Why You Should Use OpenGL and Not DirectX

stickyboot writes "The independent games developer Wolfire describes why they decided to use OpenGL instead of DirectX. The article mainly discusses the marketing strategies behind DirectX and how the API became so popular. It also goes over why a developer would choose OpenGL over DirectX and what this decision means for the gamer. 'Back in 1997, the situation was similar to how it is now. Microsoft was running a massive marketing campaign for Direct3D, and soon everyone "just knew" that it was faster and better than OpenGL. This started to change when Chris Hecker published his open letter denouncing DirectX. Soon after that, John Carmack posted his famous OpenGL rant, and put his money where his mouth was by implementing all of Id Software's games in OpenGL, proving once and for all that DirectX was unnecessary for high-end 3D gaming. This lesson appears to have been forgotten over the last few years. Most game developers have fallen under the spell of DirectX marketing, or into the whirlpool of vicious cycles and network advantages.'"

Comments

OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[sopssa]

I am still kind of surprised that even after so many years, the open source communitys answer to marketing is only ranting about it.

Providing libraries, API's or platforms is NOT only about technical platform. *Nothing* in the world works like that. You must "market" it to companies, create a community around it with the right people and actually provide support and good tools to the developers. You can rant all you want about the technical sides of things, but if you do not understand this and completely ignore it you're only hurting yourself.

I have worked with both DirectX and OpenGL. In my opinion, OpenGL is loosing because:
1) DirectX has a comprehensive, well-documented references and documentation
2) DirectX provides a lot more than just 3D drawing - sounds, networking, fonts, input processing, and it used to have an API for 2D graphics before (relevant because the story is about why DirectX gained marketshare)
3) The DirectX libraries had more support in whatever coding language you wanted to use. You can argue this with the point that of course they had because Microsoft is a company so they can do it, but that doesn't change it. In fact, it would show that propretiery formats and libraries are better than open
4) Later it was possible to easily develop XBOX 360 games with DirectX and the tools were made good and easy to pick up. You may say it's irrelevant, that MS is using another market to improve their position, but it is not irrelevant. And unless OpenGL supporters start to work at it too, they're going to lose. Give more support and more value for the work!
5) DirectX was easy to pick up, and everyone supported it. If it's easy to pick up for beginners, they'll learn it and continue using it later as a professional (the same thing as why Adobe doesn't really care about home users Photoshop piracy)

It is NOT only about providing the technical platform. It is also about providing all the things that company it - some may call that "marketing", but it's mostly about giving support to those who use the platform, and giving more value for their time, work and money.

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[Alcimedes]

So if they tighten things up they'll be better able to compete?

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[Blakey Rat]

Without DirectX propping up the monopoly we'd have other technologies and far more companies that would provide innovative competition, thus providing more, and often better, products.

Then instead of ranting about DirectX, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and make a competitor for DirectX?

I'm sick of open source buck-passing. Sure, it's terrible that Microsoft has such a commanding monopoly in so many areas, but on the other hand, why are you complaining about it instead of actually working to make it go away?

For every one of those bulletpoints the parent mentioned, there's nothing, nothing stopping you from providing a similar level of support for OpenGL.

DirectX has networking/input/graphics drivers? Then write those and attach them to OpenGL. DirectX has better documentation/examples? Then create them for your OpenGL solution! DirectX can be ported to Xbox? Fine; then get off your bony butt and go talk to Sony and Nintendo about enabling trivial porting of OpenGL apps.

Sorry, I just get sick of the whining by anti-Microsoft goons who don't have the cojones to actually compete with Microsoft-- stop passing the buck and do it already.

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[pyalot]

1) completely bogus: OpenGL has an both a good documentation and extremely good literature
2) completely bogus: These days M$ is advocating *not* using anything Like DirectInput, etc. In fact, DirectSound doesn't even work on Windows7
3) completely bogus: If you're not doing C#/C++ on Visual Studio using Com+, you're not getting DirectX. OpenGL can be coded in anything, Delphi, Python, C (gcc), C++, perl, Ruby, etc.
4) The only thing you got right, remotely
5) completely bogus: Before version 9 or 10, DirectX was the most hard and retarded thing to pick up, then it slowly, very slowly, got better.

