Slashdot Mirror


Apple Seeks To Position Metal as Part of New 3D Graphics Standard For Web (appleinsider.com)

Mikey Campbell, writing for AppleInsider: Apple's WebKit team on Tuesday proposed a new Community Group at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) that will focus on developing a new standard API, perhaps based on Metal, for accelerating GPU-based 3D graphics and general computation for the web. Announced through Apple's WebKit blog, the new 'GPU for the Web' Community Group will discuss a potential next-generation web graphics API that can better leverage modern GPUs. Along with 3D content, Apple proposes GPU architecture might also be used to accelerate general web computations. As noted by Dean Jackson from the WebKit team, advancements in the GPU hardware space has led to identical enhancements in software APIs. He cites platform technologies like Apple's Metal, Microsoft's Direct3D 12 and the Khronos Group's Vulkan as offering lower overhead, and thus better performance, than the OpenGL standard. Unfortunately, the new graphics APIs contain nuanced architectural differences and are not available across all platforms, making them unsuitable for wide implementation on the web.

116 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. Vulkan by Gibgezr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole point of Vulkan is that it is a modern, high-performance, platform-agnostic API. Isn't that what they should use? It's already positioned as all that, it just needs the web folks to adopt it.

    1. Re:Vulkan by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But then how can Apple gain a proprietary stranglehold on the industry? How can they force adoption of their own standard and ensure a way to monetize all future 3D web graphics?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Vulkan by kbonin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple was a member of Vulkan and those of us who code to GPUs were excited to have a unified target finally coming into view - until Apple withdrew and announced a proprietary alternative. They shouldn't be allowed to influence the standard now.

    3. Re:Vulkan by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ummm... buy out MS?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Vulkan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would laugh if Apple bought out Microsoft and shut them down permanently.

    5. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      But then how can Apple gain a proprietary stranglehold on the industry? How can they force adoption of their own standard and ensure a way to monetize all future 3D web graphics?

      Considering the history of Apple open source contributions in things like OpenGL, I'd say your concerns are at best not really likely. Also Apple is proposing a new standard which means it will be a standard unlike MS and the embrace and extend philosophy.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:Vulkan by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the new graphics APIs contain nuanced architectural differences and are not available across all platforms, making them unsuitable for wide implementation on the web.

      You must have missed that part.

    7. Re:Vulkan by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      It looks like Rambus all over again. Proprietary components should not be part of standards, period.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re: Vulkan by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And when exactly has MS ever innovated?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Apple was a member of Vulkan and those of us who code to GPUs were excited to have a unified target finally coming into view - until Apple withdrew and announced a proprietary alternative. They shouldn't be allowed to influence the standard now.

      They're not "influencing" Vulkan. They are offering their own standard. Just like whenever something gets forked.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Please elaborate on what you mean by "proprietary". Metal is competing with Vulkan and Direct3D as the successor to OpenGL. Apple wants the next version to be based on their work on Metal. Such version will undoubtedly be open source unlike Direct3D and WebGPU will is proposed to replace OpenGL.

      To help get things started, Apple's WebKit team is proposing an initial API dubbed "WebGPU." Apple began testing next-generation APIs in WebKit "a few years ago" and found encouraging results, so the company is sharing its WebGPU prototype with the the W3C Community Group.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:Vulkan by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Apple has enough cash and equivalents on-hand in the US to buy about 4% of Microsoft. Hardly enough to buy them... Yes, Apple has about $18 billion in cash and equivalents on-hand; it has close to $200 billion in overseas funds and long-term investments, but those would be subject to a 40% tax load if repatriated/converted to buy Microsoft, meaning it would have - at most - $140 billion to use. And that would buy about 30% of Microsoft (which is close to $500 billion in value - not too far behind Apple's $700 billion in value).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:Vulkan by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

      But then how can Apple gain a proprietary stranglehold on the industry? How can they force adoption of their own standard and ensure a way to monetize all future 3D web graphics?

      Considering the history of Apple open source contributions in things like OpenGL, I'd say your concerns are at best not really likely. Also Apple is proposing a new standard which means it will be a standard unlike MS and the embrace and extend philosophy.

      Exactly. Apple has a pretty good track record of leaving things Open. Take CUPS for example.

    13. Re:Vulkan by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      A good start would be for them to name the API after something other than an every-day noun commonly used to describe servers. Unless their whole drive is to define a term with itself and further confuse people.

      "Our Metal(*patent pending) API brings you closer to metal. Our API is better in every way. The whole industry is using Metal to drive metal!"

