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

61–70 of 650 posts

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#61

Post by kristofferR »

om2 wrote: post #41
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?

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…

Why is DirectX support needed? Isn't Vulkan supported on the same platforms as DirectX anyway?

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#62

Post by om2 »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #39

That API looks potentially more pleasant to use than WebGL, which is a nice surprise given it's purportedly more low-level.

That's one of the benefits of designing an API for the web from the get-go, instead of just literally copying an API that's meant to be used from C. It makes for a cleaner and nicer API, even though some lower-level details are exposed.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#64

Post by kuschku »

om2 wrote: post #50
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…

Is that really a "just" or is it the right thing to do? Working on top of all the major APIs is the right thing for the web. We've discussed our proposal a lot with key players in this space (including other browsers, GPU vendors, relevant ISVs) and we're pretty sure a cross-API abstraction is the way to go. Some even want to build a form of cross-API abstraction at the native C/C++ level.

> 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 they went wrong.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#65

Post by Benjamin_Dobell »

om2 wrote: post #50
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…

Is that really a "just" or is it the right thing to do? Working on top of all the major APIs is the right thing for the web. We've discussed our proposal a lot with key players in this space (including other browsers, GPU vendors, relevant ISVs) and we're pretty sure a cross-API abstraction is the way to go. Some even want to build a form of cross-API abstraction at the native C/C++ level.

No disrespect intended. You've undoubtedly got a much better grasp of these APIs than I do! However...

> Working on top of all the major APIs is the right thing for the web.

A standard is the right thing for the web. Whether that's an abstraction or agreement upon an existing implementation remains to be seen.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#66

Post by tyoverby »

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?

Apples handling of Vulcan / Metal should be a colossal embarrassment.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#67

Post by ChuckMcM »

om2 wrote: post #41
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?

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…

The optics are just really bad. Apple could say "In the mean time we'll support Vulkan" and bam! there is a cross platform solution. Instead you say "We will generously let everyone implement our specifications, we hate to see everyone suffering so, but if everyone else works really hard to do what we say, things will be great!"

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#68

Post by y_u_no_rust »

whyileft wrote: post #40
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait... what? Deceptive... really? Come on now. http://caniuse.com/ In terms of tracked features they're ahead of Edge with both their stable release and in development (TP) builds. Don't let your own prejudices distort reality.

http://caniuse.com/#feat=notifications Every. single. other. browser. Including desktop Safari.

Honestly fuck notifications

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#69

Post by om2 »

kristofferR wrote: post #61
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…

Why is DirectX support needed? Isn't Vulkan supported on the same platforms as DirectX anyway?

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.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#70

Post by pygy_ »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #27
corysama wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is intended to be WebVulkan|WebDX12|WebMetal with room for other possible underlying implementations. In general, Vulkan was not designed with the web in mind. For example: Vulkan's design intentionally has a whole lot of undefined behavior. Instead of strictly specifying what happens in all possible accidental cases, they strictly specify what is defined and provide debug layers that help you identify during de…

> Also, I expect Vulkan was designed with the expectation of process-level isolation being the end-all of security concerns. That's not sufficient for single-process, multi-tab browsers. Chrome has process isolation, and Firefox is developing process isolation right now. I don't think it makes sense for a new technology stack to go out of its way to support single-process multi-tab browsers.

But even in chrome, several tabs can share the same process, which means that information can be leaked, cross-tab.
Post reply on HN