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[jfbilodeau]

Corrections/clarifications

1) So does OpenGL
2) True -- Let's talk Direct3D vs OpenGL
3) False -- Name me one language that doesn't have OpenGL bindings
4) The 360 has a DirectX-like API. OpenGL-like interfaces is used on Wii and PS3
5) OpenGL is easy(er?) to pick up

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[pyalot]

All of Rages/IDs software runs on OpenGL... that not quick enough for you?

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[shutdown -p now]

If you're not doing C#/C++ on Visual Studio using Com+, you're not getting DirectX. OpenGL can be coded in anything, Delphi, Python, C (gcc), C++, perl, Ruby, etc.

First of all, if a language can call C APIs (and, in particular, can deal with C function pointers returned by those APIs), it can call COM APIs as well. DX isn't even "COM", it just uses COM conventions (vtable layout, refcounting etc) - but it's not a set of proper registered COM objects. In particular, this means that you absolutely can write DX applications using gcc (e.g. Mingw, on Windows), and even g++, since its vtable layout is (by design) COM-compatible.

Furthermore, there are plenty of high-level DX wrappers for various other languages: Delphi and Python from your list have them for sure, and there are many more (just google for "directx language").

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[SanityInAnarchy]

make a competitor for DirectX?

DirectX is a combination of several not-entirely-related technologies. The graphics component is Direct3D, and the stupidly obvious competitor is OpenGL.

why are you complaining about it instead of actually working to make it go away?

Because OpenGL is already better, as TFA explains. The problem is purely a marketing one, and requires a marketing response. The marketing response sounds like "complaining", but is actually encouraging people to think and explore their options.

DirectX has networking/input/graphics drivers? Then write those and attach them to OpenGL.

The result is called SDL. Again, these have already been done, they just aren't part of one giant marketing package, largely because they don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. For example, OpenGL powers my compositing window manager at the moment, but it really doesn't need to make any sound.

DirectX has better documentation/examples? Then create them for your OpenGL solution!

Fair enough.

DirectX can be ported to Xbox? Fine; then get off your bony butt and go talk to Sony and Nintendo about enabling trivial porting of OpenGL apps.

What makes you think the author of TFA hasn't done so? Indeed, what makes you think they would listen to the GP at all?

But FYI, PS3 and Wii both include a form of OpenGL, though there are differences.

Sorry, I just get sick of the whining by anti-Microsoft goons who don't have the cojones to actually compete with Microsoft-- stop passing the buck and do it already.

I understand what you're saying, but if it was that easy, we'd have done it already.

Whining is not mutually exclusive with doing something about it.

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[timmarhy]

instead of whining about MS's success, why don't you all go out and beat directX at it's own game - an easy to use 3d gaming API. openGL is NOT as easy and thus more expensive to write games in.

if all these people wrote code instead of rants you'd be a little closer by now.

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[Synchis]

The interesting part of your whole argument is that you completely ignore the fact that both Wolfire and ID Software do more than just rant about it.

They develop games that support OpenGL. What they want, is *other* big developers to stop supporting the inferior libraries and open their eyes.

Plan and simple: There is nothing bad about Open standards.

- If they are broken, you can fix them.
- if they lack features, you can add them.
- If the performance is poor, you can improve it.

Can you say this about Direct3D? The only entity that can fix, add to, or improve Direct3D is Microsoft. Period.

- If its broken, you have to wait for a patch.
- If it lacks features, you have to wait for the next version, and pray that it supports your operating system.
- If the performance sucks, you have to deal with it.

Whats good about that? And thats talking a strictly Windows audience.

From a cross platform point of view, there really is just one choice. And its not Direct3D.

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[TheRaven64]

5) OpenGL is easy(er?) to pick up

It used to be, with the fixed-function pipeline. Unfortunately all of the easy bits were deprecated with 3.0 and removed with 3.1 (fortunately people like nVidia then re-introduced them all as extensions). OpenGL 3.1 is incredibly powerful, but I wouldn't describe it as easy.

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[moderatorrater]

1) completely bogus: OpenGL has an both a good documentation and extremely good literature

It's nice that you think so, but I've seen the documentation for both, and I much prefer the directx documentation. You are, in fact, helping to prove the GP's point: when Microsoft hears from a developer that their documentation sucks, they'll work on it and improve it. When open source people hear that something sucks, they insult the user and stick their heads back in their asses.

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

Because OpenGL is already better, as TFA explains.

