Should I Buy an Intel Mac Today or Wait to Buy an Arm-Based Mac?

[Azrael9]

Dead Mac? Then, I'll be buying that Intel iMac when it drops. (This September?)

If you have a decent working Mac...you can grab a seat and watch the Intel vs AS beat down.

Azrael.

 

[Altivec88]

Apple's marketing and communication is excellent. They've provided you a minimum figure of two years to rely on. It appears you don't like the two year figure which is understandable. This is why buying an intel mac now is really an investment into "legacy software" like being able to run windows. If you want to invest in future support the choice is obvious.

My point is, one of your first two sentences is false. They did not say 2 years, it could be 3, 5, 7 or more. That is not clear communication. I get for many instances it isn't a big deal but not everyone is in the same boat. Some of us have to buy for businesses where we have budgets. When we buy multiple machines and/or budget for new MacPro's, north of 20k, we divide the cost based on 5 years of use. As you mentioned, I have to go with 2 years because the word "year's" with a smirk is the clear communication you say they gave us. When I divide the cost of MacPro's by 2 years, it doesn't fly with our return on investment which means, don't buy. Do, I think they will support MacPro's for over 2 years. I think so but I'm not gambling on it when "years" is all they give me. All I am saying, if they want businesses and some people to buy intel Mac's now, we need "years" to be better defined. If they say 2, great, if they say 5, even better. At least everyone can assess their own situation based on facts.

 

[sotov]

My point is, one of your first two sentences is false. They did not say 2 years, it could be 3, 5, 7 or more. That is not clear communication. I get for many instances it isn't a big deal but not everyone is in the same boat. Some of us have to buy for businesses where we have budgets. When we buy multiple machines and/or budget for new MacPro's, north of 20k, we divide the cost based on 5 years of use. As you mentioned, I have to go with 2 years because the word "year's" with a smirk is the clear communication you say they gave us. When I divide the cost of MacPro's by 2 years, it doesn't fly with our return on investment which means, don't buy. Do, I think they will support MacPro's for over 2 years. I think so but I'm not gambling on it when "years" is all they give me. All I am saying, if they want businesses and some people to buy intel Mac's now, we need "years" to be better defined. If they say 2, great, if they say 5, even better. At least everyone can assess their own situation based on facts.

You not liking the truth does not make my sentences false : ) We can count on two years for a current purchasing decision and not more. Applecare would provide an insurance for 3 years. Looking for a binary doomsday product cutoff is useless crusade as it rarely exists for hardware. Service tapers off as parts and training do.

The only one who mentioned 5 year warranty, or 7 or.... more! is *you.*

 

[sbrunner]

I normally wouldn't mind waiting for a larger version of the iMac with AS, if performance holds up. But with Apple not supporting my iMac with next Big Sur I'm in a bit of a bind.

I would not make this dependent on whether your machine runs Big Sur. Lots of professional users still run High Sierra, half of our machines are sill on Mojave, or were recently upgraded. You run what provides the largest stability. My 16" MBP only supports Catalina, and it is still buggy and I experience catastrophic crashes from time-to-time. One while teaching a Zoom class this week...
[automerge]1594409720[/automerge]

Do, I think they will support MacPro's for over 2 years. I think so but I'm not gambling on it when "years" is all they give me. All I am saying, if they want businesses and some people to buy intel Mac's now, we need "years" to be better defined. If they say 2, great, if they say 5, even better. At least everyone can assess their own situation based on facts.

Your "legacy" Intel Mac is not magically stop working after two years. It will work the same way the next two years. Apple prob does not even know how ARM Macs will be perceived which also depends on what software is being used and compatibility issues. While Macs are catching up, and I rarely have to run Windows apps these days, I am still heavily reliant on VMs for development and testing. Perhaps the ARM world will mean a jailed approach, and all we can run is what comes down the App Store. So, there are a lot of questions on user perception and reaction, which Apple will have to test and weight While I think Apple will do better than Microsoft with their bombed introduction of the "X", I highly doubt that it will go smoothly for all users. Exciting times, but let's wait and see, and operate as usual - for now.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I get for many instances it isn't a big deal but not everyone is in the same boat. Some of us have to buy for businesses where we have budgets.

Everyone, business user or not has a budget. The question that people need to ask is if my next machine is only supported for two years, will that be worth it?

