I want to take the opportunity to celebrate the editor is still not fully Apple Silicon native and yet requires the installation of Rosetta.
Big applause to the non-support of something that’s almost 10 years old.
Bravo !
Rosetta 2 was released with macOS Big Sur in November 2020, five years ago. A bit strange to call this “almost 10 years old”.
Nowadays, all of Unity’s own components are Apple Silicon native. I suspect the holdouts are legacy libraries that are there for backwards compatibility, which I think is fine, Rosetta 2 is a small component that won’t affect your system.
Apple has already announced they’ll remove Rosetta 2 in macOS 28, so Unity has a hard deadline of about two years anyway.
Not the original post author, but I can confirm that even today, in 2026, even the latest alpha version does not run without Rosetta 2 despite it showing up as Apple Silicon in the Installs list. Somewhat obviously, the 6.3 LTS version does not run either.
I would be much happier if it would simply disable components that don’t work natively as I refuse to run Rosetta 2 on my main machine.
The earlier comment that Rosetta 2 is a small component that won’t affect your system is absolutely untrue. Allowing anything to run x86_64 code behind your back will affect performance if your system, and that is simply unacceptable to some users.
Well, then you went wrong choosing Unity in the first place. Go write your own engine all in hand-crafted assembly, you can’t compromise on performance after all.
This is also happening for me on a new MacOS and unity install with the latest “Apple Silicon” 6000.3 release. I hope they’re working on it, because Rosetta 2 be discontinued by MacOS 27 
I don’t think that is the case. I upgraded my Mac to 26.4.1 and it started warning about Unity having x86 software – I already have Rosetta installed since I bought my M1 Max Mac, so this is Apple’s last warning before Rosetta is removed by macOS 27. Activity Monitor showed that UnityPackageManager is still “Intel”, despite the rest of the Unity 6.0(f62) binaries are already Apple Silicon-native:
The only other relevant thread on this was from April 2025:
@MarcAlain_Tetreault Would you mind giving us an update on this, given that there only about 5~6 months before macOS 27?
UnityPackageManager is already native Apple Silicon from at least Unity 6.3. Running the latest 6.3 version, I don’t see any Intel processes during regular use of the editor.
Unity 6.0 is supported until October (or October 2027 if you’re on an Enterprise / Industry license). Rosetta will be removed in macOS 28 (not 27), which will probably release sometime in fall 2027. Unity 6.0 is going full EOL right when Rosetta will be removed, so I wouldn’t bet on 6.0 ever being fully Apple Silicon native.
Oh I see. I don’t know why it was drilled into my head that Rosetta was going away as soon as macOS 27.
Except Unity IS doing their job:
This thread was just posted:
“Intel components will be deprecated beginning in Unity 6.6, and Unity 6.7 LTS will be the last release to include them.”
The Unity 6.6 Alpha has been out for a while.
More like Unity does their job when they are FORCED to…
Even in that thread you posted:
This decision is necessary because macOS 27 is confirmed to be the final macOS version from Apple that will include support for Rosetta 2.
So they only decide to switch once macOS tells them that Rosetta 2 is being deprecated! I’m suprised they didn’t instead just drop support for macOS, so good on Unity! 
I wish in that post they explained more which components are still x86 based so we could gain some insight but oh well 
This is about being cross platform, the opposite to your “hand crafted assembly”. And while apple is leading in ARM adoption, your phone still runs on it. Or are you still on Windows Phone? x86 is waning. Beset from all sides, you might say. And that is good. We want stuff that could run on Risc-V.
Why you want Unity to obsolete on some platforms is beyond me. But if you’re a fan of weird legacy code bloat, you do you.
Not sure what argument you are construing here.
My comment was a knee-jerk reaction to the argument that the Unity editor still containing some legacy x86 code is somehow a huge issue (performance or otherwise). If the editor containing a few legacy components that still require Rosetta is a problem for someone, then Unity’s very nature should be antithetical to their values (being a huge, complex and redundant amalgamation of all kinds of components).