Intel Macs Won't Get Updates After macOS Tahoe

[SnowPenguin]

So now I know how muchmy Mac Mini 2018 will last. I appreciate the info, Apple.

 

[ThailandToo]

Frankly, I expected Apple to drop all intel support with Sequoia, but I do have to say it’s nice they didn’t. Might squeeze an extra year out of my 16” 2019. Still a great machine.

It was nice when it came out. My cousin bought a fully spec’d 16 inch version. He’s so upset because he bought the new mini and it literally runs circles around it at just $500 on sale versus $5k he paid for the MBP.

 

[deconstruct60]

@nickf When will Rosetta2 be removed I wonder.

Itll be a long, long time.

removed every last drop. Maybe. However, diminished? That is happening not that long after Intel macOS gets dropped.

" ...
Apple is also planning changes to Rosetta 2, the Intel-to-Arm app translation technology created to ease the transition between the Intel and Apple Silicon eras. Rosetta will continue to work as a general-purpose app translation tool in both macOS 26 and macOS 27.

But after that, Rosetta will be pared back and will only be available to a limited subset of apps ... "

Apple details the end of Intel Mac support and a phaseout for Rosetta 2

Rosetta app translation features for Intel apps won’t stay around indefinitely.

arstechnica.com

Stuff that is intel GPU specific is likely going to have problems. For a GUI oriented Operating System, that is probably a substantive number of apps. Apple is going to keep developers moving in the direction of moving to Apple GPU , Apple silicon optimizations in their apps. They aren't going to hand out 'free get out jail' cards forever.


Kernel extensions were already in deprecated mode also. Likely they'll be going also as Intel MacOS dies off. Lots of legacy , older code is going to stop working.

There is probably some 'happens to still work' code left , but likely that scope of supported apps will get reduced in a couple years after to an even smaller subset. Maybe some corner cases like CrossOver and Gamer Migration stack last a bit longer but the general utility of Rosetta 2 is on thin ice. [ If in 3-4 years Windows on Arm gets more traction stuff like x86 Crossover isn't going to have as much traction. Likewise game ports from Windows not as much either if Mac on Apple Silicon keeps growing/evolving at a sustained pace; just going to ask folks for rewrites. ]

After all the security upgrades die off for Intel MacOS Rosetta probably has substantive library problems. So the macOS 28-30 era and after.

 

[Dr Nobody Important]

macOS Tahoe is the final software update that Intel-based Macs will get, as Apple works to phase them out following its transition to Apple silicon.

During its Platforms State of the Union event, Apple said that Intel Macs won't get macOS 27, coming next year, though there could still be updates that add security fixes.

Support for Intel Macs is being phased out because Apple wants to put all of its focus and innovation on Apple silicon machines.

Apple started its transition to Apple silicon with the 2020 launch of the M1 Mac machines, and two years ago, the company completed the transition to Apple silicon.

Article Link: Intel Macs Won't Get Updates After macOS Tahoe

Makes perfect sense to finally drop support for intel architecture.

 

[deconstruct60]

I might say "I don't care" if it was a 6-7 year old Mac that was paid for $2,000. But Apple must know that it sold the Mac Pro (7,1) until June 2023 and that it was a very serious professional computer that in some configurations exceeded $52,000. Tim Cook said at the time that Intel would be supported "years to come". That's a workstation that's only two years old and if Apple doesn't provide support for these machines for at least five years, I'm afraid a civil lawsuit could happen.

I see three possibilities:

1) Apple extends support for these most expensive and newest machines.

There is nothing in Apple support policies that implies that paying more gets more support.

" ... Products are considered vintage when Apple stopped distributing them for sale more than 5 and less than 7 years ago. ..."
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/102772

There has been somewhat of a correlation that more expensive machines get updated slower. That defacto lines up with their support policy of starting the 'countdown' support clock when they stop selling the hardware.

However, that 'start when stop' has a presumption that don't sell the hardware for unusually long time. The 2013 MP die off quicket because it sold way, way , way past when it should have been replaced date. Same problem for the MP 2023. Apple had intended to be done with Apple Silicon tranistion in two year ( 2022). That the Mac Pro stumbled into 2023 probably wasn't going to help it. The 'countdown' clock probably started in the 2022 era where they had originally pegged it. The rest of the line up had long transitioned by that point. And lots of Intel models had been dropped each of the 2021-2022 years. The Mac Pro can't keep Intel macOS afloat by itself.