When we buy multiple machines and/or budget for new MacPro's, north of 20k, we divide the cost based on 5 years of use. As you mentioned, I have to go with 2 years because the word "year's" with a smirk is the clear communication you say they gave us. When I divide the cost of MacPro's by 2 years, it doesn't fly with our return on investment which means, don't buy.

The problem for you is that, even if Apple said: ”We guarantee software support, with whatever features the hardware can support for at least 10 years.” That would not really be enough for you, unless all your run is their apps (and if you are buying Mac Pros, I am guessing you use the machines for more than just Pages and Logic Pro X). Apple cannot commit third parties to supporting the platform for any length of time.

Either Apple Silicon is really compelling or it is not. If it is, there will be many new features that will only be supported on the new machines because it requires the new hardware. Some might be able to be supported less efficiently, but will developers really bother to back port? If they can do it easily, they are more likely to do so, but if it is hard much less likely.

If it is not compelling, then none of this matters.

Do, I think they will support MacPro's for over 2 years.

What would you expect it would mean if Apple said 5 years? That all features would be supported for that long? Some features? Security releases? What if they release a new GPU that does something super compelling and is only supported on the new hardware? How about things that take advantage of the new Neural Engine?

All I am saying, if they want businesses and some people to buy intel Mac's now, we need "years" to be better defined.

No. You mean if they want you to buy them for your company. As I have pointed out elsewhere, I bought a new Mac Pro in January, despite being very sure that well before its normal lifespan was over, Apple would have switched to its own silicon. I did it because I knew that my BF would have received enough value in one job to make it worth the cost. It was replacing a one year old iMac Pro, that replaced a 4 year old trash can.

Your perspective is not unreasonable, it is just not universal.

If they say 2, great, if they say 5, even better. At least everyone can assess their own situation based on facts.
[/QUOTE]

 

[JosephAW]

I wonder if it's different this time? Backin in 2006, they went from announcing the transition to replacing all their products in a single year. The new models of everything were x86 based - so there wasn't a choice of which to buy other than to scramble and get existing PowerPC inventory of the prior model before it sold out. This time, with a 2 year span, it seems like Apple might actually release new models of the x86 Macs one more time before their ARM counterparts are available. I'm hoping this means Apple will maintain a much longer world of OS support for x86, but you never know.

Just be ready for some staggering depreciation on selling those older x86 Macs once it's all ARM.

I wonder if this could create a sizable portion of people using the "final x86 MacOS" after it's out of support? At work, x86 compatibility is really useful, although it's not critical - I can still do local development on my Mac for functional correctness and then access an x86 Linux server for assessing the x86 kernels...

What killed off the daily driver G5 PPC for me was iOS 8. Apple stopped releasing iTunes updates and my new iPhone would no longer sync. Won't be surprised if they do that again with something like iOS 15 where you can only sync on ARM and iCloud and Big Sur is excluded.

 

[atonaldenim]

I will be curious about this. I expect that Avid will have Media Composer and ProTools running on Apple Silicon very quickly (as they are important to Apple and that will get them help). I would be shocked if we did not see Blackmagic Design's DaVinci Resolve running on launch day and pretty close to that for Adobe's Premiere/After Effects. However, I would guess that even if everything shipped at launch, you would not switch in the middle of a project, just as you probably lock versions during a project, right?

We'll see! It took Avid 7 months to get Media Composer officially supported on Mac OS Catalina after it launched. Perhaps that laid the ground work for future transitions to go more smoothly?

But the issue is interfacing with post production houses, larger teams, etc. A freelancer can often use whatever software they want on a solo project. But in my case the large East Coast post production house we're working with was reluctant to even let us upgrade from MC 2018.10 to 2018.12 because of some incompatibilities with other systems and servers that people there need to use for various reasons. Things move slowly in this world!

But hopefully Apple's x86 emulation will work great, and the new Apple Silicon Macs will run so much faster that even under emulation the old software will do just fine. As long as it supports Big Sur... and as long as Big Sur is an OS I'd even want to use... after the Catalina debacle, that remains to be seen.

 

[Alan Wynn]

We'll see! It took Avid 7 months to get Media Composer officially supported on Mac OS Catalina after it launched. Perhaps that laid the ground work for future transitions to go more smoothly?

That is exactly what happened. They needed to support Metal and get rid of all their 32-code. Most of that work should be done for them, making this transition much easier. Many people who lived through the PowerPC to Intel transition, forget that there were still many products that were still OS 8/9 legacy code, meaning that they had to really do two ports, one to macOS and the other to Intel, at the same time. That is hard. This should not be that bad.