    14. Re:Vulkan by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Is anybody else getting sick of this crap?

      Company A joins a standards body to try to unify the solution to some problem. That solution gets near, and Company A leaves, then proposes a new standard for everybody, further fragmenting the solution.

      I'm all for innovation and standardization, though I much prefer the approach like X windows. "Hey, this is getting old and crusty, we need some answers folks" then a few groups come up with ideas, and gradually we get to a consensus (looking like Wayland). This "I don't wanna play with you guys, I'm gonna go buy my own ball and start my own team" playground BS is retarded and counterproductive.

    15. Re: Vulkan by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      That 640 KiB limit was pretty innovative and it required courage.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    16. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      When something gets forked, if the fork sucks, you can fork it again. Think Apple is gonna drop some Metal drivers on my Linux box? No, this is exactly what they are trying to do- erect a toll across the bridge someone else built.

      Um if Apple is proposing a new standard, they won't be the ones to do it. It's a standard. Just like Apple has contributed on OpenGL for years. Did they write an OpenGL driver for Linux machines? No. AMD, NVidia and Intel did that.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    17. Re: Vulkan by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      And when exactly has MS ever innovated?

      Software licensing. They may not have invented licensing but they took it to a whole other level. For a while they were actually getting away with forcing enterprises to pay a seat license for every desktop in the office. That Sun Sparc-Windows license. That Mac-Windows license. That Silicon Graphics Iris-Windows license.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    18. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So when Apple wants a new standard based on Metal that doesn't count in your opinion?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    19. Re:Vulkan by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      People, people. There's no need to fight. We can't pick Vulkan even if we wanted to. Don't you remember it's going to be destroyed on stardate 2258.42?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    20. Re:Vulkan by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. What we need is a unified view, followed by everyone.

      I don't have the technical details for all the platforms, APIs and such, but I already got a few names:
      - BorgOS
      - BorgHTML
      - BorgCSS
      - BorgGPU
      - BorgAudio
      - BorgStreaming

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    21. Re:Vulkan by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      Everyone in the comments suggesting we should just use their favorite graphics API is missing the point entirely.

      Neither Vulkan nor its competitors are safe to use with untrusted code from the web. Allowing any random web developer to have access to the full capabilities of any of those APIs is a recipe for disaster. This standard is, from what I can gather, intended to be a layer that abstracts away the underlying API, whether it be Metal, Vulkan, or Direct 3D 12, which should provide a safe means for using them.

      For an initial implementation, Apple is providing a prototype that is compatible with Metal, given that they had apparently already done quite a bit of work mapping Metal to Javascript, but it's clear that the end goal with this standard is to provide something that is compatible with all of these close-to-the-metal APIs. I imagine that version 1 of the standard will resemble an intersection of features between the competing APIs, that way they can ensure the broadest compatibility right from the get-go.

      In addition to but separate from the web standard, they're talking about taking Metal cross-platform. That wouldn't affect the web standard (which, again, should be able to work on top of any of these competing APIs), but it would ensure that the standard is usable on any platform they choose to support with Metal. If they do take Metal cross-platform, that would seem to suggest an uptick in their interest in creating web-based products that are consistent and in top-shape across a variety of platforms, in much the same way that Google created Chrome to do the same.

    22. Re: Vulkan by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      And when exactly has MS ever innovated?

      Microsoft Surface Pro... You can argue that it's just another tablet computer but they finally got it right and it's one of the best Windows tablets you can buy.
      Microsoft Mouse... Still a decent mouse
      Microsoft Word, Exchange, Outlook, etc... Exchange and Outlook were innovative for their time and were a part of the shift towards the digital office.

      I'm sure that there are more on the programming side, etc., but these are the ones that most would be familiar with.

    23. Re: Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Are you posting this from your 640K RAM computer?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    24. Re:Vulkan by Misagon · · Score: 1

      The point of Metal, Vulkan and DX12 is that they give a fairly low-level abstraction to the graphics hardware.
      No web site should have low-level access to the user's system in any way. That is the big fallacy here.

      As to platforms, all Apple iPhones and iPads have come with PowerVR GPUs. PowerVR was an early adopter of Vulkan and one of, if not the first to demo it.
      For Apple to adopt Vulkan should not be too difficult for them. Apple only does not want to because they are too invested in Metal.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    25. Re: Vulkan by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I thought that was Intel's thing?

    26. Re:Vulkan by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Maybe Apple, Google, Amazon and Disney could all team up and absorb it.

    27. Re: Vulkan by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I think it was IBM's thing. PC/XT, PC/AT, etc.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    28. Re:Vulkan by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      But then how can Apple gain a proprietary stranglehold on the industry? How can they force adoption of their own standard

      Yeah, it's a real shame how they used their stranglehold over WebKit to control the direction Chrome is going; LLVM and related technologies (e.g. Clang) to control the direction a huge chunk of the software industry is going; CUPS to control the printer industry...

