Rosetta May Be Removed From M1 Macs in Some Regions on macOS 11.3

[AndiG]

Yeah, like what happened to Centos. That's the case with any vendor, not just Apple. In fact, you can still use all that old hardware and software if you'd like; it hasn't stopped working.

The level of BS here is really ridiculous.

If you're referring to the stuff you wrote I'm with you. I worked with a movie company that relied heavily on Final Cut. They had tons of XServe and MacPro machines. Than Apple just killed the MacPro and replaced the FinalCut with a new version that wasn't ready and was missing a lot of features they needed. At this point they were Apple only. And Apple didn't care.

Apple was hit by massive flak from the film industry, lots of people were angry. And this wasn't the only bad Apple did to its professional users. And lots of people shifted away from Apple - at least partially.

 

[nsayer]

My guess is that this is a contingency plan in case they are forced to remove Rosetta in some region in the future. If this had been in the code in the first release, nobody would have said anything.

 

[eplusg]

Wow this would be so bad for Apple.

I checked my Mac and so far Teams, OneDrive, Spotify and some other small third party apps seems to run on Intel.
I can live without the small apps and for the rest I guess the web version will do.

The rest is Apple Silicon so for me it won't hurt that much 😓

 

[cmaier]

Wow this would be so bad for Apple.

I checked my Mac and so far Teams, OneDrive, Spotify and some other small third party apps seems to run on Intel.
I can live without the small apps and for the rest I guess the web version will do.

The rest is Apple Silicon so for me it won't hurt that much 😓

Why would this be “so bad for Apple?” What if the “regions” that are being referred to have only a dozen mac users?

 

[mdekker]

I would also add that Apple not being shackled to Intel's lackluster roadmap, while incurring product delays and tiny <5% incremental performance improvements, was a large driver.

And that Apple can tailor their Mx silicon with special secret-sauce features and processing units, while fostering greater levels of integration, is another. That Apple doesn't have to incur Intel's margins is likely icing.

cmaier was refering to the switch to Intel, not from Intel.

 

[macsareveryinteresting]

It's unclear why macOS 11.3 might remove Rosetta 2 on M1 Macs in some regions, exactly. It is completely unclear. Apple better stop. They’re going to make people not use Apple anymore.

 

[eplusg]

Why would this be “so bad for Apple?” What if the “regions” that are being referred to have only a dozen mac users?

Well, Rosetta makes the transition to ARM smoother. If Apple removes this feature (ok maybe if it's North Korea it won't do much harm) people might think twice before they buy a new Mac = bad for Apple.

Since we don't know much about this yet we can just wait and see.

 

[cmaier]

Well, Rosetta makes the transition to ARM smoother. If Apple removes this feature (ok maybe if it's North Korea it won't do much harm) people might think twice before they buy a new Mac = bad for Apple.

Since we don't know much about this yet we can just wait and see.

That’s the point. The reference to “this region” strongly implies this is going to affect a very small number of people and is being done because of legal requirements. Everyone is getting all verklempt about nothing.

 

[citysnaps]

cmaier was refering to the switch to Intel, not from Intel.

My bad. Thanks!

 

[gnasher729]

Most likely totally exaggerated. Theres always the possibility of running into legal trouble, and in five years the software might get removed, but most likely this was written just in case it might be needed at some point.

Anyway, anything translated by Rosetta stays translated forever. So software that doesn’t get updates will be fine, as long as you have ever run it. And if you haven’t it doesn’t matter.

 

[cmaier]

Most likely totally exaggerated. Theres always the possibility of running into legal trouble, and in five years the software might get removed, but most likely this was written just in case it might be needed at some point.

Anyway, anything translated by Rosetta stays translated forever. So software that doesn’t get updates will be fine, as long as you have ever run it. And if you haven’t it doesn’t matter.

For some apps, there is dynamic translation necessary, as it turns out. It’s a hybrid system, though for most apps the translation is done statically at installation or first launch.

 

[gnasher729]

This is the most likely explanation. For anyone who's submitted iOS apps, there's an odd question about whether your app uses "encryption," including HTTPS. If yes, it's subject to whatever export laws. No idea why Rosetta 2 would be affected in particular if macOS isn't, but these are weird laws with a long history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States

I think it’s any encryption not provided by the OS. So https should be fine as long as you use Apples implementation.

 

[gnasher729]

Hey, you, Tim Apple! Stop sharing Rosetta 2 to North Korea, they use x86 soft on M1 macs to bomb us.

Maybe apple isn’t allowed to sell powerful computers running x86 software to some countries. And maybe your 4+4 core Mac with M1 is under the limit but an 8+4 or 12+4 core Mac isn’t.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Not a problem. I'll just stick with Intel Macs as long as they are available.

 

[gnasher729]

Heck, now that i think about it, wouldn’t the statically-translated code have to be, at a minimum, cryptographically signed to prevent modification by rogue processes/attackers? If so, the issue could be as simple as an export restriction related to encryption.

It would need the same security as the original Intel code. Which is also signed but _before_ it is installed, by the developer. In this case Apple would have to do the signing.

 

[sracer]

Have there been examples in the past where Apple has prohibited some functionality of their MacOS devices in some regions? By functionality, I'm referring to the system itself, not a service (like iTunes not available in country "x").

 

[gnasher729]

It's no coincidence that Rosetta came out not supporting AVX. It's highly unlikely there isn't enough smarts in Apple to translate such instructions. More like it's some of the more obvious ones that patent lawyers say it won't clear litigation — and little used in macOS apps (notably since Accelerate framework provides good equivalents).