2) Apple offers a fair buyback of these machines in exchange for new Mac Pros on the M architecture.

Not really a probability. If you paid more for a Mac Pro then you got more. Apple likely doesn't need these parts ( old systems ) .

3) Apple releases an MPX module for the Mac Pro (7.1) with the M4 processor, making it compatible with new systems. This would not be unprecedented, there were such upgrades in the PowerPC era.

A M4 on a card very likely would be its own self contained Mac. It wouldn't make the Mac Pro compatible, it would just add another computer inside. The boot mechanism for the Mac Pro 2019 is the T2 chip. The T2 support (and validating 'apple' UEFI) is going to same way os the rest of the Intel MacOS codebase.

 

[noraa]

Wow, I really object to Apple saying this (even if kind of obvious). It's a massive hint for developers to just go ahead and drop Intel now – "what's another year, anyway?" Same kind of BS Apple was doing in the move from PowerPC to Intel to enforce planned obsolescence of those PowerPC Macs. They ended up handicapped really quickly by both Apple and app developers not supporting them which likely resulted in a lot more stress and ewaste.

So you'd rather Apple just not say anything, and then what? Come macOS 27, Apple just springs it on everyone that macOS 27 won't support Intel - giving developers 0 lead time to get things figured out? I imagine that would go over really, really well.

 

[VivienM]

So you'd rather Apple just not say anything, and then what? Come macOS 27, Apple just springs it on everyone that macOS 27 won't support Intel - giving developers 0 lead time to get things figured out? I imagine that would go over really, really well.

That's how they did it in 2009. Most people expected another version of OS X supporting PPC, then I think the gossip started to be that PPC might get cut, then WWDC rolls around, I'm not even sure if they mentioned PPC in the actual keynote, and then the details were confirmed, and that was the end of PPC and people with 2005 G5s started getting very annoyed.

The press release announcing Snow Leopard has no mention of PPC either - https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2009/06/08Apple-Unveils-Mac-OS-X-Snow-Leopard/ , just a vague mention that it requires Intel.

 

[MaxinMusicCity]

macOS Tahoe is the final software update that Intel-based Macs will get, as Apple works to phase them out following its transition to Apple silicon.

During its Platforms State of the Union event, Apple said that Intel Macs won't get macOS 27, coming next year, though there could still be updates that add security fixes.

Support for Intel Macs is being phased out because Apple wants to put all of its focus and innovation on Apple silicon machines.

Apple started its transition to Apple silicon with the 2020 launch of the M1 Mac machines, and two years ago, the company completed the transition to Apple silicon.

Article Link: Intel Macs Won't Get Updates After macOS Tahoe

Then it's up, up, and away...with LINUX!

 

[MaxinMusicCity]

It means that after Tahoe is released, Apple is going to stop compiling macOS to x64 and that's that. OCLP can hopefully patch those unsupported systems to be able to run Tahoe and then support it for a few years before Tahoe becomes unsupported at all by Apple, probably 2029 or 2030.

Well...I suppose they could begin supporting the Apple Silicon models that get "obsoleted" just as they did with the intel models

 

[MacCheetah3]

It's good when Apple actually tells folks wtf is going to happen.

Sure, if Apple does it every time. It doesn't happen every time. This is being treated as a special case for the reason I outlined.

A better time to provide this foresight would've been in 2019, so buyers of Intel Macs would've known what they were getting into a year later. Just a thought.

No, it is good when they tell us every time they do, and it's not only good if they do it every time.

And they didn't tell us in 2019, I seriously doubt they had anything approaching what could be a public roadmap for a transition the year before it STARTED.

In 2019? There definitely would've been an internal roadmap by then, and one that was already well on track in progress. Apple chose not to share it because it was afraid of affecting sales of Intel models in the meantime, not because it didn't exist.

