I think if you are going to argue that something is technically challenging, then the technical arguments are what is relevant.
Not when the technical arguments are being used to obscure instead of illuminate.
Some applications will certainly have challenges, particularly those with complex third party dependencies or those specifically optimized for x64, and any assembly code will have to be re-written.
So here you're finally willing to acknowledge what I was saying, yet getting you to admit to this was like pulling teeth.
With all due respect, here's the problem I have with what you've been doing. In your initial response to my post, if you wanted to act in a collegial, helpful manner, you could have instead written something to this effect right from the start (maybe it's not exactly correct, but you get the idea):
"If you have a self-contained set of code designed for MacOS under Intel, you actually can recompile it to run under AS 'at the touch of a button'. Having said that, the essence of what you are saying is correct, since many apps aren't self-contained sets of code. Instead, they are linked to libraries, or have other dependencies, that must also be ported to AS, and this can create challenges. Further, sometimes they are specifically optimized for x64, which means assembly code must be rewritten. So, yes, it is a misleading trivialization of the process to say that apps can be ported 'at the touch of a button'."
Let me give an example from my own field. I'm trained in physical chemistry, and frequently participate on chemistry forums. Suppose someone asks the following: "Isn't the only reason we care about ΔG_system is that it act as a surrogate for ΔS_universe, and it's the latter that really matters when it comes to determining spontaneity"?
Here's the helpful and collegial response: "Yes, that's essentially correct. However, you should note that ΔG_system = –TΔS_universe holds only under conditions of constant T and p (which are, granted, the most-commonly specified conditions). Under other conditions, you would need to use a different state function as a surrogate for ΔS_universe (e.g., at constant T and V you would use ΔA_system). Since you are working at constant T and p, ΔG is applicable."
And here's the non-helpful game-playing response that, while techncially correct, obscures the essence of what's going on: "It's not generally the case that ΔG_system can be used as a surrogate for ΔS_universe. For instance, if you are at constant T and V, you can't use ΔG_system as a surrogate for ΔS_universe."
The person who gives the latter response generally isn't interested in being helpful and promoting understanding. Rather, they're more interested in telling the other person they're wrong. I'm sure, being in a technical field yourself, you've encountered that type of individual.
Now ask yourself which of the two of these your original response most closely mirrored.