Except that OpenGL is NOT better. It may have support for vendor's random GPU features, but technical features alone do not make for a better product.

From the Article:

On Windows, it's a fact that the DirectX graphics drivers are better maintained than the OpenGL graphics drivers.

Similarly, it's a fact that more gaming graphics programmers know how to use DirectX than OpenGL, so it's cheaper (less training required) to make a game using DirectX than OpenGL.

Microsoft has worked hard on DirectX 10 and 11, and they're now about as fast as OpenGL, and support almost as many features.

I prefer DirectX because it has better development support, a better development environment, an integrated complete game package, and provides nearly the same speed and functionality as OpenGL. Yes, I've experimented with SDL and did not like it.

The Article also gets one thing wrong:

However, there's one big problem: they don't work on Windows XP!

This is inccorect. DirectX 10 does work on Windows XP, it is just not officially supported by Microsoft.

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[Blakey Rat]

Well, and beyond that, the fact is that it doesn't work.

What started up IE development again? Was it 3 years of whining and whining on Slashdot about how Microsoft had a browser monopoly? Or was it another browser stepping up to the plate and actually *competing* for the first time since IE6 came out?

Microsoft doesn't care about products with no real competition-- Powerpoint has no real competition on Windows, look how shitty it is. It's by far the worst of the Office apps, and Microsoft simply does not care. Now if someone came and blew Powerpoint away, sold the software for less-- you bet your ass Microsoft would start moving again.

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[mcvos]

I am surprised that someone would want to use something as old as opengl. I bet those people still read their mail with elm, pine and mail.

You have no idea. My computer still uses TCP/IP!

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[n8_f]

Sure, you could have an "open standard," but someone is controlling that, too.

No, that is why it is an open standard. Once it is out there, anyone can implement it and conform to the standard. Maybe someone maintains it and maybe someone is working on the next version, but no one controls it. To illustrate the difference, what platforms does DirectX run on? Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Xbox, and Microsoft Windows Mobile. Notice the pattern? And what platforms does OpenGL run on? All of those plus dozens or even hundreds more. If you want to port your app to the iPhone or the Palm Pre or an Android phone, who is going to have to do more work, the person with the app programmed in DirectX or the person with the app programmed in OpenGL? That is the advantage of an open standard.

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[Spiked_Three]

Not bogus at. I am working on a project at this very moment that started in DirectX. Sat on the shelf for a number of years, and when I decided to start it up again, made the switch to openGL. I wished I had not.
1) openGL documentation sucks at best. Examples are all of the same beginner draw a triangle type.
2) Not only does directX provide more than just graphics, even within the graphics space it provides a lot more grunt code I have to do myself in openGL.
3) I use managed languages. I am not developing a game, I am developing business software (CAD/CAM related). Both openGL and DirectX currently suck in this respect. At least directX has XNA for games. OpenGL has no native (managed) Windows forms or WPF implementations. If I was developing a game, XNA is the easy choice. But since I am developing a business app, I live with stale dead third party libraries (TAO in this case).
4) Very relevant - for whatever reason, mind share is currently on DirectX - and from a community support perspective that is huge.
5) I was able to be productive in directX 8 (where I started) enormously faster than openGL. Even now, I end up converting directX code to openGL most of the time, as opposed to finding openGL code that shows what I am trying to accomplish.

Like I said, I wished I would have stayed with DirectX. If and when this project gets completed I will never use openGL again unless they provide better managed language support , better documentation and better built in functionality. I get tired of passing in integer values to set parameters. When I want to set a light color I want to call SetLightColor(Color), not setSomeParamater(12, 15); It makes for unreadable and unmaintainable code. I know, there are those who still think C is great, and they write some of the ugliest code on the planet, let them collect in the a little tiny small group for all I care.

Re:OpenGL and the rant about marketing

[Prune]

SDL has a number of problems and we've dropped it from our projects. It is definitely not performance oriented; for example, calls to WaitForSingleObject in the Windows port even when it can be determined that no blocking is necessary, and thus wasting 4000 cycles on a kernel call instead of 200 on an interlocked instruction. That's just one random example that came up when we were troubleshooting performance. Note that I'm not at all ranting against using other libraries, and I'm generally sour to DirectX. It's just that SDL is a mediocre example for anything other than input handling. For threading, pthreads works great for both Linux and Windows (the Windows port is much better optimized than SDL threads), or even better yet from a software engineering perspective, boost threads can be used. In a high performance optimized to a given engine architecture, a custom thread library with custom task scheduling etc. is the real choice, and would written at a lower level than these libraries, with OS primitives and interlocked instructions. With networking, there is a huge amount of libraries out there that are optimized for various tasks better than SDL Net, and for sound OpenAL is the obvious choice (using libavcodec/ffmpeg for decoding).

