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

451–460 of 650 posts

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#451

Post by ioquatix »

hifigi wrote: post #434
ioquatix wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because it was designed to be high-performance doesn't mean it automatically wins on platform support and implementation quality. I never asserted that. I didn't even qualify what I meant by "BEST". But, let's evaluate the qualities you mention: > platform support Vulkan objectively wins here, supporting Windows 7/8/10, Linux, macOS/iOS with a wrapper, Android, etc. Intel has unofficial drivers for their x86 i…

I make no argument against what you've said except you used Valve as an "appeal to authority", when they have a vested interest in promoting Vulkan (since SteamOS is based on Linux). So of course they will be persuading developers to use Vulkan over DX12, because it broadens the domain of users who can buy an individual title on Steam.

If you look up the endorsement by Valve, it's not just a straight up "Use Vulkan" but a well reasoned set of arguments and case studies by people with a lot of experience. So, this is not an "appeal to authority", but a reference to an existing body of research which supports my assertions.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#452

Post by MrScruff »

saurik wrote: post #140
madeofpalk wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...but Vulcan wouldnt run in a web browser anyway so whether Apple platforms support Vulcan or not is kind of beside the point, isnt it?

That's like saying "OpenGL doesn't run in a web browser"... and then it did, because someone understood that having 99% the same API and shader language support in a web browser as what is used in native applications is extremely high value.

It runs in a web browser sitting on top of different underlying apis though. Which is basically what's being suggest here.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#453

Post by fnord123 »

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…

>which covers 99.99999999999999% of all Windows machines where this is an issue.

TIL Matrox only has <00.00000000000001% of the market. :(

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#454

Post by saurik »

jolux wrote: post #386
saurik wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It is not a non sequitur: it is the same argument applied to another situation where people fall into the same trap of lack of knowledge leading to a lack of understanding of their own plight (we might even call it a "blissful ignorance"). The other person who responded to the same parent comment saying "it's hard to be consciously bothered by the lack of something that you've never experienced?" could have been leaving that exact same comment with respect to having an intact foreskin in response to someone claiming the point about circumcision.

Do you really not see the parallels? It seemed like a really great way to point out the fallacy here and demonstrate that "just because people aren't complaining, and even if when asked they are adamant they don't have a problem (an even stronger position than simply that they aren't going out of their way to complain), it clearly doesn't imply they don't have a problem if they haven't been given the necessary knowledge to understand or appreciate the problem" without having to directly engage with the broken logic (which is, of course, impossible).

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#455

Post by saurik »

MrScruff wrote: post #452
saurik wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying "OpenGL doesn't run in a web browser"... and then it did, because someone understood that having 99% the same API and shader language support in a web browser as what is used in native applications is extremely high value.

It runs in a web browser sitting on top of different underlying apis though. Which is basically what's being suggest here.

Many of the people in this thread are looking for the analogous solution to WebGL for Vulkan, and the primary argument for not doing it from the WebKit engineers is that Vulkan is a lower-level API than Metal and DirectX 12, which makes it difficult to impossible to simulate efficiently on top of those APIs; but, this is actually only a problem because Apple refuses to implement Vulkan.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#456

Post by MrScruff »

microcolonel wrote: post #205
om2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're not complaining, we're explaining the lay of the land. Working on top of all three of these APIs is totally doable and will result in a better API for the web. Things worth noting: - We believe other browser vendors agree with us that the web API should work on all three of the major native APIs. - The web has security requirements which force us to go a bit higher-level than Vulkan anyway. I understand your de…

While Microsoft hasn't committed to supporting Vulkan first-party, every major Windows(and macOS) graphics vendor has a compliant Windows Vulkan driver which performs well, most vendors have two or three independent implementations. There are real applications being built today under the assumption that these drivers will continue to work. Also, given that Windows versions other than ten still make up more than half…

Intel doesn't have a production quality Vulcan driver as of now.

Considering that browsers implemented WebGL on top of DirectX, why would it be any different for a proposed new API?

In which case it's reasonable to at least have a discussion about what this new API might look like.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#457

Post by MrScruff »

modeless wrote: post #188
om2 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it happens, OpenGL was so high level that supporting it on top of DirectX was feasible. A number of Windows browsers use the DirectX back end to ANGLE, so users don't have to download OpenGL drives. Unfortunately, that doesn't work as well for Vulkan. Vulkan is the lowest-level of the three APIs, so it's hard to support on top of Metal or DirectX 12.

Since WebGL was released, Microsoft has demonstrated a new willingness to support Web graphics. They joined Khronos, and now ship a WebGL implementation of their own with Windows . I have confidence that if the industry moved toward a WebVulkan standard that this new Microsoft would make platform changes to better support it. Unfortunately I have no such confidence about Apple.

Shipping WebGL is not the same as shipping OpenGL support, which they don't do. WebGL on Windows browsers is built on DirectX. Apple ship a WebGL enabled browser.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#458

Post by MrScruff »

cmiles74 wrote: post #118
om2 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vulkan on Windows is all based on unofficial drivers that don't come with Windows and aren't supported by MS. We don't think it's right to depend on this even if it's theoretically possible. Likewise for unofficial macOS/iOS drivers.

Is it your position that the only drivers worth using are those produced by the operating system's vendor? While I suppose this would make sense to Apple, it sounds entirely crazy to me. IMHO, it makes much more sense for the hardware vendor to write the drivers.

The web is supposed to be a universal platform. It doesn't make much sense to limit a feature to the subsection of web users who install graphics drivers.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#459

Post by sametmax »

om2 wrote: post #79
hota_mazi wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand your desire to have Vulkan on Apple platforms, but it's really a separate issue from the right target for WebGPU. No, it's not a separate issue. If Apple supported Vulcan, the simple act of proposing this new API as a standard would be laughed out of the room. We can only speculate why Apple won't support Vulcan but I'm going to go with "Prefer a solution they designed themselves over one designed by o…

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…

The persons in favor of Vulkan in this thread don't have to prove their point, you have. Their solution works, is battle tested, is cross platform and almost an industry standard.

Unless you backup the Apple proposal with serious evidences such as :

- hard metrics on performance benefits, why you need them, and why you can't improve vulkan to get them;

- demonstration of blatant issues with the vulkan API and very good solution you can implement and why you can't improve vulkan to get them;

- strong evaluation of the benefits your solution provide given the cost it would have compared to adopting vulkan.

Then you have no credibility.

"Let's fix something that works" is rarely welcomed in programming. Coming from a company that is well known for disrespecting the rest of the world by creating their own island of closed standards and help noone pass the border, it's even worst.

On this one, you are guilty until proven innocent, I'm sorry.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#460

Post by fnord123 »

liuliu wrote: post #321
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)

Saying it is around the same time is to ignore the history. Metal is available since Jun 2014. Vulkan announced on 2015 and the initial release is on 2016.

You're right. And Vulkan is based on Mantle which was already available in 2013 (in drivers; with api docs available in 2015 for some reason[1]). Why Kronos/Valve/etc didn't use Metal as a starting point, I don't know.

[1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/9095/amd-mantle-api-programmin...

Post reply on HN