Hidden text in MacOS 11.3 beta suggests removal of Rosetta 2 compatibility layer in some countries
- Reference: 1614799266
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/03/03/hidden_text_in_macos_113/
- Source link:
The text, discovered by writer and developer Steve Moser, says: “Rosetta will be removed upon installing this update.”
[1]
Apple is removing Rosetta from Macs during updates in certain countries in Mac 11.3 beta 3. Maybe this is due to legal issues? “Rosetta will be removed upon installing this update” “Rosetta is no longer available in your region. Applications requiring Rosetta will no longer urn” [2]pic.twitter.com/NmsjXOwPvP — Steve Moser (@SteveMoser) [3]March 3, 2021
Another reference to Rosetta 2 reads: “Rosetta is no longer available in your region. Applications requiring Rosetta will no longer run.”
[4]
Rosetta 2 allows applications initially compiled for Intel Macs to [5]run on the latest-and-greatest ARM-based Apple Silicon machines . Upon running an x86-64 application for the first time, the software automatically translates the Intel instructions to those that will play nice on Apple’s home-grown SoC.
Intel told by jury to pay $2.18bn to VLSI for ripping off two semiconductor patents [6]READ MORE
Precedent has shown Apple will only offer Rosetta 2 for a limited time. The first incarnation, which bridged the gap between the transition between PowerPC and Intel, was [7]discontinued in 2011 following the release of Mac OS X Lion . That discontinuation was largely driven by the fact that most PowerPC apps had already been converted to Intel, making Rosetta largely redundant.
The text uncovered by Moser suggests Apple could be forced to withdraw Rosetta 2 for reasons beyond its control. The firm has not yet confirmed what territories will be affected, nor the reason why.
One plausible (though unconfirmed) explanation suggests that some of the underlying technologies used by Rosetta 2 are patented in some territories by other companies. As previously noted by this publication, patent spats can be eye-wateringly expensive for the infringing party. One notable example is Intel, which was [8]recently ordered to pay VSLI $2.18bn after it was ruled to have violated two patents pertaining to semiconductor manufacturing.
Regardless of the explanation, any removal of Rosetta 2 could be catastrophic for many users, massively complicating the transition to Apple Silicon.
A significant chunk of apps are still only available in Intel-compatible binary form, and thus are only able to run via the compatibility layer. Examples [9]listed on one database include Discord, LastPass, AWS Client VPN, Microsoft To Do, and Microsoft Teams.
This “app-gap” would provide an incredible dis-incentive for consumers and business users in those affected territories to upgrade, leaving them languishing on Intel for the foreseeable future.
[10]
We’ve asked Apple for comment. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YEAVCypofMcHHwCbGysU6AAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://t.co/NmsjXOwPvP
[3] https://twitter.com/SteveMoser/status/1366904041243041794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YEAVCypofMcHHwCbGysU6AAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/18/apple_silicon_m1_mac_compatibility/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/03/chipzilla_vlsi_ruling/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2011/02/27/no_java_in_mac_os_x_lion/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/03/chipzilla_vlsi_ruling/
[9] https://isapplesiliconready.com/for/rosetta
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YEAVCypofMcHHwCbGysU6AAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: As a pure guess
X64 is not Intel's instruction set. It's AMD's, which Intel copied on a the back of an ancient IPR sharing settlement from the dark ages (well, last century). So I don't think it could be that exactly. I don't know enough about Macs to know if 32-bit X86 is relevant. That one is Intel's ISA. Then there's SSE / AVX, which are Intel's too. Again, AMD can freely snaffle these under the IPR sharing settlement.
Also there is QEMU, which I think implements the X64 and X86 instruction set on non-X64 hardware. That's not been sued to bits, but then again it's a project that hasn't got $billions to get nabbed by a court case.
It certainly would be ironic if Rosetta 2 got banned in the USA. It would do serious harm to Apple's ARM ambitions, and could indeed force a switch back to x64. If this originated with Intel, one could see Apple phoning up AMD and asking them about their fine range of processors...
Re: As a pure guess
"I don't know enough about Macs to know if 32-bit X86 is relevant. That one is Intel's ISA."
It's not really for two reasons. First, Apple made all apps 64-bit, refusing to run 32-bit ones in the penultimate release of Mac OS. Second, most of the X86 ISA has existed long enough that patents on it have expired. AMD64 is newer and may still have patents that can be infringed.
"Then there's SSE / AVX, which are Intel's too. Again, AMD can freely snaffle these under the IPR sharing settlement."
These are more likely targets if Intel were doing it, but I'm guessing that they already reviewed this stuff when Apple announced the ARM compatibility back in June if not months previously.
My guess is that it's not Intel angry about a loss of a large customer but instead some random company which has patented something related to emulation, which the U.S.'s broken patent system accepted. Now Apple's a juicy target and they can sue them. I would have guessed that Apple would defend that instead of destroying their emulation layer since they really need that to encourage their customers not to hold off adoption of the ARM kit, but Apple's lost patent fights before, sometimes with and sometimes without a good reason, so maybe not. Either that or they're going to pull it from somewhere to see how broken things get.