Worked out well for Intel. 😉

Intel Halts Products, Slows Roadmap in Years-Long Turnaround - EE Times

Intel delays product launches and slows roadmap in a long-term turnaround strategy, aiming for better competition against AMD and TSMC.

www.eetimes.com

Other reading materials:

Why Feature-Driven Product Roadmaps Fail in the Digital World

You are asking a big software company for a specific feature, and they tell you they have it on the roadmap for next year. What is your…

medium.com

Why Most Product Roadmaps Fails

5 perfect ways to limit companies potential while frustrating everyone around.

dpereira.substack.com

To Share or Not to Share Your Product Roadmap with Clients?

www.insightpartners.com

 

[TwoBytes]

I would’ve thought the iMac Pro would’ve got the update

 

[ignatius345]

The economy is so great that the average person can afford to upgrade a perfectly functioning 5 year old laptop because a company arbitrarily decided it's outdated.

And what, that 5 year-old laptop is going to spontaneously combust because it can't run macOS 27?

And as a matter of fact:

Apple said that Intel Macs won't get macOS 27, coming next year, though there could still be updates that add security fixes.

 

[groove-agent]

In a way I miss the versatility on Intel Macs. Parallels virtual desktop was actually useful running various OSes, and you could dual boot into Windows and do some gaming with an eGPU.

Now I have 3 computers to do the same thing.

 

[izzy0242mr]

Windows 11 isn't supported on any Intel Mac because they don't have the TPM 2.0s Microsoft expects.

Easy enough to bypass, sure, and I am sure it will work fine, but...

Windows 11 runs really well on my 2015 13" MacBook Pro. VERY easy to bypass TPM requirements and Windows 11 is not much different code-wise from Windows 10, so you can run the Boot Camp drivers installer for Windows 10 on Windows 11 and it works without a hitch.

 

[deconstruct60]

Wow, I really object to Apple saying this (even if kind of obvious). It's a massive hint for developers to just go ahead and drop Intel now – "what's another year, anyway?"

Doesn't not really do that. Most developers have some window of macOS version support they target. For example MacOS n-3 to the present (n) . [ before the '26' jump]. If developers have apps over next 1-2 years that support macOS 26 (would have been 16) then there is a three year lead time that would have their app support this version.
macOS 26 will get two years of security updates so even if a user bought an app in 2026 there is still another two years of usage with no OS major upgrades.

What this would impact is the base planning for apps in 1-2 years into the future. Planning they will be doing in the future. Relatively few apps absolutely require the latest OS only. If were only going to support the 'latest' OS then even then dropping Intel is more than dubious since this macOS 26 includes Intel. It would only be next year's app that would get dropped.

What this is huge ' shot across the bow' is for folks till super slacking and still leaning on Rosetta 2 to do all the work. That is rubbish. Rosetta 2 is being wound down also ( slower than Intel macOS but clearly retirement is coming.) Every responsible should at least be on a Universal App now. Period. Also seriously looking to get off of deprecated kernel extensions ( for drivers). If the app is universal then the user app will work just find if transition to a M-series mac. The intel binaries attached will be 'dead weight' but unless provisioning the downloading costs are sky high that isn't a big hit. ( it is more customer drive capacity blown than a developer problem. )


For App developers that want to tap into Apple AI foundation libraries then Intel stuff really wasn't an option anyway. Even if Intel macOS continued , it wouldn't be an option if those libraries were a core feature of next years app.


For a subset of developers that has a brand new, unprofitable ( or extremely thin margin ) application revenue flow, then yes going Apple Silicon only is cheaper. Less work (and time testing). However, for folks who already have a mature Intel code base there is not as much saving there.

Same kind of BS Apple was doing in the move from PowerPC to Intel to enforce planned obsolescence of those PowerPC Macs. They ended up handicapped really quickly by both Apple and app developers not supporting them which likely resulted in a lot more stress and ewaste.

Not really much like PowerPC transition at all. Apple finished the mac product conversation to x86 in less than two years. This time took almost 3 years. So slower. The number of users that needed to be migrated is much higher ( larger user base ) .

Similar Apple was in the middle of expanded the core of Mach/MacOS to two new platforms. arm and x86 while this transition is a consolidation. going from x86 + arm down to just arm . The incurred expenses are going in different directions.

So not particularly surprising the times have been the same.