But the issue is interfacing with post production houses, larger teams, etc. A freelancer can often use whatever software they want on a solo project. But in my case the large East Coast post production house we're working with was reluctant to even let us upgrade from MC 2018.10 to 2018.12 because of some incompatibilities with other systems and servers that people there need to use for various reasons. Things move slowly in this world!

That is exactly my point in two ways. People who need to get work done will transition when it works for them. That might be early or late, depending on their situation. The flip side of your being locked into an older version of Media Composer, was people being forced to upgrade to new versions of Microsoft Office when someone on the team got a new machine that did not have the old version any more.

On the other hand, most users of professional applications (a better way of describing "Pros") will upgrade or not based on what happens with those applications. If Media Composer 2021.5 only runs on Apple Silicon and the Disney Project for which you were just hired is using that, you will either upgrade or switch platforms.

But hopefully Apple's x86 emulation will work great, and the new Apple Silicon Macs will run so much faster that even under emulation the old software will do just fine. As long as it supports Big Sur... and as long as Big Sur is an OS I'd even want to use... after the Catalina debacle, that remains to be seen.

Even better, hopefully all the software you need will be native and bug free (having dealt with Avid for years, I am not holding my breath on the second part).

 

[Altivec88]

Everyone, business user or not has a budget. The question that people need to ask is if my next machine is only supported for two years, will that be worth it?



The problem for you is that, even if Apple said: ”We guarantee software support, with whatever features the hardware can support for at least 10 years.” That would not really be enough for you, unless all your run is their apps (and if you are buying Mac Pros, I am guessing you use the machines for more than just Pages and Logic Pro X). Apple cannot commit third parties to supporting the platform for any length of time.

Either Apple Silicon is really compelling or it is not. If it is, there will be many new features that will only be supported on the new machines because it requires the new hardware. Some might be able to be supported less efficiently, but will developers really bother to back port? If they can do it easily, they are more likely to do so, but if it is hard much less likely.

If it is not compelling, then none of this matters.



What would you expect it would mean if Apple said 5 years? That all features would be supported for that long? Some features? Security releases? What if they release a new GPU that does something super compelling and is only supported on the new hardware? How about things that take advantage of the new Neural Engine?



No. You mean if they want you to buy them for your company. As I have pointed out elsewhere, I bought a new Mac Pro in January, despite being very sure that well before its normal lifespan was over, Apple would have switched to its own silicon. I did it because I knew that my BF would have received enough value in one job to make it worth the cost. It was replacing a one year old iMac Pro, that replaced a 4 year old trash can.

Your perspective is not unreasonable, it is just not universal.

If they say 2, great, if they say 5, even better. At least everyone can assess their own situation based on facts.

[/QUOTE]

Of course Apple can't speak for what 3rd parties do nor was I asking them to. I am also not asking them to make new hardware upgrades for the MacPro's. What I am asking for is a commitment to the OS. I don't want to see that in 2 years from now when they release MacOS 11.2, they say, we are now dropping rosetta and universal binaries (just like the 64bit transition in Catalina). So 11.1 is the last version your new MacPro's will run on. Sure it will still work for years on 11.1 but without any security updates nor any OS innovations that were expected for the life of that machine. Again, do I think they will drop support like that in 2 years, No. But it wouldn't surprise me if they did either. All I am saying is that some clarity in what "years" means will go a long way at comforting those that need to make purchasing decisions. I don't get why so many of you are offended by this.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

I also think that if people want to have certainty that they will run all the apps they need + Windows, they should buy Intel Macs while they are still available. I bet those will be rare even 5 years down the line and will have good resale value.

Power Macs dropped in price much quicker than your average Mac. I expect that the Intel Macs will follow the same path as well - especially since the 'support for years to come' (vague) -- will mean the OS that it is running is supported, not new OSs... and in 5 years you have to contend with application developers starting to incorporate features without thought to compatibility to 5+ years ago.
[automerge]1594418891[/automerge]

There is a key difference this time. Apple has been working on this transition for nearly ten years.

The first ARM Macs will be better than you think.

