Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

webkit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 650 posts

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#161

Post by jsheard »

msie wrote: post #125

MS doesn't support Vulkan! Why are many people bashing Apple as the sole company not supporting it??? MS has abandoned OpenGL in support of D3D. Why have people forgotten this???

Microsoft doesn't need to support Vulkan, because Windows is flexible enough that GPU vendors can expose other APIs like OpenGL or Vulkan without Microsoft's permission.

It's a very different situation to macOS, where Apple are the sole gatekeepers of the graphics stack and nothing can ever happen without their direct support.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#162

Post by dkonofalski »

fnord123 wrote: post #147
dkonofalski wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by "not supporting Vulkan on their platforms"? I thought Vulkan was an API that software developers used for graphics... Isn't that a part of OpenGL? Is Apple actively blocking something or have they just left something out?

Vulkan is a new API distinct from OpenGL. It's lower level but has a nicer API in some respects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulkan_(API) Apple decided to not support Vulkan as it had been developing a competing API called Metal at around the same time. I don't know why they don't also support Vulkan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_(API)

But Microsoft isn't supporting Vulkan in Windows either, so why is there only a fuss about Apple's support for it? Both companies have competing API's (Direct X and Metal), but Apple is the only one getting flack for it. Why is that?

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#164

Post by acqq »

int_19h wrote: post #119
om2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you're focused on what is best for Vulkan, not what is best for the web.

So far as I can see, the argument he's making is that there's already an actively emerging standard for a 3D API outside of the web, so it would make sense if the web also jumped on the same bandwagon, and we could have a single API everywhere. That makes sense to me. What is special about the web that should exclude it from the single API narrative?

The standard in question is still "one of the standards" (and a "me too" one, "the one to end all the previous standards" (1) as far as I see it) not the standard.

Remember claims of Flash being the necessary thing on the mobile web, and efficient too? It turned out it was never true.

Note there's still no web version of "pure" Vulkan. If it gets to be modified to be less "ridiculously low level" in its web variant, it is anyway going to come closer to the goal Apple proposes for the web.

Again, to quote from the Apples proposal: "We don’t expect this to become the actual API that ends up in the standard, and maybe not even the one that the Community Group decides to start with, but we think there is a lot of value in working code. Other browser engines have made their own similar prototypes. It will be exciting to collaborate with the community and come up with a great new technology for graphics."

---------------

1) https://xkcd.com/927/

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#165

Post by brians »

ioquatix wrote: post #105
om2 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are wrong on that. Vulkan is a low-level native API, not a JavaScript API for the web. Lots of design work needs to be done. In addition, even on platforms where there are unofficial Vulkan drivers (such as Windows), it's likely the natively available API will still have more complete support and better performance. So either way, we need a cross-platform graphics API. Let's focus this discussion on impro…

I think what you are going to find is that there is a lot of frustration w.r.t. Apple not supporting Vulkan. One system for everything else and one system for Apple. > I think you are wrong on that. Vulkan is a low-level native API, not a JavaScript API for the web. Lots of design work needs to be done. Nothing you assert here is invalid. But, I think you've missed the main point, which is that people don't want an e…

Vulkan isn't designed for adversarial input. The web language has to be. That alone is likely to require a ground-up redesign.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#166

Post by ricardobeat »

om2 wrote: post #90
kuschku wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Working on top of all the major APIs is the right thing for the web. No, the right thing for the broader ecosystem is working only on Vulkan, and forcing Apple to adopt Vulkan, so that one API is usable natively on every OS, device (even Nintendo will support Vulkan on its consoles!) and browser. If Apple wants to go their own way, sure, but they’ll be cut off from the rest of the world, and quickly realize where t…

Sounds like you're focused on what is best for Vulkan, not what is best for the web.

Care to explain? Why is Vulkan not good for the web?

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#167

Post by Kubuxu »

om2 wrote: post #136
om2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We expect DirectX 12 drivers to be more complete, more performant, and more likely to be available out of the box without a separate install. We expect Windows browsers will want to build on top of DirectX, not Vulkan.

https://www.lunarg.com/faqs/microsoft-support-vulkan/ Microsoft won't support Vulkan officially, and apps would have to install their own Vulkan drivers.

Not true, Vulcan drivers are included in drivers of the GPU manufacturer.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#168

Post by detaro »

dkonofalski wrote: post #162
fnord123 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vulkan is a new API distinct from OpenGL. It's lower level but has a nicer API in some respects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulkan_(API) Apple decided to not support Vulkan as it had been developing a competing API called Metal at around the same time. I don't know why they don't also support Vulkan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_(API)

But Microsoft isn't supporting Vulkan in Windows either, so why is there only a fuss about Apple's support for it? Both companies have competing API's (Direct X and Metal), but Apple is the only one getting flack for it. Why is that?

For Windows I install a graphics driver by the GPU maker and get Vulkan support (according to wikipedia that is the case for Nvidia, AMD and Intel), since Windows allows drivers to offer such APIs without any specific support by Microsoft. With a Mac all the drivers come via Apple, without support for it.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#169

Post by cma »

om2 wrote: post #89
cma wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple knows they aren't going to push something closed like Metal itself onto the web, so they want to make the web API easy to use with Metal as a backend instead. The end goal is to maintain Metal as a proprietary bit of tech for native apps, in order to make it more burdensome for people to port native apps away from the Apple platform and as a result give Apple more exclusive apps and more artificial barriers to…

Turns out that you don't have to bend over backwards if you're already supporting Vulkan and DirectX 12. But still, the ability to run your awesome 3D web apps on Apple platforms seems to be a good reason to support a Metal back end.

I think 3D web standards are going to take off in spite of Apple. Apple might even end up supporting Vulkan as a result.

That would be a really great outcome for consumers (including Apple users) and developers and only not so great for Apple and its lock-in strategy. Seems like a net positive.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#170

Post by Geee »

madeofpalk wrote: post #130
mbrookes wrote: post #6

Hey Apple, how about developing your browsers to support modern web technologies first?

Like?

http://iswebrtcreadyyet.com/

Obviously Safari wouldn't matter if Apple allowed other browsers on iOS, but no, they insist on dragging the whole Internet a few years behind.

Post reply on HN