Jesus. There is nothing difficult about AVX. The problem is that compiling AVX Code won’t gain any speed compared to compiling SSE.

 

[fernelius]

I don't understand this. Why would any kind of export controls affect Rosetta?

Apple is not allowed to have any of their products exported to North Korea or Syria directly or indirectly (through a third country or party, etc.) according to their own website. https://www.apple.com/legal/more-resources/gtc.html. Other countries have less severe limitations. It could be that the U.S. Department of Commerce (overseeing the EAR) has classified Rosetta 2 in a class that limits it further.

 

[fernelius]

Have there been examples in the past where Apple has prohibited some functionality of their MacOS devices in some regions? By functionality, I'm referring to the system itself, not a service (like iTunes not available in country "x").

Facetime was disabled in the United Arab Emirates (and some other countries in that region) for many years due to UAE (and other national) requirements. I know that was true on the iPhone and suspect it was also true on MacOS.

 

[0924487]

Rosetta is a necessity for ensuring a smooth transition and to allow users the freedom to use apps as needed. (Especially power users that work in tech, arts, academics, etc)

Maybe this has to do with a maintenance issue; they don’t want to support this forever? Honestly, I’d pay an extra $3 a month for the privilege of continued Rosetta support!

You hear that Apple? Another subscription to make stubborn customers using Rosetta only apps (which will continue for at least 3 years, I imagine, if not forever) to have continued support, for payment. Power users, educators, and enterprises would pay; regular users wouldn’t be bothered because they will only use M chip approved apps. Problem solved!

It is obvious that Apple is forced into removing this. It's a legal issue, and very likely from someone with the most to lose, Intel. It's probably all done under the table, therefore, x86 instruction set licensing fees are likely the reason. I'm guessing Intel is backing out or having "new interpretations" of their licensing contract with Apple.

 

[theluggage]

Oh for pity's sake people.

As at least one person has already posted, this message has been in the code since at least December when some people saw it due to a glitch (that went away after rebooting):

Error: Rosetta is not currently available… - Apple Community

discussions.apple.com

...so it has most likely been there from day #1 of the M1 Macs, and for all we know it could have been there since Rosetta 1 went away in MacOS Lion. Whatever - there's no reason tho think this is some new, imminent plan to dump Rosetta.

Of course, Rosetta 2 will go away in a few years' time just as Rosetta 1 did, but not until it has been clearly announced as "depreciated" for a suitable period (just as happened with Rosetta 1, Carbon, 32-bit support etc...).

...and just as with Apple's rules on vintage/obsolete equipment and servicing, it is entirely plausible that some regions will insist on it being supported for longer than (say) the US. Then there's the equally plausible possibility of tech import/export controls in some regions, that some people have suggested.

Buy, yeah, of course it is more likely that Apple have gone bat-poo insane and decided to yank a major plank of the Apple Silicon transition just 3 months in... (I mean, plenty of people have pointed out how devastating that would be - you just have to go the extra step and realise that means that it is probably not true).

Or maybe Intel have found a way to get an injunction against Apple (which would also set a nasty precedent for Microsoft and Windows on ARM) without a single breath of it leaking out into the press (oh, but which Apple was able to anticipate in December) - sure, no laws of Physics would be broken, but really not very likely.

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

Now I'm off to the far side of the sun to get my teapot back.

 

[jlocker]

Not a problem. I'll just stick with Intel Macs as long as they are available.

I would agree, I think that the next will MacBook Pro 16 will most likely let you decided if you want an Intel processor or a M1/M2 processor. Apple said they are transitioning over to Apple processors they did not say they were dropping the Intel processor once a new model comes out.

 

[lxmeta]

Could someone please share what the most prominent and popular Mac Apps are currently still using rosetta to function on M1 Macs?

Well, let's start with Adobe: Acrobat, Distiller, After Effects 2020, Bridge, Illustrator, Lightroom Classic, Media Encoder, Photoshop 2021 (there is a beta with reduced functionality that sucks!)

Then there is Microsoft Teams, MS Remote Desktop, Evernote, ExpressVPN, the complete Canon and Fuji software, complete Garmin software suite, Dropbox, Spotify, Skype for Business, WhatsApp (who cares), Google Drive Streams, Odrive, Onedrive ...
All 3d CAD and Architect software (Archicad etc)

What else are you looking for?

 

[leman]

Jesus. There is nothing difficult about AVX.

The "difficult" thing about AVX is that Intel has patented any kind of execution of AVX instruction, including them being emulated or translated into other instruction sets. I am not kidding, it's written there in their patent. I have no idea how the patent office let this through, but we have what we have. Unless you want to risk a very expensive lawsuit, supporting AVX is a no-go.

The problem is that compiling AVX Code won’t gain any speed compared to compiling SSE.

Why wouldn't it? Sure, Apple would need to spill a single AVX instruction into multiple NEON instructions, but they have enough SIMD units to compensate for this. Here is a real-world tests showing that Apple's 128-bit NEON is equivalent to Intel's 256-bit AVX2 despite the Apple CPU running at much lower speed: https://lemire.me/blog/2020/12/13/arm-macbook-vs-intel-macbook-a-simd-benchmark/

And besides, supporting AVX2 in Rosetta would allow more x86 applications to run. No, the reason why it's not supported is not a technical one. I think it's fairly likely that it's the patent issue.

 

[cmaier]

It would need the same security as the original Intel code. Which is also signed but _before_ it is installed, by the developer. In this case Apple would have to do the signing.

Presumably, yes. So if there are places that Xcode is verboten, then the same would apply. Also, there may have to be some magic done re:notarization, which is normally done on Apple’s servers, which could be adding a wrinkle.