Former OpenGL developer

[WilyCoder]

As a former OpenGL developer, I am not too fond of GL anymore.

Khronos really disappointed a lot of people when they announced the GL3 specs. They had promised SO much and delivered SO little. Khronos claimed that it didn't want to piss of the CAD community, which is heavily GL based. They basically chose to please the CAD community instead of the gaming community.

That move totally killed GL for me.

Re:Former OpenGL developer

[WilyCoder]

I know its taboo to respond to oneself, but I forgot to mention the recent release of the GL books (red and orange) adequately display the state that GL is in. They STILL do not have geometry shaders in the standard, and its freaking 2010! Yes, you can use those shaders via extensions, but anyone who recommends that path has not been personally burned by vendors supporting extensions to different levels. Writing code that uses extensions that only work on Nvidia and not ATi (or vice versa) is NOT what GL is about!
 

Re:Former OpenGL developer

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not up to date then. OpenGL 3.2 has it in the standard.

Re:Former OpenGL developer

[VGPowerlord]

OpenGL is clearly behind DirectX ...

You're contradicting TFA without any evidence. TFA provided quite a lot of evidence to support its position such as:

Actually, you did his work for him. Emphasis added:

It's common knowledge that OpenGL... has first access to new GPU features via vendor extensions.

Vendor extensions are not part of the standard, which makes this statement from TFA misleading at best, outright lying at worst. These extensions usually don't make it into the OpenGL standard until years after DirectX has added them, as was pointed out by another poster elsewhere in this thread.

John Carmack ditched OpenGL

[Anonymous Coward]

In an article a couple years back during the Doom 3 release he(John Carmack) said in later articles that they would be moving away from the OpenGL platform and considering he was one of the biggest backers of it. He even said in the article that they liked DirectX and the new features they have added, also that it was a lot better to work with these days and supported more. I can only imagine after the last fiasco update that OpenGL put out and all the missing features they promised, it looks pretty dismal for that development team as they cannot deliver what they promise.

Really the last place OpenGL stands strong is in AutoCAD and even they have indicated that the platform will not last longer, so we may see AutoCAD be using DirectX in the next few 5-10 years.

Re:John Carmack ditched OpenGL

[shutdown -p now]

I have posted this citation by Carmack in a comment on recent article on DX11, but it seems to be very much relevant here as well, so I'll re-post it - especially as TFS mentions Carmack's opinion circa 1997 (which favorably matches with the point of the article), but conveniently omits the more recent comment. Here it is:

"DX9 is really quite a good API level. Even with the D3D side of things, where I know I have a long history of people thinking I'm antagonistic against it. Microsoft has done a very, very good job of sensibly evolving it at each step—they're not worried about breaking backwards compatibility—and it's a pretty clean API. I especially like the work I'm doing on the 360, and it's probably the best graphics API as far as a sensibly designed thing that I've worked with."

Re:John Carmack ditched OpenGL

[Xest]

This is really it, the summary almost sounds like a complete troll.

OpenGL didn't lose out because of Microsoft's marketing, it lost out because whilst OpenGL stagnated, DirectX grew and grew to become a completely unified games development framework. Carmack may have had a point 12 years ago, but whilst OpenGL development completely ignored criticisms, Microsoft took criticism from the likes of Carmack on board and improved performance of their API whilst adding new features, providing great documentation and tidying up the interface.

Citing an argument from over a decade ago is desperate to say the least.

OpenGL needed to become something more, it needed to become part of a unified game development library in itself- we had part of that with OpenAL but it needed everything, we simply need an Open Multimedia/Gaming framework that can do everything that DirectX can do.

The fact is, game development requires more code and more content than ever before, developers can simply no longer justify spending time on filling in the gaps when other libraries like DirectX already have those gaps filled.