I have to agree with you. Apple is not dumb, and they want to avoid the press of an entire line of computers not being as powerful. Apple probably has more chip designers than AMD, and the RISC architecture that is being used will be able to be optimized for the platform it is for ... (the most powerful supercomputer in the world runs on ARM compatible chips - designed using the 'ARM Architecture License' the same way Apple does. The chips for all computers that they are putting in computers this year have are finalized for production and they are now in production. Chips they are using next year are already likely in beta with sample quantities that have already been used for benchmarking etc. -- even before the announcement. They also likely already have the Mac Pro equivalent prototyped for initial performance testing... all this was likely in place before the decision was a go. Apple will want to handle the press well and to do that it requires their first generation of ARM computers to exceed the performance of their last generation by a reasonable amount --- or the press will start with the questions -- why -- what is in it for the consumer.

 

[Alan Wynn]

What I am asking for is a commitment to the OS. I don't want to see that in 2 years from now when they release MacOS 11.2, they say, we are now dropping rosetta and universal binaries (just like the 64bit transition in Catalina).

You mean the 64-bit transition that has been happening since 2007? The one where they spent years asking and pushing developers to move to the new architecture? The one that they noted in June of 2017 would be final in fall of 2019? If they followed that pattern it would mean that in 2031 they would say that macOS 11.12 would be the last release that supported Rosetta 2 and universal binaries. People seem to only remember the last warning, not all those leading up to it.

So 11.1 is the last version your new MacPro's will run on. Sure it will still work for years on 11.1 but without any security updates nor any OS innovations that were expected for the life of that machine.

Here is the problem. You just linked two very different things: "Security updates" and "OS innovations."

Apple has often provided security updates long after they stop updating a version of macOS, to continue supporting machines that cannot be upgraded. That part is easy. It is the second part that is hard or impossible.

One of their biggest goals in moving to their own silicon is to be able to add hardware support for macOS features. Things like the Neural Engine and the Secure Enclave will be needed for macOS innovations. They just will not be there on the Intel hardware. If those features are compelling, third parties will drop support for legacy hardware quickly.

Again, do I think they will drop support like that in 2 years, No.

Using your second definition of support, I cannot imagine that any version of macOS they release in 2022 will not have many (I hope) features that will take advantage of new Apple Silicon functionality that will not work on Intel Mac systems.

All I am saying is that some clarity in what "years" means will go a long way at comforting those that need to make purchasing decisions.

What exactly would you want them to say? Just so I can understand what it is that would give you comfort. I would also be curious about what industry sector you are, and what third party software you use to make it easier to understand how you think this transition will go.

I don't get why so many of you are offended by this.

I am not offended at all. Just not clear what you think it will mean and what would be required for you to accept it as meaningful (not implying they would lie, just that there are many different things they could say and all would be different levels of commitment).

 

[dandeco]

Well, my 2012 quad-core i7 Mac Mini won't be able to run Mac OS 11 once it comes out, and I need to buy a new MacBook Pro soon to replace my even older late-2009 unibody polycarbonate MacBook as my laptop of choice. But I'm already thinking in this case, hopefully later this year after I've saved up enough, I will by a 13" quad-core i5 MacBook Pro (leaning towards the $1799 model) so I can have a Mac that will run Mac OS 11, so at least if I need to run a Windows virtual machine for playing old computer games or software on Windows XP like, say, for my "Let's Play" videos on my YouTube channel, I'll have that. Then I can still use my 2012 Mac Mini as my main Apple desktop for at least a couple more years, until Apple comes out with a really good ARM processor Mac Mini or possibly a 21" iMac and I'm ready to buy one. Apple's old slogan was "Think Different," but for me I am tending to "Think Ahead" in this case.

 

[Partron22]

I remember the switch from 16 to 32 bit processors, the switch to OS X, the switch to Intel. None of them were pleasant at the start. I expect the same for this switch to ARM. I can afford to wait a few years, and see if they come out with a killer machine that's fully backed by the increasingly PO'd Developer community.

 

[nihil0]

Power Macs dropped in price much quicker than your average Mac. I expect that the Intel Macs will follow the same path as well - especially since the 'support for years to come' (vague) -- will mean the OS that it is running is supported, not new OSs... and in 5 years you have to contend with application developers starting to incorporate features without thought to compatibility to 5+ years ago.

Power Macs didn't support running Windows via Bootcamp.

 

[Altivec88]

You mean the 64-bit transition that has been happening since 2007? The one where they spent years asking and pushing developers to move to the new architecture? The one that they noted in June of 2017 would be final in fall of 2019? If they followed that pattern it would mean that in 2031 they would say that macOS 11.12 would be the last release that supported Rosetta 2 and universal binaries. People seem to only remember the last warning, not all those leading up to it.



