That’s on the developers to be honest, less so on Apple (but Apple is not entirely guilt free). It was very clear in 2016 that they should’ve been targeting 64bit.

Not really, Apple could have just supported running 32 bit apps.

Google is pulling similar things in the Play Store. They will pull apps just because they are not 64 bit. They delayed the deadline for a year now, because many developers really don't care.

And as a consumer it really does not matter. Why would a 32 bit app not work 10 years from now?

They could have, but they chose to not have stalled developers on their platform instead.

That's a stupid argument, when comparing to windows examples, were that simply doesn't matter, you develop for current and 20years later it's supported.

There is no technical reason (in that they could technically keep 32bit support) for Apple to drop 32bit support since the x86 CPUs they rely on support them - i've heard that there were some architectural reasons with Cocoa (i think) that made it harder to do that, but they came up with that architecture themselves while knowing that people have invested on 32bit support. They knowingly decided that making the work easier for a handful of people was more important than the many thousands of applications that would break - they put themselves above their customers.

Go ahead and install Wine x86 on a Gentoo x64. Only then you will understand what it means to support 32 bit apps.

I heard that the 32-bit Objective-C runtime was just a massive pain to support because it never got the new features from 2.0.

Suppose the sole developer died five years ago. Had he created an application for Windows, his users would still get to enjoy it. Had he created a FOSS application and given his users the source code, his users would still get to enjoy it. But if he created a closed source MacOS application, then his application soon joins him in death.

Oh hey, Drawful 2 is the reason I’m not upgrading!