I would love nothing more than a resurgence of a set of open libraries covering the various facets of game development like DirectX does because it'd mean near zero effort porting to Mac and Linux, but right now the extra effort required to use OpenGL and OpenAL and then fill in the other gaps yourself coupled with the additional support requirements just doesn't justify the relatively minimal extra userbase for many developers.

Re:John Carmack ditched OpenGL

[GooberToo]

Really the last place OpenGL stands strong is in AutoCAD and even they have indicated that the platform will not last longer, so we may see AutoCAD be using DirectX in the next few 5-10 years.

I find that hard to believe. Right now there is a new renaissance in game development and game platforms. Mobile platforms are just now grabbing noteworthy market share and it looks like its only continuing to grow as more mobile devices increase in capability - especially 3d capabilities. Thus far that segment has clearly spoken. Thus far this segment is OpenGL and/or OpenGL ES. And that's entirely his point. You want to chase an emerging market plus cover all other platforms, you have exactly one option - OpenGL.

If you develop via OpenGL you can address XP+Vista, Mac, Linux, iPhone, and Android, plus all the major consoles. Its one stop shopping. With DX and comparable graphics with OpenGL, you can only target Vista. If you want Vista + XP + Consoles, you're looking at DX9 which is a subpar graphics experience compared to that which is provided by OpenGL. Simply put, OpenGL provides you more platforms more easily.

We most certainly have not reached any critical point which can not be reversed. As the author clearly points out, OpenGL vs MS is much the same today as it was in the past. At this point, its strictly about mind share and that needs to change.

Much is said that OpenGL is less than DX, and that's true. But people seem in a hurry to ignore the fact that there is a standardize solution which is OpenGL/OpenAL/OpenSL/SDL. When game developers talk about OpenGL as a solution, they really mean all four. OpenGL has a complete solution which addresses both CAD and gamers alike. The only questions is, are companies smart enough to realize this - far too often, its seems not because of the MS marketing. And as I've said many times before here, MS is not so much a technology company as they are a marketing company. Generally speaking their technology is second rate, but their marketing and business prowess is world renowned. All too often people confuse the facts.

Ultimately, the problem is that the PHB making the technology decision is simply unaware of the poor MS-centric decision they are making, which is then costing them additional dollars to later turn around and target the platforms they specifically excluded themselves from by picking DX in the first place. OpenGL needs to be championed by someone that understands how to speak PHB so that OpenGL can be fairly evaluated. Right now the only contender who is whispering into the PHB's ear is MS, and as a result, everyone is losing.

Re:I'm sorry but I don't really care

[Hatta]

I exclusively use Windows for PC gaming. I could give two flying F's whether my game is developed in OGL or DX.

If more games were developed in OGL, they would be easier to port to other operating systems (or run under Wine)so you wouldn't need to use Windows anymore. That would save you a hundred bucks or so on a Windows license, or at the very least the need to reboot to play a game. That's got to be worth at least one flying F.

Reality Check From A Real Game/Graphics Developer

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at people like you.

Let's just sum up the platforms our company supports:

PS3
Wii
Linux
Mac
Windows
Android
iPhone
Various embedded custom ARM based hardware

Guess which API is the one we use for all of those platforms - except the two consoles?

OpenGL

Guess which API will be used for the next media hardware platform no one has heard about yet?

OpenGL

So, yeah, go right ahead and keep babbling about how somehow OpenGL needs to 'prove' itself. DirectX is a dead end API to anyone except the fading Windows gaming market and teenage Windows only coders.

Re:One language

[drei0003019]

If you really wanna do that, knock yourself out: http://code.google.com/p/bfopengl/ :-)

Re:Direct X and the Xbox

[metamatic]

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but both windows and the Xbox/360 use DirectX, which represents something like 50-90% of the "gaming market".

Could you make those error bars a bit bigger? You almost said something.

Re:I've used both

[oGMo]

DirectX is made for games. You can use it for other kinds of applications, but if you want to do something that you do in a game, there is likely a function or construct specifically for what you need. It's docs assume you are making a game and when there are multiple ways to do something they often point out the faster way. heck it only works with triangulated mesh data.

Please RTFA. Also, Chris Hecker's article, linked from TFA. Then give us specific, technical reasons that DX/D3D is somehow better for games than OpenGL. Your post is filled with assertions, but with nothing to back them up. It's pretty sad that got moderated "informative".

