I am not sure what track record Shirasaki is referring to, as we have been through this before. Why wait to get an Apple Silicon Mac when history has shown they have kept the first Rosetta around for 5 years. NOT 3 months.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Rosetta May Be Removed From M1 Macs in Some Regions on macOS 11.3
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Error: Rosetta is not currently available… - Apple Community
Looks the “Rosetta is not currently available in your region” error has been present in Big Sur since December, i.e it’s not new and nothing to worry about.
The very fact that such an error dialog exists itself is sign of worry. It means eventually Apple will find a scenario where this message is needed to be prompted.Error: Rosetta is not currently available… - Apple Community
discussions.apple.com
Looks the “Rosetta is not currently available in your region” error has been present in Big Sur since December, i.e it’s not new and nothing to worry about.
If this really happens in EU - will simply take refund.
EU: You benefit on your purchase from a legal guarantee of 2 years. This guarantee holds the seller responsible for each breach of conformity that would affect the purchased product within the above mentioned period.
If the advertised feature (hardware or software, which led to product purchase in the first place) - would not work on the product itself during legal 2y warranty - customer would have the right for the refund (if the issue is not serviceable)...
If you would be affected - and seller would refuse your refund - please reach out to your national Consumer Ombundsman.
I already have positive experience with one expensive electronic product return in EU.
Manufacturer sent OTA software update - which contained change of the advertised feature and made the feature un-usable.
I liaised with them and issue was not resolved in 2 months.
One mail to Consumer Ombundsman - and retailer refunded 800eur.
If Apple really does this - they will have to take the wrath of retailers, including their own Apple retail stores (as they fall under the legislation of Consumer Law)
EU: You benefit on your purchase from a legal guarantee of 2 years. This guarantee holds the seller responsible for each breach of conformity that would affect the purchased product within the above mentioned period.
If the advertised feature (hardware or software, which led to product purchase in the first place) - would not work on the product itself during legal 2y warranty - customer would have the right for the refund (if the issue is not serviceable)...
If you would be affected - and seller would refuse your refund - please reach out to your national Consumer Ombundsman.
I already have positive experience with one expensive electronic product return in EU.
Manufacturer sent OTA software update - which contained change of the advertised feature and made the feature un-usable.
I liaised with them and issue was not resolved in 2 months.
One mail to Consumer Ombundsman - and retailer refunded 800eur.
If Apple really does this - they will have to take the wrath of retailers, including their own Apple retail stores (as they fall under the legislation of Consumer Law)
Last edited:
How many commercially-available x86_64 emulators are there? Microsoft’s emulator is still in preview. The only other commercial one would be SimNow, which belongs to AMD. The rest are open-source, which AFAIK moves the patent infringement target to its users.
... more likely someone outside of Apple would insist of such scenario and Apple would have few choice but to comply.
Rosetta is downloaded and installed “on demand”. It isn’t included by default. (https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT211861).
So unlike most of the components of MacOS, there’s a separate installer for Rosetta. The fact that a software installer includes a license/region check is completely unremarkable.
Its possible that if you look hard enough you’ll find other “X is not licensed in this region“ messages buried in MacOS.
There are plenty of reasons why a complex bit of software might have regional restrictions slapped on it, which is why installers may include region checks. Possibly Apple are already blocking users in Grand Fenwick from downloading Rosetta. Next month, Biden could slap an embargo on software exports to Evilopolis. Who knows what third party tech Apple have licensed in order to write Rosetta. In a few years from now, they will drop Rosetta (but might be forced to support it for longer in some jurisdictions - see the rules on vintage/obsolete Macs). None of that means that Rosetta is going away anytime soon.
If even if this leads to nothing, the fact that it exists and we're talking about it like it's a very negative thing erodes trust in the new platform no matter how you look at it. If it does lead to something, it won't be pretty for some people. Some apps will never be converted because they're no longer in development or the developer doesn't want to pay $99/year plus the cost of Mac hardware just to develop for the platform. M1 users without Rosetta 2 will never be able to use those apps again which could cause major grief in industries with niche software. Or imagine if a company had some in-house software written for Intel Macs they now have to possibly re-write from scratch for M1 support. Might be easier to just transition the codebase to Linux or Windows Intel than to M1 for them.