      A real shame.

      Not to mention all of the other projects and code they contribute to the open source community.

      I agree that Apple does do a lot of proprietary stuff (e.g. connectors, protocols, etc.), but they're used as a means for tying people to their hardware (i.e. where they make about 90% of their money), rather than as a means for extending their reach to other platforms. When Apple engages in community-driven projects like this, it tends to be for one reason alone: their interests align with the community's, so they stand to gain from involving the community. That's it, plain and simple, and their track record backs that up. It's when they don't involve the community, that we tend to see the sort of stuff you're talking about (e.g. MPEG).

      The only other valid explanation for what they're doing is that they perceive a competing graphics API as providing a competitive advantage to someone else (e.g. maybe they think Microsoft can leverage Direct 3D 12 in Edge?), so they're willing to commoditize web graphics, including their own, in order to negate that advantage. But even if that were true, we still benefit.

    29. Re:Vulkan by erapert · · Score: 1

      Here's a solution to the problem:
      1. Do not buy non-free operating systems or software. Instead use Linux or BSD or even GNU Hurd (I recommend Linux).

      2. Do not write code for non-free operating systems or software. Instead write code using widely supported standards (i.e. Vulkan) that runs on all platforms (especially freedom-supporting platforms like Linux or BSD). In this case do not ever write code using Metal for any reason under any circumstances. Apple will come around and support Vulkan once they realize that nobody is using Metal.

      3. Do not support non-free operating systems or software. At your workplace always insist on open and free software for all infrastructure. For example, choose Python or PHP or Ruby instead of Java or .NET. Use PostgreSQL or MariaDB instead of Oracle or MSSQL and so on.


      I do not think all programs must be open source in order to solve these problems and make the world better. Some things, like video games or in-house software, really doesn't need to be opened or freed. But infrastructure like graphics APIs (i.e. Vulkan) and operating systems (i.e. Linux) and programming languages (i.e. C/C++, Python, Rust etc.) really do need to be free and open if we want to ever get past the problems that you describe.

    30. Re:Vulkan by fzammett · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you'd laugh... right up until the point where you realize that you've now got a far more powerful and abusive monopoly than you EVER had with MS.

      Does the term "cut off your nose to spite your face" ring a bell? 'Cause that's what that would be, big-time.

      --
      If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
    31. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Like they were going to opensource their video chat software. Oh, some small puny company sued and now we can't even though we could buy out the company 1000 times over.

      False equivalence. Because Apple has not open-sourced all their software, that doesn't mean they don't open source some of their software.

      As for CUPS, can you tell me what they added?

      If only CUPS was open source software where you could look at the changes from when Apple bought cups to what the latest version. I'll give you a hint, click on the text files that are named "CHANGES".

      The only thing that I see they added on a cursory search is their own services for "zero configuration"... and even then, I'm not even sure those are open source.

      Then you would be wrong. ZeroConf is the open source implementation of what Apple started as Bonjour/Rendevous.

      It requires paid lilcensing to use in a commercial setting. HMM... I wonder why they contributed?

      I don't know what you are talking about. I've paid $0 for more than a decade to use CUPS and ZeroConf. Now some companies will sell you software on top of either so that you can use it but that's your choice to pay for software and not use open source versions.

      Can you imagine forcing every *nix user to pay for open source? =O

      Again I have no idea what you're talking about CUPS is used by Linux and BSD as the defacto printing system. I have yet to seen a bill presented to users of either to do use it.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    32. Re:Vulkan by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      The best they could hope for would be some kind of equitable merger... and then $diety help us.

      Speaking of, what the hell is with Apple fans throwing around APPLE COULD BUY YOO at everything?
      Even if Apple did have the resources on hand to purchase the entire market capitalization of Microsoft, what the hell makes anyone think the MS shareholders would jump at the opportunity of a one-time-buyout of their ownership of one of the largest tech companies in existence?

    33. Re:Vulkan by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      In their wildest dreams

    34. Re:Vulkan by jcr · · Score: 1

      how can Apple gain a proprietary stranglehold on the industry?

      Stupid question is stupid. Apple has no desire for a "proprietary stranglehold" on the industry, and no matter how many times they prove exactly that, idiots like you will keep tossing off this stupid canard.

      Remember when Apple got the RIAA to give up on DRM for music? How about when they open sourced Swift? How about their contributions to WebKit? How about the time and money they invested in LLVM and Clang? Did they get a word of thanks from you?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    35. Re: Vulkan by jcr · · Score: 1

      it's one of the best Windows tablets you can buy.

