4 ms·
That's exactly my thinking-- it might be feasible for Apple to use bitcode during an x86 to ARM transition, but what problem is that actually solving? At best
by JonathonW 7y ago
That's exactly my thinking-- it might be feasible for Apple to use bitcode during an x86 to ARM transition, but what problem is that actually solving?
At best, Apple announces mandatory bitcode* for macOS App Store apps at WWDC in 2019; Apple announces the first ARM Macs in 2020 or 2021. So you've got a window of maybe a year or two of apps that don't have to be recompiled to support ARM, and most are likely still being updated since it hasn't been that long since they recompiled to supply Apple with a bitcode version.
This doesn't do anything to solve the big headache of an architecture transition, which are those legacy apps that will never be updated again-- you'd still need an emulation solution like Rosetta or Microsoft's x86 on ARM stuff to support those applications. At best, you're maybe working around the Adobes and Microsofts of the world that move too slowly to have a day-1 update when the new architecture comes out?
* I'll note that Bitcode wasn't mandatory on iOS when it was announced in 2015, and it's still not mandatory there today-- it seems unlikely that Mac Bitcode would be mandatory immediately when they announce it or in the foreseeable future.
- floatingatoll 7y agoApple, having already forced PPC->X86 and now forcing X86->X64, clearly has no difficulty forcing an architecture update every 5 years, stranding apps in the past if they don’t update. Saying that they wouldn’t force X64->ARM64 due to migration issues they have repeatedly accepted makes no sense, given their history - and especially having done so regardless of Adobe’s inability to keep up.
- ken 7y agoThey've been even more aggressive than you suggest. They promised 64-bit Carbon in 10.5, and included it in developer seeds, before finally yanking it from the final release. Adobe found out it was cancelled at the same time as everyone else: when Apple announced it at WWDC.
- eridius 7y agoMy recollection is that Apple did in fact ship a 64-bit HIToolbox library, but they didn't allow the general public to use it. I thought Adobe was one of the few people who were allowed to use it though, as a temporary measure until they rewrote Photoshop to stop using Carbon. I could be wrong though, that was a long time ago.
- eridius 7y agoBoth PPC->x86 and x86->x86_64 had (temporary) migration paths. The x86->x86_64 path was pretty easy; x86 apps were still supported for a rather long time. The PPC->x86 migration path wasn't as clean, but they did ship Rosetta for a couple of years before ditching it. If they do Intel->ARM they'll need some sort of migration strategy. Would that involve a Rosetta 2.0?
- 9935c101ab17a66 7y agoThe intel transition was 13 years ago? And the powerpc era lasted from 1992ish to 2005?
- floatingatoll 7y agoWikipedia may be of some use here, I don’t know the exact dates of when OS X was released (with a Mac Classic emulator, how meta!) versus when Apple transitioned 6502->68k and 68k->ppc and ppc->x86. Sorry I can’t be of more help to your questions!