Here is the problem. You just linked two very different things: "Security updates" and "OS innovations."

Apple has often provided security updates long after they stop updating a version of macOS, to continue supporting machines that cannot be upgraded. That part is easy. It is the second part that is hard or impossible.

One of their biggest goals in moving to their own silicon is to be able to add hardware support for macOS features. Things like the Neural Engine and the Secure Enclave will be needed for macOS innovations. They just will not be there on the Intel hardware. If those features are compelling, third parties will drop support for legacy hardware quickly.




Using your second definition of support, I cannot imagine that any version of macOS they release in 2022 will not have many (I hope) features that will take advantage of new Apple Silicon functionality that will not work on Intel Mac systems.



What exactly would you want them to say? Just so I can understand what it is that would give you comfort. I would also be curious about what industry sector you are, and what third party software you use to make it easier to understand how you think this transition will go.



I am not offended at all. Just not clear what you think it will mean and what would be required for you to accept it as meaningful (not implying they would lie, just that there are many different things they could say and all would be different levels of commitment).

Yes... I mean the 64 bit transition that just happened. I am not implying that it was a surprise cut off nor that they didn't give enough notice for that transition. I was more referring to that there will be a moment in time where they pull the plug on rosetta and universal binaries. Just like they gave warnings of dropping 64 bit support 13 years ago for that, they are giving us our warnings for dropping intel support now. The problem is that the warnings are vague. It could be 13 years from now or they can pull the plug 2 years from now without lying. Nobody is asking for 13 years but if its a reasonable time frame like a minimum of 5 years, why not say it.

So to clarify, what I want them to exactly say is "We will be including Rosetta and continue universal binaries of all our current software including OS until at least 11.5". I am not asking for any new software that doesn't exist that requires new hardware to be ported to intel but I feel its reasonable to expect that if you bought a MacPro to run FCPX today, that you are assured that you can run the latest version for at least 5 years on the latest OS with all security updates installed. (is that not a reasonable request ?)

That is if I were buying today. I am assuming that the MacPro will be the last machine to get the Apple Silicone treatment 2 years from now. So if I am looking at a new MacPro, 2 years from now, I would want them to say the same as above, except, change 11.5 to 11.7.

 

[sotov]

So to clarify, what I want them to exactly say is "We will be including Rosetta and continue universal binaries of all our current software including OS until at least 11.5". I am not asking for any new software that doesn't exist that requires new hardware to be ported to intel but I feel its reasonable to expect that if you bought a MacPro to run FCPX today, that you are assured that you can run the latest version for at least 5 years on the latest OS with all security updates installed. (is that not a reasonable request ?)

You are asking to buy a computer announced to be phased out, and have a "Tim Cook 100% Money Backed Guarantee!" that ties apple to running and updating the latest OS for 5 years (or 7, or more!) on antiquated hardware, hamstringing it's own progress on the future of it's own silicon optimization.

No. There is nothing about that remotely reasonable. What is reasonable, and already starting to happen, are price reductions to reflect the ROI changes.

"what I want them to exactly say" "I would want" "I want"

...yea we get it. Moving on.

 

[Mr. Warbles]

A lot of people are excited about the AS chips but I think a few too many here are overly optimistic about how smooth this transition will be....and I say that that as a life long Apple supporter.

Apple has a rough time with OS transitions even on the same chip (See Mojave to Catalina), what makes you think this will be a light and breezy transition with new hardware, chips and all the work developers have to do To catch up? Might be find if you use your Macs for web surfing and checking email but for professionals like me, I’m not risking the headache. I’m sitting out the first round. Maybe even the 2nd.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I was more referring to that there will be a moment in time where they pull the plug on rosetta and universal binaries. Just like they gave warnings of dropping 64 bit support 13 years ago for that, they are giving us our warnings for dropping intel support now. The problem is that the warnings are vague. It could be 13 years from now or they can pull the plug 2 years from now without lying.

The warnings are not vague. Apple has said quite clearly that within two years they will complete their transition to their own silicon. That means that, no matter what, within two years there will be machines that have hardware that will enable features that will not work on Intel machines (either at all or as first class citizens). They have always given at least 1 year’s notice before a change like that, so that means that it would be fall of 2022 before it would happen. It could be fall of 2023 if the transition really takes two years (I would not bet on that though).

Nobody is asking for 13 years but if its a reasonable time frame like a minimum of 5 years, why not say it.

