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

381–390 of 650 posts

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#381

Post by threeseed »

snuxoll wrote: post #266
threeseed wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Provide a source that Apple actively prevents it. Developers can ask users for their admin password, sudo to root and largely do whatever they want including adding kernel extensions and drivers.

kext's must be signed now, Apple can freely revoke developer certs and block them if they so desire.

Signing was designed for security purposes which is the only reason where certificate revocation has been used to date. There seems to be a lot of FUD here but without any actual hard examples.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#382

Post by int_19h »

MBCook wrote: post #319
int_19h wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the XKCD reference is appropriate. Vulkan is trying to standardize low-level graphics API, which is a niche in which other existing contenders (notably, D3D 12 and Metal) are explicitly platform-specific, and don't even try to be standards outside of their ecosystem. Thus, it fills a useful niche. Yes, it doesn't have a web API. That's because there's no existing web API for low-level graphics of this n…

> Good design would dictate solving it at the lower level first, then building on that for the higher level. I'm guessing the changes that may occur in the lower level aren't big enough to affect the upper level. A lot of people in this discussion seem to just be operating under the assumption that the web API SHOULD be the same as the native API. But if you want a layer of indirection there for any reason (optimizat…

It's not that it should be the same exactly. But I don't see any advantages in it being drastically different. It can be higher-level if needed, but if it's similar both conceptually and in things like semantics and even naming, it's just fewer concepts to hold in your head, and therefore easier to learn. That, to me, is an advantage. Why make stacks more complicated than they need to be?

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#383

Post by shmerl »

stephenr wrote: post #380
shmerl wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The web is always being trumpeted as "works everywhere". This isn't just "The Web". It's a Web interface for intense graphics usage. Expecting it to work if the user doesn't have working drivers is beyond silly. > You can use the web on a lot of devices that you can't install local applications on. And that doesn't mean you have full capabilities there. If user has no control, and vendor doesn't care to keep it up…

> Expecting it to work if the user doesn't have working drivers is beyond silly. It isn't just about working drivers, it's about a specific version of working drivers. Microsoft don't provide Vulkan support on Windows, it's provided by certain GPU drivers, which is pretty much guaranteed to be less than those that support e.g. DirectX on your average PC. > that doesn't mean you have full capabilities there. The point…

I assume you are talking about cases of drivers not being up to date. The reason it's relevant, is because all these new APIs including Vulkan are relatively new. So even if hardware has such capabilities, drivers for it can be lacking because user didn't keep the system / drivers up to date. I don't see how browser makers can fix that, besides warning users that their drivers are too old.

As time goes on, this will be less of an issue. Transitional periods are always more complex.

Again, likely use cases for such APIs are intensive graphics applications like games. So users who are interested in that usually are aware, that it's a bad idea to use outdated drivers. So again, this isn't very different with Web or non Web cases.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#384

Post by berry_sortoro »

I don't actually understand why web 3d APIs need to exist? Why is WEBGL not as feature rich as OpenGL? Cant there be JS bindings or something to just use OpenGL or now Vulkan?

I think Apple can go foff. I don't really care so much for 3D in the browers anyway but if there will be a new API I hope it will be Vulkan based.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#385

Post by threeseed »

hota_mazi wrote: post #93
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 understand and see some merit to your angle, but at the end of the day, I don't think Apple will be taken seriously in that area until they support Vulkan. Go ahead and do that, then we can talk about going up the stack and judging the API you're proposing (and let's be honest, it's really Metal-for-Javascript). Show some good will.

Apple will always be taken seriously since they are not just a major mobile vendor but the only vendor capable of getting any technology widely deployed.

Your arguments are very reminiscent of the "Apple must adopt Flash" era. And as we've learn Apple was 100% right to dump that technology as it was simply a poor fit for mobile.

I've seen nothing about Vulkan that indicates it has some inherent qualities that make it suitable as a Javascript API.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#386

Post by jolux »

saurik wrote: post #334
MBCook wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers don't appear to be bothered by any of those missing freedoms.

Men in America also don't appear to be bothered by having been circumcised, but that is only due to their lack of knowledge and should not be used as evidence that "routine infant circumcision has worked out pretty well for health outcomes in America".

That was an interesting non sequitur...

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#387

Post by jolux »

modeless wrote: post #230
threeseed wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple allows you to provide an alternative API on OSX but not on iOS. Microsoft is exactly the same. They do not support custom APIs on Windows Mobile AFAIK.

> Apple allows you to provide an alternative API on OSX I'll need a source for this claim considering that no driver-level Vulkan implementations are available on macOS.

macOS is not popular among gamers? I don't understand what the problem is.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#388

Post by threeseed »

cwyers wrote: post #242
dkonofalski wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Apple allows GPU manufacturers to ship their own Vulkan support as well.

It's likely not worth the vendor's effort but still.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#389

Post by stephenr »

shmerl wrote: post #383
stephenr wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Expecting it to work if the user doesn't have working drivers is beyond silly. It isn't just about working drivers, it's about a specific version of working drivers. Microsoft don't provide Vulkan support on Windows, it's provided by certain GPU drivers, which is pretty much guaranteed to be less than those that support e.g. DirectX on your average PC. > that doesn't mean you have full capabilities there. The point…

I assume you are talking about cases of drivers not being up to date. The reason it's relevant, is because all these new APIs including Vulkan are relatively new. So even if hardware has such capabilities, drivers for it can be lacking because user didn't keep the system / drivers up to date. I don't see how browser makers can fix that, besides warning users that their drivers are too old. As time goes on, this will…

> I assume you are talking about cases of drivers not being up to date.

No, I'm talking about users even having the unofficial vulkan-supporting drivers installed (on Windows).

Users aren't going to suddenly get Vulkan support in a driver update from Windows/Microsoft Update.

> I don't see how browser makers can fix that, besides warning users that their drivers are too old.

Try to read this carefully, I've mentioned it several times: The point of this WG is to provide an API layer on top of a range of low-level GPU libraries.

For Windows (where Vulkan support is possible but not practical due to the unofficial nature of Vulkan supporting drivers) the most common API library that browsers would use, is DirectX, which is provided and supported by Microsoft, across a vast range of hardware.

No one insists that all browser vendors use the same TLS library, or the same DOM library, or even the same JavaScript engine. They just (aim to) support the same standards, usually building on things already available from the OS.

If you still can't grasp this, I have to assume you're simply trolling.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#390

Post by zamalek »

eddieh wrote: post #331
coldcode wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Your question seems rhetorical, but here are my thoughts anyway... This is the new normal, coinciding with the death of expertise. The WebKit developers clearly are not working in a vacuum, if one bothers to read the blog post: > Our proposal has been received positively by our colleagues at other browser engines, GPU vendors, and framework developers. Not to mention that the WebKit developers are pretty much the for…

> WebKit developers are pretty much the forefathers of all modern web tech.

IE4 was the forefather of modern web tech[1].

> They erroneously conclude that WebGL's successor must also be a Vulkan based solution. [...] All of which is is essentially the tech version of "libtard" based arguments.

No, people are sick of working against 3 different APIs. One of which is a standard. It's Microsoft doing their own thing with IE all over again. A safe subset of Vulkan would be familiar and would have existing documentation. All designed by GPU experts.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_HTML

Post reply on HN