I don't agree that it's a distraction. You want to build your core product. You want your productivity to be high to do that. Part of that is being able to run tests with a fast turnaround so that you can be confident in your changes.

Why would it be Apple's responsibility to make x86 optimized code run at native ARM speeds? That makes no sense to me. It's Apple's responsibility to make your upgrade path to ARM hardware as painless as they can. Thus the emulation layer so that for most cases you can just migrate your Intel Mac to the M1 and keep going as before. But you'll want to slowly replace every binary you can w/ the native ARM version if you want to get the performance gains of the M1.

I think it's like saying "it's a distraction to change my software take advantage of multi core CPUs. It's Intel's job to keep making single core performance faster and faster". Intel was making things faster by going from upping the clock speeds to multi core and hype threaded CPUs. If you choose to call it a distraction you'll be missing out on the performance gains other people can take advantage of because their software can take advantage of having more than one CPU available. An easy example is older computer games that basically don't run any faster today than 15 years ago because they can only use one CPU and the clock speeds are almost the same. Other games are able to run enemy AI, pathfinding, the UI rendering thread etc. on different threads and thus take advantage of the multi-core CPUs.

This is not possible, as we work with a specific version and the test DB needs to be the same version / have the same feature as production.

I would like to understand this better. You say it's not possible. Whenever I hear that something is not possible, I instinctively want to dig deeper. Maybe it really isn't. Or maybe there's an assumption somewhere that turns out not to be universally true or that w/ a slight modification and perhaps a divide and conquer strategy it actually is possible. So I'll start w/ the first of the "5 whys": Why is it not possible? ;)

The other advice would be terrible for our team. It would increase the behaviour surface significantly. Now we have huge discrepancies between what runs in production on what runs in test.

What are those huge discrepancies? What exactly are you afraid of will run differently between what runs in test and in production? Keep in mind that I don't know anything about your test suite and what specifically you're testing. Maybe in your exact scenario you're right and it would potentially be bad. In many many situations I've found it's mainly just fear of the uncertainty and in fact there's no issue.

Alternatively: We could also just eat the 13 seconds slowdown, as we doe now or don't use Apple M1s. Both are much better approaches and much more cost efficient.

Like I said, I don't know your specific circumstances but these things can add up. 13 seconds here, 9 seconds there etc. and suddenly your test suite doesn't take 2 minutes to run but 10. That's a significant slowdown of a developer. Even 2 minutes wait time is an eternity if you're trying to move ahead w/ something and now you have to sit there and wait. Worst case your developer decides that 2 minutes is a long enough period of time to "quickly go check HN" and 45 minutes later he emerges from the browser window to see that the test suite failed 10 seconds after he switched to reading HN ;)