Not sure which threads you are reading, but I have certainly seen people ask for 10 or more years.

So to clarify, what I want them to exactly say is "We will be including Rosetta and continue universal binaries of all our current software including OS until at least 11.5". I am not asking for any new software that doesn't exist that requires new hardware to be ported to intel but I feel its reasonable to expect that if you bought a MacPro to run FCPX today, that you are assured that you can run the latest version for at least 5 years on the latest OS with all security updates installed. (is that not a reasonable request ?)

Nope, that is not reasonable at all. You are asking for them not to add any features that depend on the new hardware for 5 years. Nothing about that request is reasonable. It would be reasonable to ask for bug fixes, security updates for 5 years. Beyond that is not only unreasonable, but guaranteed not to happen as it would make the transition fail. People need incentives to make the transition. The fact that there was still software 12 years after Leopard that was not 64-bit compliant explains why that does not work.

If one bought a Mac Pro to run Final Cut Pro X, one should not presume it will still be getting all the features that Apple introduces for Apple Silicon Machines. There will be compression that will use the native compression engine, AI that uses the Neural Engine, and who knows what else. Apple cannot commit to that.

That is if I were buying today. I am assuming that the MacPro will be the last machine to get the Apple Silicone treatment 2 years from now. So if I am looking at a new MacPro, 2 years from now, I would want them to say the same as above, except, change 11.5 to 11.7.

So you are really asking for a minimum of a 7 year guarantee. I guarantee you that 7 years from now, new versions of macOS will not support Intel hardware, and further that there will be features in the version of macOS that debuts with the last hardware Apple Silicon machines of this transition that will not work on Intel.

 

[Altivec88]

You are asking to buy a computer announced to be phased out, and have a "Tim Cook 100% Money Backed Guarantee!" that ties apple to running and updating the latest OS for 5 years (or 7, or more!) on antiquated hardware, hamstringing it's own progress on the future of it's own silicon optimization.

No. There is nothing about that remotely reasonable. What is reasonable, and already starting to happen, are price reductions to reflect the ROI changes.

"what I want them to exactly say" "I would want" "I want"

...yea we get it. Moving on.

Wow! Now you are trying to manipulate words to make it seem like I'm self centered. Like most normal human beings, It comes down to what "I want" every time I buy something. It works like this, companies want to sell me things so they can make money. If what they are selling isn't what "I want" then I don't buy it. I'm not telling Apple what to do, they can very well do what they please. If its not something "I want". they get to keep their computers and I get to keep my money. No harm to anyone.

These machines are not personal to me, they are tools that make money. There is plenty of Math involved to decide when to upgrade our MacPro's. When the speed improvements allow us to generate more money than the cost of the machine over time, then it's a worthwhile buy. Dividing the machine cost by 2 instead of 5 changes the threshold of making it a good investment or not. This numbers will be different for every company as profits based on compute speed will vary. For some companies, it will still be a net profit even if they divide by 2, for some like us, it won't. and that's the bottom line.

I don't care that someone on the internet disagrees with me or that I should think about Apple or Tim being hamstrung. I should just suck it up and lose money for the cause. Sure, you go ahead and do that with your money because obviously you are not as self absorbed as me when you buy. All along I have said, we all have different circumstances and what might be right for some may not be right for others. so change "I want" to "I need" that number to be a 5 instead of a 2 for "ME" to buy the Intel Mac's that will be available to purchase for the next 2 years. They never said they will offer support for 2 or 5 years and all I was saying is that it sure would be nice for more clarification. If they intend it being a 5, clarity would allow companies such as ourselves to continue buying. Saying nothing, means an automatic no. Again, no harm done. they keep their computers and I keep my money. Unless you are my accountant, its not even something that's disagreeable nor controversial. I am not sure why that irritates you.

 

[MikeZTM]

Tiger and Leopard averaged 2 year releases - so a total of being on the newest OS for 4 years. Apple also supports their OS releases for an average of 2 to 4 years. I expect Apple to support 3 releases for both Intel and Apple silicon (and then that 3rd version will be supported for 4 years)... this will bring it to 7 years of actively being supported at which time it will be vintage.

Just because you cannot run the latest and greatest with all sorts of new features does not deminish the ability to continue using your supported Mac for the promised 7 years (then unsupported after). Apple was not definitive on how long they will come out with new releases because they did not want to have people focus on it and did not want to be locked into something they are not planning on doing.