Open GL is made for EVERYTHING. Sure, you can use it for games. There's nothing wrong with that, but i'm not John Carmack. That shit is hard for me. If i want to make a game, i'll take the platform that holds my hand.

Again, RTFA. Give specific, technical reasons that OpenGL is "harder" than D3D. If you'd bothered to read Carmack's position, his favoring of GL was because GL is easier. Your inability to deal with OpenGL putting your claims in doubt aside, you could at least be specific about the reasons. As per Chris Hecker's article, the only one making these claims are Microsoft evangelists. You wouldn't happen to work for Microsoft would you?

Plus, like others said, direct x is a whole game api. it's not just graphics. it's input, it's networking, it's sound. the whole platform is very cohesive. I'd rather just keep up with one api, one download, etc than have to follow open gl, open al, etc.

This is a bit disingenuous. All of the articles involved are addressing the 3D aspect of DX. The rest of the stuff is either trivial (use SDL or similar which is about the simplest API you could imagine, has a billion support libs, and runs on everything), or you'd be doing it by hand anyway (implement your own networking stack for performance, a la EVE). Your point is therefore irrelevant.

anyway modern game development means licensing an engine. engine developers worry about supporting open gl or direct x.

You seem to be a lazy-enough or low-end-enough developer that this article does not apply to you. However, it does matter to developers who make engines (either primarily or otherwise). Perhaps you should move along; these are not the articles you are looking for.

OpenGL pride

[pyalot]

Irrefutable, feel welcome to try.

- OpenGL works on Mac, Linux, WindowsXP and Direct3D does not (or only partially as in no DX11 for XP)
- OpenGL compatible APIs are present on the PS3, Wii, iPhone and many other devices, wheras Direct3D works on none of those.
- Cutting edge features can be accessed in OpenGL as they come out, whereas in Direct3D you'll have to wait until M$uck decides to iterate++ DX.
- A wealth of good online and dead tree documentation can be had for OpenGL
- A host of "killer apps" has been done and is continuing to be done with OpenGL (such as Maya, 3ds max, softimage, all iPhone games, Mac Games etc.)

Moving and all

[Estragib]

Now if someone came and blew Powerpoint away, sold the software for less-- you bet your ass Microsoft would start moving again.

The question is what move that would be. To judge by the past, they would, in order of feasibility: -

1. rely on ubiquity of the .ppt format,
2. spread FUD about security issues and TCO,
3. pay bloggers, consultants and analysts to badmouth it,
4. announce the next version of PPT, complete with mock-up screenshots, scaring off investors, then never release it,
5. suffocate it with patent litigation,
6. buy them out and
   1. kill it off,
   2. assimilate it (but not invest into further development, because, hey, no competition again),
7. change office to be incompatible,
8. change IE to be incompatible,
9. change windows to be incompatible.

(Not comprehensive.)

All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.
(aka: Are you absolutely positive you are not new here?)

Please tell me...

[Savage-Rabbit]

Please tell me how many companies care about the niche market of 0.1% of Linux users? How many Linux games do you see? And don't even get me started how much bitching there would be if the "bad" companies wouldn't open source their games when releasing Linux versions.

It's not really about the 1% of desktop users that use Linux. What you are failing to note is that there is an awful lot of software written for mobile systems (read: mobile phones and iPod like devices that double as gaming platforms) and many of those systems run Unix like OS'es such as iPhone/iPod OS and Linux. Writing games for mobile devices is a growing market and portability is a key component if you want to make any kind of money since the world of Mobile operating systems isn't quite the Microsoft dominated monoculture that the world of Desktop OS'es is. If Android gains any kind of a foothold and iPhone OS keeps gaining market share (and there is no reason to believe they won't) I'd say OpenGL has a bright future, if only thanks to people developing for mobile devices. Also keep in mind that the most popular mobile phone OS is Symbian. Mind you I don't think Symbian owes much to Unix but it isn't made by Microsoft either. Symbian has an OpenGL port that is also the official Symbian 3D graphics API (according to Wikipedia). Now I'm sure people can bitch and moan about how mobile games aren't really as sophisticated as as PC games and I suppose that's true. Nevertheless it still cracks me up every time some bozo puts in a book review on a game development book on Amazon and goes on endlessly about how Direct3D is a "game development industry standard" and how "OpenGL is a dying technology". OpenGL is alive and well and likely to stay that way. The (mobile software developing) world is not Microsoft.