I understood when they removed PPC support via Rosetta from Intel OS X (Even though the tech pretty much felt like magic). But I don't get the justification for ditching all that legacy 32bit software.
If it hasn't been upgraded yet, then it's never going to be. The Mac isn't like iOS, it's pretty niche. You can't just throw all the software under the bus every few years and sit back smugly expecting either developers to fix all their old software or the market to create new software to fill the gap.
No 32bit Mac apps are going to be replaced with 64bit SwiftUI native apps, they're going to be replaced with Javascript apps in wrappers and your platform is going to be worse off than it would be if the dusty "old" 32bit cocoa app still ran.
I think the issue is that supporting 32-bit apps in MacOS isn't free. So there's a cost/benefit analysis to do.
It probably isn't helped by the current MacOS business model. MacOS needs to focus on things that help sell new Macs because that's where the money comes from. Back when you'd drop $129 every few years the focus could be more on the OS itself. Not that it didn't also have to sell Macs, but the OS itself was product and it isn't any longer.
I think that makes a lot of sense, until you look at the rest of the market and that Windows 10 was a one off purchase in 2015 and still supports apps from the early 90s, with a selection of apps tens, maybe hundreds? of times more than OS X. Not to mention Apple specifically chose that business model themselves for business reasons, they get the cost benefit of not having to support older versions which must outweigh 32bit support. We can't retroactively claim that business choice is not a bad thing just because it supports their bad actions today.
Been a fan of Macs for 20 years but becoming more jaded with Apples approach to the platform.
> We can't retroactively claim that business choice is not a bad thing
I'm not saying it's good or bad, just explaining why (in my analysis).
Regarding Windows, I think we have yet to fully see how the movement toward "the operating system is free" will affect it. For one thing, OEMs and businesses are still paying for Windows. I'd guess direct revenue from Windows is dropping and is expected to continue to drop. But that's not the same thing as the $0 that MacOS makes (directly).
But, yes, if you want to run software from the '90s and not in a VM, then Windows is probably your OS (I think businesses are the reason for that. They have a lot of software in use that would be very disruptive/expensive to replace or move to some visualized environment.)
> I think the issue is that supporting 32-bit apps in MacOS isn't free. So there's a cost/benefit analysis to do.
The cost benefit analysis should be as follows: if I know Apple is going to kill compatibility with a large range of software on a whim (ie, not because of a huge and unavoidable underlying hardware transition), I'm going to stop investing in Apple's platform, and by extension stop buying new Macs.
If it hasn't been upgraded yet, then it's never going to be. The Mac isn't like iOS, it's pretty niche. You can't just throw all the software under the bus every few years and sit back smugly expecting either developers to fix all their old software or the market to create new software to fill the gap.
No 32bit Mac apps are going to be replaced with 64bit SwiftUI native apps, they're going to be replaced with Javascript apps in wrappers and your platform is going to be worse off than it would be if the dusty "old" 32bit cocoa app still ran.