That was before iOS era.

Now if you runs a older version of macOS you basically loss the ability to connect and companion with your iOS devices. And you will have a lot of trouble running software that share data between iDevices.

Remember when iOS 13 was updated in last Sep and macOS wasn't and we end up with a non-working reminder app on macOS.

 

[aleni]

I’m skipping the first gen of arm macs, so I bought the new 13” Mbp 2.0ghz and will use it until 2023 and get myself the 3rd gen arm mbp. That would be sweet.

 

[Altivec88]

The warnings are not vague. Apple has said quite clearly that within two years they will complete their transition to their own silicon. That means that, no matter what, within two years there will be machines that have hardware that will enable features that will not work on Intel machines (either at all or as first class citizens). They have always given at least 1 year’s notice before a change like that, so that means that it would be fall of 2022 before it would happen. It could be fall of 2023 if the transition really takes two years (I would not bet on that though).



Not sure which threads you are reading, but I have certainly seen people ask for 10 or more years.



Nope, that is not reasonable at all. You are asking for them not to add any features that depend on the new hardware for 5 years. Nothing about that request is reasonable. It would be reasonable to ask for bug fixes, security updates for 5 years. Beyond that is not only unreasonable, but guaranteed not to happen as it would make the transition fail. People need incentives to make the transition. The fact that there was still software 12 years after Leopard that was not 64-bit compliant explains why that does not work.

If one bought a Mac Pro to run Final Cut Pro X, one should not presume it will still be getting all the features that Apple introduces for Apple Silicon Machines. There will be compression that will use the native compression engine, AI that uses the Neural Engine, and who knows what else. Apple cannot commit to that.



So you are really asking for a minimum of a 7 year guarantee. I guarantee you that 7 years from now, new versions of macOS will not support Intel hardware, and further that there will be features in the version of macOS that debuts with the last hardware Apple Silicon machines of this transition that will not work on Intel.

If you don't think its reasonable to ask for 5 years of up to date use on brand new 20k to 50k machines, then that is where our differences lie. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Their is no wrong answer. It just comes down to everyones own expectations. For some 2 years is enough and that's great. The post above, gives some insight of why it needs to be 5 years for me. Really its quite binary and comes down to money. So you can talk up a storm and to try to convince me otherwise but at the end of the day, if its not a 5, the math doesn't work for us. I am okay with that because we run those formulas often. Maybe If they cut the prices in half, then 2 years will work. When the numbers make sense we buy, when they don't we don't. It's really not a disagreeable thing. I wasn't demanding Apple change a thing. All I was saying is that it would be nice if they could elaborate on what "years" mean. It may allow companies such as ours to continue purchasing during this transition if by some fluke chance they mean more than 2 years.

 

[Alan Wynn]

If you don't think its reasonable to ask for 5 years of up to date use on brand new 20k to 50k machines, then that is where our differences lie.

First, you are not asking for five years, you are asking for seven years. Second, as long as your definition of “up to date use” means that there can be no new features for seven years (which is essentially what you are saying), I cannot imagine anyone really supporting that view.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Their is no wrong answer.

Here also is were we disagree. There is a wrong answer, as your position is self-contradictory.


You can say that you can only justify buying new machines if you if Apple will guarantee you that they will not build new machines with new features that the machine you buy will not have. This position has nothing to do with this transition in that it would be the same if they introduced a new Mac Pro in two years that had a GPU that required PCIe 5 and so would not work in your current Mac Pro.

If that position works for you, then you do not expect new functionality for five (or seven years). Apple guaranteeing you bug fixes and security updates would give you that and would be completely reasonable.

However, that is not what you want, you want them to add new features, but only in a way that they still work on your hardware, and that is where you position becomes contradictory. If you are OK without new features for 5 years, why do you require that if they develop something new, they add it to your machine?

For some 2 years is enough and that's great. The post above, gives some insight of why it needs to be 5 years for me. Really its quite binary and comes down to money. So you can talk up a storm and to try to convince me otherwise but at the end of the day, if its not a 5, the math doesn't work for us.

This is what I do not understand. If the machine satisfies your needs on the day that you purchase it, as long as it continues to have security updates and bug fixes, why is that not enough? You can do everything you expected it to do, and as you have already said you are fine without new features for that period, why do then say no one else should get them either?

I am okay with that because we run those formulas often. Maybe If they cut the prices in half, then 2 years will work. When the numbers make sense we buy, when they don't we don't.

