ARM and that's written in electron I think.
Over time Apple may want to make rosetta worse, if that's not some kind of business malpractice.
This article is a joke, right? Sounds like the author isn't old enough to know how the PowerPC to Intel transition progressed. Apple completed the entire hardware transition to Intel in just over 200 days. Yet they continued to provide Rosetta for five and a half years after the introduction of the first Intel Macs, Jan 2006 to Mid-2011. Why? Because there were literally millions of PowerPC Macs in operation for years after the switch. Same is true now. There are probably over a hundred million Intel Macs in operation, both privately and in enterprise. Developers go where the money is, and currently it is still with Intel Macs. There is only a very small percentage of Apple Silicon Macs in operation now compared to the number of Intel Macs. Apple is also still selling Intel Macs, and will do so well into 2022. The Apple Silicon transition is going very slow because it took Apple 11 months to come out with new models after the first batch, and their flagship Macs, the 27-inch iMac and Mac Pro are still Intel. The pandemic, is the author aware there is still a pandemic going on, has played a huge part along with the world-wide chip shortage in causing major delays with everything.
So telling people to jump ship after 11 months is ridiculous. Rosetta will be around for at least 5 years to support Intel apps running on Apple Silicon, and Intel Macs will continue to be used by people for years to come. Remember, the Apple Silicon Macs aren't great for everything, many people take advantage of virtual machines, something the Apple Silicon Macs do not do well. Intel Mac can run Windows natively, and can also run older versions of Mac OS X in Parallels for older software compatibility, something Apple Silicon Macs will never do (maybe someday Microsoft will be on board with running the ARM version of Windows natively). More people will still be using Intel Macs for years to come, much more than people using Apple Silicon Macs. And it took Apple a year and a half after announcing Apple Silicon to finally come out with Apple Silicon Macs that are worth buying. The M1 Macs were nice low end models, but the lack of memory and features held a lot of people back. People wanted faster Macs with more features, not faster Macs with features cut. Apple has finally fixed that mistake.
I will be very surprised if Apple doesn't kill Rosetta and cut off Intel Macs in the next two versions of the operating system after Monterey. ....
Perhaps. We'll see...
A few years ago under Ive's influence, I would have thought that was the percentage bet: Apple was convinced that they led and customers would follow them wherever and with whatever -- simply because: Apple!
Since he left, they seem to be taking a more realistic, pragmatic approach. And, with the latest Mac hardware, much to everyone's surprise, they actually listened to their users!
So, for me it's a coin flip. Which way will the future take them?
But, it weights on the side of keeping Rosetta simply because: does anybody win by them eliminating it? Especially: how does Apple benefit from that -- especially if it means limiting the applications that run?
Right now, with Rosetta, it runs both old & new. How is that bad? Who & what is hurt by that?
If your posts "keep getting deleted," it's not because we object to your opinion (which is clear based on the wide array of it on display here), it's because you violated a commenting rule. A link to them is conveniently posted at the bottom of every forum thread.
It's time to review them, if this is you. Feel free to repost your opinion, without the rule-breaking part.
As far as I could tell, that would be rule 3: "Do not complain about typos, timeliness, newsworthiness, how something is covered, or relevance to AppleInsider. If you see typos or grammar issues or have other complaints we do want to hear about them, but please email us (news at appleinsider dot com)."
That's because I've deemed this opinion piece wrong (or at the very list, very narrow sighted) and not newsworthy at all!
But hey, what do I know??? I don't even have plans yet to replace my Intel MBP. Besides, Mathworks has already pledged native Apple Silicon support next year for MATLAB (a multi gigabyte professional application) that is working flawlessly in Rosetta (according to a limited sample I know). Following the proposed logic, perhaps the University where I teach "should stop using me", although that would be hard, being tenured and all.
Comments
For me personally Toonboom Studios is such a developer. They’re making professional animation and storyboarding software. they announced that they’re working on Apple Silicon support earlier this year, but no date. Beta starting spring 2022 I think. Most likely they chose to not make a mid version transition. But letting the transition coincide with their next big update. 1-2 very frustrating years for Apple Silicon users.
Another category of developers is developers of hardware that requires special drivers, such as audio interfaces. This is probably gonna be shaky until the whole family of Apple silicon has rolled out. Still waiting for Apple’s work station architecture to be announced. Some have USB3 with some TB3 compatibility. The new pro series has TB4 which is still relatively new. it’ll be shaky for a few years probably. But they’re doing their best I think. Needs to be super tight and flawless.
So telling people to jump ship after 11 months is ridiculous. Rosetta will be around for at least 5 years to support Intel apps running on Apple Silicon, and Intel Macs will continue to be used by people for years to come. Remember, the Apple Silicon Macs aren't great for everything, many people take advantage of virtual machines, something the Apple Silicon Macs do not do well. Intel Mac can run Windows natively, and can also run older versions of Mac OS X in Parallels for older software compatibility, something Apple Silicon Macs will never do (maybe someday Microsoft will be on board with running the ARM version of Windows natively). More people will still be using Intel Macs for years to come, much more than people using Apple Silicon Macs. And it took Apple a year and a half after announcing Apple Silicon to finally come out with Apple Silicon Macs that are worth buying. The M1 Macs were nice low end models, but the lack of memory and features held a lot of people back. People wanted faster Macs with more features, not faster Macs with features cut. Apple has finally fixed that mistake.
Option 2: Support a new architecture that only a small percentage of customer want (and none of them need, because Rosetta works so well)
Option 2 isn't sexy. It's the equivalent of an Infrastructure & Maintenance Bill.
I was the recipient of such a conversion during a corporate takeover: a team had converted an ATM system from Tandem hardware to IBM then during the takeover, they were let go and the mess was dumped in my lap. It was a nightmare with constant ongoing daily and nightly failures and blowups.
The author was around for not just the PowerPC to Intel, but also the 68K to PPC shifts - and so was I. All three shifts, including Intel to Apple Silicon came at different times in the company's history with incredibly different market forces, software delivery mechanisms, and customer dynamics acting on the company. Once upon a time, the Mac was the product that brought customers to other Apple products. It hasn't been that way in a decade, it's been the iPhone for a very long time, and 1) those folks that bought a M1 Mac because of the iPhone were perfectly fine with the "nice low end model" M1 Macs, and 2) they do not give a crap about older processor technologies.
Apple knows all this.
It's time to review them, if this is you. Feel free to repost your opinion, without the rule-breaking part.
Heres the thing, an App written in object C, swift, or even C++ that had been changed for the 64 bit upgrade, would just compile for ARM. No matter how many lines of code.
The problem is most macOS developers are not solely macOS developers, in fact they might not be using the Apple toolchain. These are the guys in trouble. In many cases they don't care, which is I think what the author is implying. I would certainly take the recommendation, had I not ditched dropBox years ago.
The network sniffer Charles is Intel, as is Sourcetree the repository manager. Slack is surprising in ARM and that's written in electron I think.
Over time Apple may want to make rosetta worse, if that's not some kind of business malpractice.
That's because I've deemed this opinion piece wrong (or at the very list, very narrow sighted) and not newsworthy at all!
But hey, what do I know??? I don't even have plans yet to replace my Intel MBP. Besides, Mathworks has already pledged native Apple Silicon support next year for MATLAB (a multi gigabyte professional application) that is working flawlessly in Rosetta (according to a limited sample I know). Following the proposed logic, perhaps the University where I teach "should stop using me", although that would be hard, being tenured and all.
The whole thing is beyond childish...