upvote
> Wait, so.. how are we supposed to test Intel builds of our macOS apps from now on?

You don't. You could stay on an old MacOS. Apple would prefer that you tell your customers to stop being poor and buy a new computer. They will make your situation increasingly unbearable until you do.

The overwhelming majority of people haven't needed a new computer since 2016. The current economic situation makes a new computer a worse value proposition than it's been in 35 years. Vendors are responding to this situation by manufacturing obsolescence. Microsoft pulled the same stunt with Windows 11's TPM 2.0 requirement.

reply
> Apple would prefer that you tell your customers to stop being poor and buy a new computer.

This is certainly an interesting way to characterize dropping support for old hardware. What is a reasonable way to go about hardware deprecation in your view?

reply
I think it's a stretch to call Apple's ARM transition "planned obsolescence". The M-series chips are very clear improvements on what came before and there is a clear rationale for that transition.

We're talking here about an OS that hasn't even come out yet, that will get years of security support, for computers that Apple hasn't been selling for several years now. Seems pretty reasonable.

reply
I said "manufactured," not "planned." I don't think Apple intended to do this at the outset. Tim Cook wasn't leaned back in an office chair, twirling a moustache saying "yes, let's make every mac made before 2019 SUCK!"

If it was planned, Rosetta 2 would have never existed in the first place. It would have been a qemu fork haphazardly crammed into Xcode.

There was no "planning" here. Here's how I imagine it went: a developer whined about tech debt, management seized an opportunity to generate revenue, neither party considered, yknow, humans, and now we're here.

reply
I have a MacBook from 2017 and and m3 air today.

For day to day tasks there is no difference.

reply
I have a MacBook Pro from 2016 and an M4 Pro from last year. There is a night and day difference.

I think "M series chips are no better than ten year old Intel chips" is a take that would be somewhat difficult to sustain, given the data.

reply
For messaging email and web browsing. Come on stop being a freakin nerd and consider the average user.
reply
The average user cares about their fans going full-blast when running some garbage electron app and their battery life being shit. You're just being dense.
reply
Try using it unplugged.
reply
Eerily similar story here. My wife was using her 2017 MBP (the one they got sued over) and she adored it until Tahoe suddenly caused Chrome to run like hot garbage. I bought her an open-box M3 Air. She likes the color. It doesn't provide any more value to her life than her 2017 MBP did, and yet we're out $1000 because Apple said so.
reply
That's overly dramatic. I don't think a new Macbook Air today is a worse value proposition than some Mac from 35 years ago. I just checked Apple prices from 1991:

    - Mac Classic II, the slowest of the bunch, $1.900, or about $4.661 today
    - Quadra 900, the fastest model in 1991, was $7.200 ($17.663 today)
    - PowerBook 170 was $4600 ($11.285)
reply
"Value" and "price" aren't the same thing. A new computer in 1991 cost more, but it also covered a vastly increased set of use cases versus a machine from 5 years prior (assuming the hypothetical 1991 computer buyer had even owned a computer before). Today, you can buy a used MBP with an M1 and it will do everything a new MBP can do, and the differences compared to a new machine will be imperceptible to most users.

Plenty of people would even be perfectly happy on an x86 Mac, too. Sure, there would be a perceptible difference compared to a new machine, but not enough to justify the price. That's what obsoleting Rosetta is about, it's about artifically making x86 Macs so unbearable that would-be happy users have no choice but to buy something else.

reply
deleted
reply
I still prefer my pre-2016 Intel Mac since I can do more things that I want to do on it than my newer M4.
reply
Keep a macOS 26 machine around for testing. All Intel Macs will be stuck on 26 as well, so testing under 26 is probably best anyway.
reply
> like my Lunar app

Oh hey! Thanks for making this. I've been running this app for a while now, between one and two years. Very much something that I rely on and appreciate.

reply
> Wait, so.. how are we supposed to test Intel builds of our macOS apps from now on?

Isn't this a general form of 'how do we deal with the transition from a to b?'

If your client's can get intel Mac's, then you should be able to get one. If they can't, why do you need to keep supporting intel Mac's?

reply
Virtualize macOS 26 for testing purposes: https://eclecticlight.co/2025/01/21/what-can-you-do-with-vir...
reply
deleted
reply
> Wait, so.. how are we supposed to test Intel builds of our macOS apps from now on?

In a older version of the OS running in a virtual machine?

reply
IIRC Apple supported 10.5 extra long because of it being the last PowerPC MacOS. I wouldn't be surprised if they do something similar here. Keep an intel mac around, and you should be fine
reply
deleted
reply
Keep an Intel Mac around or drop support.

They followed the same path when moving from PPC to Intel.

reply
And 32-bit to 64-bit.
reply
Keep an Intel Mac around?
reply
Arguably if you're shipping new fat binary code today, you should already have an Intel Mac around to test, because there might be subtle differences between Intel-on-Rosetta2 and Intel-on-Intel.
reply
It works until that machine dies and you need to scramble for a solution (again).
reply
Same way you test them now?
reply