Has Apple ever given you that guarantee in the past? What makes this time different?

I wasn't demanding Apple change a thing. All I was saying is that it would be nice if they could elaborate on what "years" mean. It may allow companies such as ours to continue purchasing during this transition if by some fluke chance they mean more than 2 years.

In fact the opposite. You are asking them not to change anything. Ever. That is the logical result of your position. “I want a guarantee of five years without change, from whenever I buy a machine.” Assuming that you do not just want this for you, but for everyone, it means there is no change ever. Just does not seem like a position that makes any sense for the future of the Mac.

I just cannot see why you think that is a position anyone should support.

 

[Altivec88]

First, you are not asking for five years, you are asking for seven years. Second, as long as your definition of “up to date use” means that there can be no new features for seven years (which is essentially what you are saying), I cannot imagine anyone really supporting that view.



Here also is were we disagree. There is a wrong answer, as your position is self-contradictory.


You can say that you can only justify buying new machines if you if Apple will guarantee you that they will not build new machines with new features that the machine you buy will not have. This position has nothing to do with this transition in that it would be the same if they introduced a new Mac Pro in two years that had a GPU that required PCIe 5 and so would not work in your current Mac Pro.

If that position works for you, then you do not expect new functionality for five (or seven years). Apple guaranteeing you bug fixes and security updates would give you that and would be completely reasonable.

However, that is not what you want, you want them to add new features, but only in a way that they still work on your hardware, and that is where you position becomes contradictory. If you are OK without new features for 5 years, why do you require that if they develop something new, they add it to your machine?



This is what I do not understand. If the machine satisfies your needs on the day that you purchase it, as long as it continues to have security updates and bug fixes, why is that not enough? You can do everything you expected it to do, and as you have already said you are fine without new features for that period, why do then say no one else should get them either?



Has Apple ever given you that guarantee in the past? What makes this time different?



In fact the opposite. You are asking them not to change anything. Ever. That is the logical result of your position. “I want a guarantee of five years without change, from whenever I buy a machine.” Assuming that you do not just want this for you, but for everyone, it means there is no change ever. Just does not seem like a position that makes any sense for the future of the Mac.

I just cannot see why you think that is a position anyone should support.

Why are you purposely complicating things and saying that I said things that i didnt? Where have I ever said they can’t move forward or that they can’t have ARM only features. Just like always, certain machines may be missing hardware to implement said feature. That doesn’t mean that computer stops being supported or it no longer can run that software, it just means you don’t get those features in that computer (eg. An older iphone can still run the latest version of messages but without the 3d sensor, it doesn’t do the fancy 3d stuff). In FCP, if they implement a way to render faster on Arm, that’s great. That doesn’t mean kill the intel version or that other new features that aren’t hardware specific can’t be implemented on both sides. The point of Universal Binaries is so that you have code for each side but the user data created with it launches on both.

We don’t buy these machines to work only for the one day we bought it, they need to be as if we just bought it new every day for a min period of 5 years. We buy machines all the time so during the next 5 years, there will be a point where we have both intel macs and ARM macs. We can’t have people running the latest version of software on ARM and then not be able to open it on an intel Mac because they are 3 versions back. At that point the machine is useless to us. So although it works the same as it did the day we bought it, it is no longer compatible with our work flow nor does it do what we need need it to do.

You then state if You are getting security updates for 5 years, you should be good. The problem with that is they never even promised that either. We only got the words “supported for years”. What supported means, I don’t know, what years means, I don’t know. Which brings us back full circle to the only one thing i asked. “It sure would be nice if they clarified this”

So to conclude, I never demanded they change their strategies, I never said they must keep all machines at parity for 7 years, I never even said that they must support machines for 5 years (I said i need 5 years for me). I only asked for clarification on what “years” means so that I can make better educated decisions for me and me only. If that makes me “wrong” as you say, then so be it, i’m wrong for asking and I Apologize to everyone that got offended at me saying apple was not clear at communicating this. Yes, I accept the 50 lashings and stoning that needs to take place for thinking the mighty Apple wasn’t clear on something.

 

[Jsunnb]

So one thing that I'm wondering that I can't find anywhere. Will Rosetta 2 translate both directions. Sounds great if you have a new Apple Silicone Mac that intel based software will work on it... but what if you have an old intel based mac and that new software has been optimized for Apple Silicone... will it still work or is that how they phase out the old macs, developers stop supporting intel