Last edited:
Nobody with the brains to write software would believe apple is going to drop Rosetta any time soon, so it’s only eroding trust for people who lack certain critical thinking skills.
There is almost no software in the world where rewriting Intel Mac software from scratch would be needed. The Intel transition happened late enough that nearly everything in use on the Mac is written in a high-level language. You create a new backend (produces machine code) for a compiler and use the same C/C++/Obj-C source code or whatever language you happened to use. The majority of development tools including compilers have already been ported to Apple Silicon/AArch64 so all most developers need to do is recompile and test.
There can be bugs that are usually caused by mistakes in the code where the developer thought a behavior was specified but in reality it wasn't and different compilers produce different outcomes. But that is rare and is also a bug in the application that should be fixed anyway.
The only software that is really being delayed right now is software that uses kernel extensions. Those problems are more caused by Apple's changes in Big Sur than the architecture of the computer. The biggest hold up to getting almost everything else ported to ASi is a lot of software uses external libraries that also need to be recompiled and tested. This is mostly tedious and whoever maintains the library has to make the effort or the software developer using the library needs to find a replacement. But right now most applications are either released for the M1 or in Preview or Beta. This is really not that big of a problem.
Except for Fortran, stemming from gcc's tardiness to support Apple Silicon. With Fortran being seriously late (i.e hasn't arrived yet at this time of writing), so would be a good number of numeric and scientific software — which includes numpy, a Python library popular for data science workloads. Matlab not supporting Apple Silicon natively could also stem from gcc's non-presence.
FYI, gcc is a major development toolset. It's one of the two big C/C++ suite of compilers (the other one being clang, Apple's current favorite) in which a whole lot of other languages and development tools hinges upon.
Last edited:
Isn't there a Fortran for LLVM? They might not be mature but since IBM is leading one team, I would think that this problem will be solved shortly.
IBM C/C++ and Fortran compilers to adopt LLVM open source infrastructure
LFortran
Flang - F18: Looks like NVidia supports this one
Basically, if gcc isn't interested, there seem to be alternatives available.
There are alternatives... like there are alternatives to gcc... but it's not straightforward to move existing code base across different compilers.
Case in point: clang has been around for a long time — but many projects are still sticking to gcc.
Almost everything on macOS Big Sur that claims to be using gcc is actually using just clang with gcc as an alias. I don't know much about the Fortran compilers though, so you could be right about that. Still, if the gcc developers aren't interested in supporting Apple Silicon, then there will be a real incentive for developers using Fortran to make the switch. As long as the Fortran compilers are based on a standard, it shouldn't be that big of a problem.
That’s less true for scientific compute. A lot of that is indeed compiled with gcc - basically a lot of conda repos & Python/R packages. Since the commonly used libraries are compiled with gcc, everyone’s codes are compiled with gcc. This isn’t necessarily a total dealbreaker but it is annoying. I believe they are working on it, but unclear when it will be out. FORTRAN is an even more special case where (hopefully for a small time) there isn’t even a great alternative right now.
They will have to accept my m1 macs even though they are well past the return period if this happens. No. I'm not going to keep it unless what I bought is what Apple advertised it to be at time of purchase.
I will wait for M1 mac to mature its eco system until I buy Apple silicon. I'm 100% sure Apple silicone is future, but personally, I will not take unnecessary hassles of not able to run Rosetta apps in which Apple clearly advertised. It's not my fault that Apple hasn't cleared any legal issue relating to emulation.
I will wait for M1 mac to mature its eco system until I buy Apple silicon. I'm 100% sure Apple silicone is future, but personally, I will not take unnecessary hassles of not able to run Rosetta apps in which Apple clearly advertised. It's not my fault that Apple hasn't cleared any legal issue relating to emulation.
No they won’t. Because the only reason they would remove Rosetta would be if Rosetta is illegal where you live. Which means you live in a country which has no ability to make apple do anything and which is being sanctioned. Is the weather nice in Iran?
I'm speechless. No I'm not living in Iran, and no you are not in position to assert what you've stated.
It would be ever so glorious for Apple to fail at the M1 transition and have to go crawling back to Intel. I wonder what would happen if the transition ends up DOA? XD