      Talk about damning with faint praise!

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    36. Re:Vulkan by Dogers · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least the Borg got shit *done*! :)

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    37. Re:Vulkan by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      Considering the history of Apple open source contributions in things like OpenGL, I'd say your concerns are at best not really likely.

      Apple may have made many open source contributions to OpenGL over the years but they've never bothered implementing anything better than OpenGL 4.1 on their own systems, even though the same graphics chips they use have OpenGL 4.4 and 4.5 implementations on other platforms.

      IMO their OpenGL implementations also seem quite flakey, e.g.: half the time VirtualBox guests only draw white or grey boxes where their OpenGL content should be displayed. Sometimes this can be fixed by moving the guest window left or right a pixel or two, other times not.

    38. Re:Vulkan by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Metal is competing with Vulkan and Direct3D as the successor to OpenGL.

      Absolute rubbish. Direct3D is Microsoft's attempt to exterminate OpenGL, not succeed it. Metal is Apple's attempt to undermine Vulkan, for no good technical reason. Both are fighting a losing position, sorry about your narrative.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    39. Re: Vulkan by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The original PC processor could only address 1MB of Ram. The first 640K was reserved for applications and the rest used by the system. MS-DOS was designed for this and when the 286 which could address 16MB came available they had to work around the limitations of MS-DOS. I never dealt with it as I went from the C64 to Amiga systems which ran off Motorola processors which were vastly different. My first PC was a dual PII 333 server that I installed SUSE linux on in 1999. Once I got used to using Linux I never looked back.

    40. Re: Vulkan by jcr · · Score: 1

      Apple's marketing department

      No, just a shareholder.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    41. Re:Vulkan by Khyber · · Score: 1

      A better start would be to change the name entirely because MeTaL for graphics already existed (and is still in use in one of my OLD machines just to demonstrate what a failure it was.) S3 anyone?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    42. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      They can propose a standard... there is a difference between proposing and declaring.

      And what does working within a W3C group fall into the distinction for you? It seems like they are working within a standards body to propose standards.

      Anyone can propose a standard, the only nonsensical proposal would be to offer a proprietary piece of technology as a standard which they are not willing to open source (like Microsoft did with DirectX... which the W3C obviously ignored).

      Yes which is why they want the W3C to get involved. Also Apple is leveraging their ideas on Metal not necessarily that the new standard is Metal which is a different idea.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    43. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Absolute rubbish. Direct3D is Microsoft's attempt to exterminate OpenGL, not succeed it. Metal is Apple's attempt to undermine Vulkan, for no good technical reason. Both are fighting a losing position, sorry about your narrative.

      Between MS and Apple which company has advanced open source more. You think that because Apple doesn't want to use Vulkan that must mean they have no good technical reason. Look at what Apple did with Clang/LLVM. gcc is a good compiler but Apple could not get the optimization they wanted from the gcc moderators. So they backed Clang/LLVM instead. Now there are two decent open source compilers you could use. If you want to plug your laptop into a dock in the future, it looks like the way to do it is not with proprietary docks but Thunderbolt which Apple worked with Intel to develop.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    44. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Apple abandoned that long ago and have been lagging years behind in OpenGL support in favor of their proprietary Metal API even years before Metal was even available. Even their latest Sierra only offers a maximum of 4.1 (released 7 years ago) with some 4.2 extensions. Instead of contributing to Vulkan (OpenGL Next) they decided to go proprietary instead and then have this to say:

      OpenGL is one of many open source projects Apple has supported. As a company, Apple abandoned it when they decided to go in another direction and with their own platform.

      Guess which platforms Vulkan isn't available on? Oh of course, Apple's platforms!

      Then you would be wrong.

      Apple's support for standards goes right up until they can capitalize it for vendor lockin, AirPlay, Lightning, Facetime, Airdrop, etc.

      When was AirPlay open source again? Never.

      When was Lightning open source again? Never

      Airdrop, etc?

      Your complaint that Apple doesn't open source everything is negated by the open source Apple has been known to work on: OpenCL, ZeroConf, Clang/LLVM, WebKit, CUPS, etc.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    45. Re:Vulkan by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      False equivalence. Because Apple has not open-sourced all their software, that doesn't mean they don't open source some of their software.

      That example was not 'all their software.' It was a piece of software they promised to open and reneged on. A piece of software that would open their userbase up to videoconference to their friends who they then wouldn't have to urge to buy an iPad.

    46. Re:Vulkan by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Apple will opensource software technology that doesn't threaten their ability to engage in vendor lock-in.

