macOS Tahoe Might Support One Fewer Mac Than Previously Rumored

[Steve121178]

Apple will drop OS support for M1 in 2027. 2020-2027 would be 7 years of support. There is no incentive for Apple to extend the life of those machines because Apple needs people to buy new Macs.

Apple has shareholders to satisfy, so it is a pipe dream to expect M1 to have a longer life just because Apple makes the hardware.

Yeah, maybe 2027. The M1 chip is essentially based on the A14 Bionic chip found in the iPhone 12 Series. So I'd imagine whenever Apple deems the 12 series obsolete might mean the M1 is on shaky ground. I don't see that for a while yet, seeing as the Xs just got the chop and the 11 series is the baseline for at least the next 1-2 years.

Apple could support the M1 chips for years, but just with an asterisk as it's not deemed powerful enough to run the very latest AI tech found in macOS in 2027/28, particularly devices with 8GB of RAM.

But it's just guesswork as no one knows.

 

[bzgnyc2]

The problem with Rosetta 2 existing is that there are a number of people currently offering Intel-only software for no good reason other than the fact that 'hey, it runs on the current Macs so who cares'.

In fact, I would argue that those are the only people who haven't ported their software to ARM. The Mac loyalists (BBEdit, GraphicConverter, PCalc) did so long ago, the big developers (Adobe, Microsoft, etc) did so a little later but also long ago, the Windows-people-who-don't-follow-Mac-cycles (like VanDyke - the people who make SecureCRT - or Citrix) added ARM support in their next major scheduled release in 2022 or so.

The only people left are the lazy idiots who don't care that their Electron (or non-Electron apps) are running in emulation. The only way to get those people to get on with recompiling their stuff is for Apple to give a big warning when their apps are being opened - "this software will not work on a future release of macOS", like they did with the 32-bit apps. Otherwise their apps will run in Rosetta 2 forever.

Maybe that's the answer - put a big annoying warning sooner rather than later, make it more annoying the next year, and then maybe not actually yank out Rosetta 2 for a while.

It looks like you are going to get your wish: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...tel-mac-support-and-a-phaseout-for-rosetta-2/

I agree Rosetta2 has been a crutch for some software vendors to release Intel-only binaries.

It is unfortunate that Rosetta2 has to be removed to get those vendors to properly support Apple Silicon. Besides those vendors, there are Mac users who want to run a) software no longer being updated, b) Intel-based OS hosted in VM (e.g. Windows in Parallels), and Intel-based binaries in Docker/etc containers. VM/container run-times can put an Intel emulator in the VM/etc to workaround that (as discussed somewhere above) but it is unlikely to be as good as Rosetta2.

 

[Spectrum]

I still think it is very unusual for an Apple computer bought as new in late 2022 or Jan 2023, to only get two OS updates after that point (I'm talking the 2018 Intel Mac mini). Yes, it was technically 4-5 year old tech at that point, but from the perspective of a new purchaser, it is no different than buying a brand new released Mac—and these normally get 5+ OS revisions (in my experience).

 

[pshufd]

I still think it is very unusual for an Apple computer bought as new in late 2022 or Jan 2023, to only get two OS updates after that point (I'm talking the 2018 Intel Mac mini). Yes, it was technically 4-5 year old tech at that point, but from the perspective of a new purchaser, it is no different than buying a brand new released Mac—and these normally get 5+ OS revisions (in my experience).

You're getting a great price on it though. Wouldn't you think that there is a reason why you're getting such a great price for a Mac?

 

[bzgnyc2]

You're getting a great price on it though. Wouldn't you think that there is a reason why you're getting such a great price for a Mac?

The prices from Apple weren't that great though. Even earlier this year when Apple was selling Mac Mini 2018 in the refurb store, they weren't that much cheaper than the same models were when new (off the top of my head maybe 20% less)? Not even that much cheaper than Apple Silicon Mac Mini M2 (which was oddly enough more expensive than a comparable M4 in some cases). 90+% of your average buyers are not on Macrumors or Reddit. They would have no idea.

