4 ms·
Not sure it's only about tidiness. Rosetta 1 was licensed from a third party and Apple didn't want to keep paying the license fees. I don't know if this is the
by dreamcompiler 1y ago
Not sure it's only about tidiness. Rosetta 1 was licensed from a third party and Apple didn't want to keep paying the license fees.
I don't know if this is the situation with Rosetta 2.
- bayindirh 1y agoI read a comment somewhere, possibly here by an ex-Apple engineer who claimed that they optimized the thing mathematically for the performance it exhibits. So, considering its silicon parts, Rosetta 2 is more of an Apple endeavor and technology. On the other hand 5-7 years a very typical timespan for Apple. So, I don't think licensing fees were that important while ending support for it.
- ghaff 1y agoThe original Rosetta was based on technology from Transitive which, as I recall, IBM bought. Don't know where Rosetta 2 fits in and any licensing associated with the original Rosetta was a long time ago.