Re: As a pure guess
As mentioned, Intel doesn't hold patents on x64 - though SSE 4.2 (which is the latest SIMD Rosetta 2 supports) would still be covered.
Though it seems unlikely that Intel would sue in countries other than the US, so it has to be something else. To my knowledge no one has ever commercialized static translation that Rosetta 2 does, but that doesn't mean someone didn't patent it. I'm not sure Intel even CAN sue Apple, given that they have a pretty broad patent cross license deal. I imagine that deal may exclude Apple from making a CPU that executes x86 directly but I highly doubt it stops them from offering Rosetta 2.
Given how lax patent standards are for obviousness, I wouldn't be shocked if someone patented "translating instruction set A to instruction set B prior to run-time and caching the result" and in some countries where the courts heavily favor their own companies (China? Russia?) Apple might figure they are likely to lose so better to drop the feature. Maybe they could seek a license to allow using it, but that's easier to do when they can show the patent owner they are willing to drop the feature if they don't get good terms.
Re: As a pure guess
I have a feeling that there's often restrictions in EULAs about "translation", and the forbidding of it. JIT gets away with it because there's no permanency to the translation, and fundamentally it's no different to what a modern CPU does with op code translation anyway. If Rosetta 2 is a static translation, then this might be what's causing the problem.
Take a look at Autodesk's EULA [1]here , section 2.1.1:
"2.1.1 No License Granted; Unauthorized Activities. The parties acknowledge and agree that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, no license is granted (whether expressly, by implication or otherwise) under this Agreement (and this Agreement expressly excludes any right) a) to Excluded Materials, (b)...... or (j) to translate, adapt, arrange, or create derivative works based on, or otherwise modify the Autodesk Materials for any purpose."
That clause j) is pretty solidly not compatible with a static translation. The question is, if one's OS is doing the translation for you, is it oneself who is breaking the EULA by using an OS that does this, or is it the OS developer? It would be pretty bad news for Apple if its customers started to get sued individually by software companies because of something that Apple had done and shipped without thoroughly explaining the risk the end user was taking.
[1] https://download.autodesk.com/us/FY17/Suites/LSA/en-us/lsa.html
Seems Odd, and Big Question
Afterall, Rosetta 1 lasted for donkey's yonks without a murmour of trouble from what I recall. What's so significantly different about Roesetta 2? Or, is it that since the withdrawal of Rosetta 1 the legal landscape has changed, and what was once fine now no longer is?
Mysterious.
The question then is, if you're in a country where Rosetta won't get withdrawn but you travel to one where it will and you take the new iShiny with you, does that mean that MacOS will nuke that part of itself on realising that its in a different territory? Not that anyone is doing much travelling at the moment...
Ultimately I think that if there were some legal / patent issue, that could get over turned on a restraint of trade basis, though that might have to be done on a country by country basis. The "restraint" would be that the legal or patent situation is stiffling competition in the CPU market, by making it nearly impossible for vendors like Apple to switch. IANAL...
This could also have an impact on Windows on ARM, if that were to grow a similar translation layer.
Re: Seems Odd, and Big Question
Windows on ARM already has that. It was 32-bit only but has [1]recently gained X64 compatibility . If that emulation is protected by patents, either Microsoft paid for them or they may face whatever Apple is theorized to be facing.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/11/windows_10_arm_x64/
Re: Seems Odd, and Big Question
Well there we go. It's going to be very interesting to see what transpires. If both Apple and Microsoft get clobbered by this, well that's two very large and presumably annoyed corporations who might actually spend the money to overcome it. Nvidia too, if they acquire ARM.
Re: Seems Odd, and Big Question
The main difference with Rosetta 2 is that it does static translation - it converts an x86 binary into an ARM binary which is then directly executed. To my knowledge, this has never been done commercially before. Rosetta 1 did JIT (just in time) translation which is pretty much what everyone does for translating code, which is a lot slower but a lot easier. If there were patents on JIT they would have expired long ago.
Re: Seems Odd, and Big Question
Could it be some software house that's decided it doesn't want its precious IP translated into a different instruction set? If so it' very short-sighted. Or is it? Opportunity to sell a new version...
Re: Seems Odd, and Big Question
Isn’t that basically a compiler, of which there are many?
It is compiling AMD assembly language rather than something like C, but from a legal point of view, is there any difference?
Surely emulating another CPU/System has been around for so long that any patents would now have expired and lots of prior art would exist for newly granted patents to make them invalid? I remember having emulators on my Amiga 500 in the late 80s which were emulating other CPUs such the Z80 used the Speccy but i suspect emulators go back well before even then.
As a pure guess
This is TimApple preparing for a wave of sue balls heading their way from Intel who are very, very, very protective of their IP.
Could it be possible that Rosetta violates Intel's IP on their instruction set. After all, an instruction set is an API and the US Courts have ruled (Oracle vs Google) that API's are protectable by copyright.
It would be ironic if Rosetta is banned in just the USA. A wonderful advocate for MAGA (not).