As for 'planned obsolescence' that largely misses the point. No pay .. no work. The entitlement of 'free upgrades forever' is really just an appeal sot some sort of Ponzi scheme payments. Apple hands out 'free' upgrades. That means there is a tradeoff . The pool of upgrade cost covering money is pulled upfront. At some point that pool of money runs out.

 

[B4U]

So, when are they willing to release a larger iMac than 24"? 🤔

 

[BeatCrazy]

The end of the line for Intel CPU Macs... Expect Intel Mac resale prices to drop like a rock.

Haven't they already?

 

[conmee]

I originally thought my 2019 15” MBP might only get Big Sur and a few years of security updates and then I’d have to get an M1/M2 in 2023. Assuming I get the usual two more years of updates to Sequoia after Tahoe is released, that takes my 2019 15” MBP to Fall 2027. Not too bad.

I’m used to upgrading every 3yrs, and only because of my need (and really convenience) for x86 VMs, I’m using this MBP way past when I would normally upgrade. And other than Stray (cat game), I haven’t run into anything I’d like to install that requires Apple Silicon (and I can run Stray in Boot Camp if I really want to live the life of a cat lol).

I have already started experimenting with the “Windows App” aka Remote Desktop and I think that will be a viable workaround as long as I use it with a wired connection to minimize latency… running x86 on a Windows machine off to the side and using Remote Desktop from an Apple Silicon MBP. But it has been super convenient to just run all the VMs locally from one device. Definitely will miss that functionality.

But once I commit to a new MBP in 2027, I’ll put Mojave back on the 2019, Parallels 18 to run WinXP and Win11, and install some 32-bit games that haven’t worked since Mojave. It’ll make for a nice little Time Machine of sorts.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The real question I have is:

Is dropping support actually necessary?

I mean .. what are they really changing here besides a new UI skin?

Hell, with OCLP, I run Sequoia just fine on my 2015 15" MBP

Apple could be doing more with longer term support here, and I think they should be.

I don't care what Windows support is like, or not -- I'm talking about what I think Apple should be doing.

 

[BeatCrazy]

Apple was still selling Intel-based Mac Minis and Mac Pros as recently as a couple of years ago. I understand sunsetting Intel OS support overall, and the writing was on the wall even in 2023, but I feel like there should be a five-year grace period in general.

You had to work hard (Intel Mac Mini), or pay a ridiculous amount (Mac Pro - you know what you were doing) to 'end up' with an Intel Mac since ~2021. The writing was on the wall even back then. That was your five year grace period... 2021-2026.

 

[BeatCrazy]

The real question I have is:

Is dropping support actually necessary?

I mean .. what are they really changing here besides a new UI skin?

Run/pay for a dev team (for a living) that has to develop and Q&A for a totally different architecture, and you can see why Apple wants to drop Intel like a bag of poo.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in dev work to keep Intel chugging along on even a handful of discontinued hardware.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Hundreds of millions of dollars in dev work to keep Intel chugging along on even a handful of discontinued hardware.

Stop wasting money on car projects and useless scuba masks.

Money is not their issue.

 

[amaze1499]

Oef, that's a big f--ing yikes, especially for those who bought a Mac Pro 2019. That was still the most recent model less then 2 years ago.

Whoever bought that kind of machine, doesn’t really care about liquid glass design I assume. By the time Tahoe won’t get any security fixes/updates anymore l, those machines will have been written off anyway.

 

[magbarn]

With OCLP, running Monterey well on my 2012 SSD upgraded 32gb loaded 2012 iMac with 9 years of OSX updates. What's sad is I really doubt I'll be able to install 2029 MacOS on my 2020 MBA M1

 

[magbarn]

They haven't gotten quality updates in a while. My 2020 Intel MacBook Air ran like complete crap for the last year because Apple doesn't care about making older devices run well, despite officially "supporting" them (same thing happened as they phased out spinning platter hard drives). Then, FedEx lost my trade-in, costing me almost $300, which they and Apple refused to do anything about. I'm stuck with the iPhone ecosystem for now, but doubt I'll buy another Apple tablet or laptop after the bad experiences I've had.

You never ever ever do mail in Apple trade in. The companies they use to process the trade ins are sketchy as heck and they always manage to "lose" MacBook and iPhones. I always do Apple Store trade ins.