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

241–250 of 650 posts

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#241

Post by sxcurry »

nicc wrote: post #149

Apple proposing standards is ridiculous. They only care about standards when they're basically forced to adopt/support them, or they're their own. These are the same guys that: - use lightning instead of mini USB - removed the headphone jack - are creating yet another proprietary connector for accessories - don't allow their OS on third-party hardware - only allow developing for iOS from macOS - only allow apps on iO…

I'm disappointed that I had to scroll this far down to get to the real heart of the matter - Apple removing the headphone jack!

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#242

Post by cwyers »

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?

Two major reasons:

1) Windows allows the GPU manufacturers to ship their own Vulkan support; AMD, Nvidia and Intel all do this, which covers 99.99999999999999% of all Windows machines where this is an issue. It's not as good as native support, but it's good enough.

2) Windows has over 90% market share on desktop. macOS has far, far less. It's a lot easier to get people to support your API when you have that kind of market share. iOS doesn't have enough market share for devs to ignore Android.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#243

Post by coldcode »

NickGerleman wrote: post #9

"The major platform technologies in this space are Direct3D 12 from Microsoft, Metal from Apple, and Vulkan from the Khronos Group. While these technologies have similar design concepts, unfortunately none are available across all platforms." So Apple, the only company not supporting Vulkan on their platforms, is complaining that there isn't a cross-platform solution?

Why is Vulcan so magical that everyone in this thread thinks it is the only choice?

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#244

Post by vilya »

All of you complaining about this proposal not being based on Vulkan seem to be overlooking the fact that Vulkan is actually quite cumbersome to use. Metal, on the other hand, is a really well designed API and in my opinion strikes just the right balance between performance and usability. If it was available for non-Mac platforms too, it would be my first choice of graphics API every time. So for me, a cross platform web graphics API based on Metal is really quite an exciting prospect - much more so than one based on Vulkan - and I applaud Apple for proposing it.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#246

Post by sipos »

revelation wrote: post #46
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #8

I feel like Apple are just trying to get in early with a proposal so they don't get forced into supporting Vulkan (and wasting all that effort on Metal). Mind you, it does at least look like they're trying not to be jerks about it (even if the motivation is somewhat selfish). They specifically mention the competition to Metal and how "webgpu" is ideally an abstraction that'll sit on-top of Vulkan, Metal and Direct3D…

It is not "seen as non-ideal", it was the very point of existence for all of those standards. Graphic apis had become a leaking abstraction of non-standardized driver behavior with single-digit FPS lurking around every non-popular feature corner. It is a joke to suggest putting another abstraction over the low-level api. That is squarely the domain of libraries and frameworks.

> It is a joke to suggest putting another abstraction over the low-level api. That is squarely the domain of libraries and frameworks.

That's fine for native apps when the libraries and frameworks can be native and thus high performance but, on the web, these have to compile to JavaScript and, while that can be very fast, a native framework is going to be faster than one running in JavaScript ontop of a lower-level API. This is a problem with the web though.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#247

Post by mrpippy »

ioquatix wrote: post #203
mrpippy wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel has no stated intention of releasing production-quality Vulkan drivers for Windows. Forum statement from August: The current Plan Of Record is that Intel® is not supporting Vulkan on Windows drivers. The drivers that were made available on Developer.com are intended for Vulkan developers. So, it is expected that some Vulkan drivers may not work for end users.

A quick google finds an Intel representative providing clarification: https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/developing-games-and... So, they ARE planning full Vulkan support on Intel iGPUs.

Good find, it's a shame that the only info is buried in forums and there's no timeline or official statements.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#248

Post by xenadu02 »

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 is not suitable for exposure directly to the web. Full stop.

Therefore your posts are off-topic.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#249

Post by greggman »

This probably doesn't matter but one of the advantages of WebGL is it's just OpenGL ES so porting to it is relatively simple.

On the other hand all the big engines already support multiple backends so adding another for yet another API is probably not a problem

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#250

Post by cma »

modeless wrote: post #202
zbuttram wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What people seem to be missing here is that based on available info it seems Microsoft isn't officially supporting Vulkan either. Sure Nvidia and AMD have released drivers for Windows that have Vulkan support, but we're talking about a web standard that would need to be implemented by browser makers and if Microsoft isn't going to use Vulkan, then what do they implement as the backing for this new standard in Edge? P…

There is a difference between "not officially supporting" Vulkan and completely preventing anyone from providing a Vulkan implementation for your platform. Microsoft allows competing APIs to be integrated into their platform at the driver level. Apple does not.

FWIW, Microsoft doesn't allow that on ARM. Only where they have previous antitrust decisions holding them back (x86).
Post reply on HN