When someone else here mentioned that while we don't know how long Apple will support a machine, it can be predicted from x factors, it was pretty clear how out of touch we are on Macrumors. As if we expect your average person to download an anecdotal database of historical datapoints (outliers and asterisked entries and all) and run a regression to predict how long their machine would be supported.

This is why I am glad Apple came out and said macOS 26 is last for Intel and macOS 27 is last for Rosetta2. Even if I don't like the decisions. The annual will they or won't they debate is only fun from a prediction challenge perspective.

 

[pshufd]

The prices from Apple weren't that great though. Even earlier this year when Apple was selling Mac Mini 2018 in the refurb store, they weren't that much cheaper than the same models were when new (off the top of my head maybe 20% less)? Not even that much cheaper than Apple Silicon Mac Mini M2 (which was oddly enough more expensive than a comparable M4 in some cases). 90+% of your average buyers are not on Macrumors or Reddit. They would have no idea.

When someone else here mentioned that while we don't know how long Apple will support a machine, it can be predicted from x factors, it was pretty clear how out of touch we are on Macrumors. As if we expect your average person to download an anecdotal database of historical datapoints (outliers and asterisked entries and all) and run a regression to predict how long their machine would be supported.

This is why I am glad Apple came out and said macOS 26 is last for Intel and macOS 27 is last for Rosetta2. Even if I don't like the decisions. The annual will they or won't they debate is only fun from a prediction challenge perspective.

Well, don't buy from the Apple Refurbished store than. I bought a used iMac Pro for $800. MSRP was $5K. Microcenter has the M4 mini for $450. Apple charges $509 for the same thing refurbished.

 

[VivienM]

You're getting a great price on it though. Wouldn't you think that there is a reason why you're getting such a great price for a Mac?

The Intel Mac mini was sold brand new on the Apple web site as a high-end option into 2021 and maybe even 2022, no?

 

[pshufd]

The Intel Mac mini was sold brand new on the Apple web site as a high-end option into 2021 and maybe even 2022, no?

I don't recall. I have a 2018 on my desk and paid full retail for it though these days I'd just go to Microcenter.

If you've been around Macs for a while, this is completely expected behavior.

 

[VivienM]

If you've been around Macs for a while, this is completely expected behavior.

Oh, I agree with that. After what happened with the last PPC machines, the first Intel machines, the trash can Mac Pro, etc, expectations should have been low. Honestly I'm pleasantly surprised that my 2020 iMac will get one more year than I was anticipating when I bought it in early 2022.

Very different, I might add, from Windows 11, where Microsoft had never arbitrarily cut off higher-end, older machines in favour of mildly newer, lower-end machines before. That was completely unexpected.

 

[bzgnyc2]

Well, don't buy from the Apple Refurbished store than. I bought a used iMac Pro for $800. MSRP was $5K. Microcenter has the M4 mini for $450. Apple charges $509 for the same thing refurbished.

The question wasn't whether to buy the from the Apple refurb store. Rather the point that was previously argued was that Apple devices selling at prices "too good to be true" should be a signal. My point is that none of the devices in question were being sold by Apple at absurdly low prices -- they weren't that much cheaper than list price. The reference to the refurb store is that even there prices aren't much lower than their original list price even for devices where a new model is now comparable and cheaper. Apple's pricing is not a good signal.

 

[pshufd]

The question wasn't whether to buy the from the Apple refurb store. Rather the point that was previously argued was that Apple devices selling at prices "too good to be true" should be a signal. My point is that none of the devices in question were being sold by Apple at absurdly low prices -- they weren't that much cheaper than list price. The reference to the refurb store is that even there prices aren't much lower than their original list price even for devices where a new model is now comparable and cheaper. Apple's pricing is not a good signal.

That's always been the case.

And it's why I don't buy from the Apple Refurbished Store.