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

Native visionOS platform support

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 346 posts

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#111

Post by throwaway314155 »

drexlspivey wrote: post #99
andsoitis wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple TV for games is super niche, with very little market share in the big scheme of things. Even when it comes to TV, Apple realized they had to create an Apple TV+ app for other platforms to extend the reach of their investment in shows/movies beyond their own hardware.

If they could just let Geforce Now (NVIDIA Cloud gaming platform) ship a native app I would use my Apple TV much more. But no, they prefer to be extremely hostile to users over some app store bs.

You can still use moonlight.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#112

Post by kimixa »

troupo wrote: post #94
bigyabai wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people are (rightfully) upset at the business-oriented decisions that limit MacOS as a platform, prevent competition on iOS and demand annual tithes from their developers like they're peons tilling land for coin. These are fair criticisms, prosecuted in a few courts even, and well within the realm of reasonable change. Apple makes great things for their users when they collaborate with the industry. That's wh…

> That's why we're concerned when they abandon standards Is DirectX a standard? Is Playstation NDK (or whatever it's called) a standard? Vulkan is not a "standard". It's a designed-by-committee API that arrived on the scene years after "non-standard" APIs.

> It's a designed-by-committee API

So a "standard"?

Maybe I'm biased as I was involved with the standardization - but the whole point of a standard is something is legally possible to implement, communicates the needed information to the layer below, and general enough that it doesn't require specific hardware.

All boxes are checked by Vulkan? At least that was the intention.

So what if the origin of Vulkan was AMD's donation of Mantle, and the committee knocked the "hardware specific" points off - isn't that the desired result?

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#113

Post by tormeh »

willtemperley wrote: post #60
skeptrune wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The visionOS platform doesn't have OpenGL support, as it's not supported by visionOS. Hell would freeze over before Apple conformed and contributed to an existing open standard. They even failed to follow the Godot contribution guide for the PR itself.

> Hell would freeze over before Apple conformed and contributed to an existing open standard. Why the vitriol? Apple did in fact initiate and co-create the WebGPU standard [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebGPU Edit to include quote of parent comment.

It's my impression that the WebGPU spec design team went to extreme lengths to accommodate Apple's wishes, and Apple in turn does not even support WebGPU in Safari. Why not express vitriol? Apple does not seem to act in good faith.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#114

Post by tough »

andsoitis wrote: post #59
KeplerBoy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh, I'd say it's a cheap addition when you already have to support iOS and iPadOS devices. Also market share is secondary if people are willing to buy it as a dedicated device and it is cheap (130$) when talking about people's expenditures for this hobby. But yeah, I'm not an Insider and I'd love to know why they're supporting the apple tv but don't offer the Android App on the Google tv platform. Maybe something ab…

> cheap addition when you already have to support iOS and iPadOS devices. Presentation form factor and input modality is different on LRUD compared to touch, 10’ vs handheld. There’s an opportunity cost: it is better to improve the user experience on the vast majority of TV devices (eg Samsung or Android TV or Fire tv) than it is to support a tiny market share device like Apple TV that you now also need to keep up to…

arent all apps just expo react webui wrappers nowadays?

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#115

Post by tormeh »

troupo wrote: post #93
andsoitis wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not relevant. The VisionOS crew have decided to not support OpenXR and Apple has broadly decided not to support Vulkan, which, together with DirectX are the primary VR rendering technologies.

> The VisionOS crew have decided to not support OpenXR and Apple has broadly decided not to support Vulkan Because they already have their own graphics API called Metal. Why aren't you asking Microsoft to drop DirectX and start first-party support for Vulkan?

Because DirectX is a success and Metal is not.

If Apple wanted Metal to be a success then they'd need Windows devices to support it, and ideally a console too (like DirectX with Xbox).

There's a lot of bad things you can say about Vulkan's market position relative to DirectX, but it's clearly more successful than Metal. More games and work applications are written in it. I don't see what Apple gains from going their own way. Maybe Vulkan will rot by committee like OpenGL once did, but that hasn't happened yet.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#116

Post by pjmlp »

tormeh wrote: post #115
troupo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The VisionOS crew have decided to not support OpenXR and Apple has broadly decided not to support Vulkan Because they already have their own graphics API called Metal. Why aren't you asking Microsoft to drop DirectX and start first-party support for Vulkan?

Because DirectX is a success and Metal is not. If Apple wanted Metal to be a success then they'd need Windows devices to support it, and ideally a console too (like DirectX with Xbox). There's a lot of bad things you can say about Vulkan's market position relative to DirectX, but it's clearly more successful than Metal. More games and work applications are written in it. I don't see what Apple gains from going their…

I am quite certain the folks selling iOS games see it otherwise.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#117

Post by pjmlp »

andsoitis wrote: post #100
troupo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The VisionOS crew have decided to not support OpenXR and Apple has broadly decided not to support Vulkan Because they already have their own graphics API called Metal. Why aren't you asking Microsoft to drop DirectX and start first-party support for Vulkan?

The reality is that virtual reality and gaming technology have largely converged on DirectX and Vulkan for rendering. I can empathize with Apple’s desire to get more adoption of Metal, but I predict it is an uphill battle to insist on it on platforms like spatial computing that is already having a very hard time to win adoption.

Forgetting about NVN and LibGNM/LibGNMX?

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#118

Post by pjmlp »

troupo wrote: post #94
bigyabai wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people are (rightfully) upset at the business-oriented decisions that limit MacOS as a platform, prevent competition on iOS and demand annual tithes from their developers like they're peons tilling land for coin. These are fair criticisms, prosecuted in a few courts even, and well within the realm of reasonable change. Apple makes great things for their users when they collaborate with the industry. That's wh…

> That's why we're concerned when they abandon standards Is DirectX a standard? Is Playstation NDK (or whatever it's called) a standard? Vulkan is not a "standard". It's a designed-by-committee API that arrived on the scene years after "non-standard" APIs.

NVN on the Switch, PlayStation has two APIs, one high level and one low level one, LibGNMX and LibGNM respectively.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#119

Post by pjmlp »

mattlondon wrote: post #91
tim-- wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have done that. They gave some cash money to CodeWeavers, the company that created wine. It's called the Game Porting Toolkit: https://developer.apple.com/games/game-porting-toolkit/

That's the problem I think: porting. As I understand things, proton allows windows games to just work (pun intended) on Linux. No porting, no rebuild - just download and run. Who is going to bother doing all the extra work to port their game for Mac?! Time and time again there have been loads of articles on here over the years with developers saying it is simply not worth the hassle to support Linux and Mac.

The same folks that bother for iOS and iPad games, Nintendo Switch and PlayStation.

Most studios aren't religious about APIs like FOSS developers, they create API agnostic engines with plugabble backends and move on with what is relevant for their game IP.

It has been like this since the dawn of computer games being fully written in Assembly across 8 bit snowflakes.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#120

Post by ykl »

tormeh wrote: post #113
willtemperley wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hell would freeze over before Apple conformed and contributed to an existing open standard. Why the vitriol? Apple did in fact initiate and co-create the WebGPU standard [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebGPU Edit to include quote of parent comment.

It's my impression that the WebGPU spec design team went to extreme lengths to accommodate Apple's wishes, and Apple in turn does not even support WebGPU in Safari. Why not express vitriol? Apple does not seem to act in good faith.

WebGPU works just fine in Safari on my iPhone. It was enabled by default starting with iOS 18.2.
Post reply on HN