      It's not more complicated than that.

    47. Re:Vulkan by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Millions of college students in dorm rooms got the RIAA to give up on DRM for music.

      Jobs rode along for the credit.

    48. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      ZeroConf could do that but they open-sourced that. CUPS could have done that. But that open-sourced that. Almost every single thing that Apple has open-sourced could be used to threaten their ability to engage in vendor lock-in.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    49. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      That example was not 'all their software.' It was a piece of software they promised to open and reneged on. A piece of software that would open their userbase up to videoconference to their friends who they then wouldn't have to urge to buy an iPad.

      So Apple "promised" to open source FaceTime but didn't. Apple as a company can't be allowed to make decisions on their own software?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    50. Re:Vulkan by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You think that because Apple doesn't want to use Vulkan that must mean they have no good technical reason.

      Thanks for telling me what I think, it makes you sound very "Apple". No. I said that Apple has no good technical reason for undermining Vulkan. Would you please refrain from twisting my words, or should I just accept that you are too "Apple" to care about that.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    51. Re:Vulkan by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      They didn't open source CUPS; they simply didn't close it after they bought it.

    52. Re:Vulkan by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      If you think Apple is on the evil side, your gauge must have Stalin on the good side. I wouldn't trust your gauge.

    53. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      They bought the company and the developer that started CUPS. That developer continues to develop CUPS to this day.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    54. Re:Vulkan by exomondo · · Score: 1

      ZeroConf could do that but they open-sourced that.

      Wrong. Apple did not open source ZeroConf, it is apparent you do not know what ZeroConf is.

      CUPS could have done that. But that open-sourced that.

      Wrong again. Apple did not open source CUPS.

    55. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So your position is that Apple didn't open source one thing therefore you can safely ignore all the open source projects to which they've contributed

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    56. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      "OpenGL" is not open source,

      You would be wrong.

      That is a layer on top of Metal that translates calls from one API to another, it is not Vulkan on macOS or iOS because those platforms do not support it as Apple quite rightly stated. You are arguing against facts by providing evidence you clearly have absolutely no understanding of whatsoever.

      So you're saying it's not "available" because it doesn't fit your definition of "available". Can you get Vulkan on macOS? Yes. Is it officially supported by Apple? No.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    57. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Apple did not open source ZeroConf, it is apparent you do not know what ZeroConf is.

      I remember it this way:

      Apple releases Bonjour (then known as Rendezvous) in 2002 under the Apple Public Licenses which is considered open source.

      Based on Bonjour, Avahi was created in 2004 because the APL was not GPL compatible.

      The Avahi project started in 2004 because Apple's Zeroconf implementation, Bonjour, used the GPL-incompatible Apple Public Source License. In 2006 Apple relicensed parts of Bonjour under the Apache License. However, Avahi had already become the de facto standard implementation of mDNS/DNS-SD on free-software operating systems such as Linux.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    58. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Wrong again. Apple did not open source CUPS.

      And all these years that Apple has kept this project open source does not count?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    59. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Thanks for telling me what I think, it makes you sound very "Apple". No. I said that Apple has no good technical reason for undermining Vulkan.

      And how would you know that? Do you work for Apple? The problem you have is that you have the burden of proving Apple has "no good technical reason." This is my understanding of the problem: Metal released with iOS 8 in September 2014. Later it was added to macOS El Capitan. Vulkan's initial release is Feb 2016. Somehow I think time travel is beyond Apple's capabilities especially since PowerVR didn't support Vulkan until March 2016 (which Apple uses for their mobile GPU). So the most basic technical reason is that when Metal was released (much less developed), Vulkan was still 18 months away. Maybe Apple didn't want to wait that long.

      Would you please refrain from twisting my words, or should I just accept that you are too "Apple" to care about that.

      I care about facts. Please point out which of the facts is not true.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    60. Re:Vulkan by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I do not understand the need to try and shove remotely hosted applications into a web browser. WTF people? Do you try to make horses fly or do you just say horses are completely unsuitable for air travel and create a jetliner?

      People. Are. Insane.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    61. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Apple may have made many open source contributions to OpenGL over the years but they've never bothered implementing anything better than OpenGL 4.1 on their own systems, even though the same graphics chips they use have OpenGL 4.4 and 4.5 implementations on other platforms.

      True Apple hasn't kept up with OpenGL as much as some people would have liked; however, is there are a technical reason (like going with their own platform) behind the lack of support? Considering that Apple contributed to OpenGL since 1.0, I would say it's not because of a philosophical aversion to it but maybe technical and practical concerns.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    62. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Jobs rode along for the credit.

      From the beginning iPods played DRM free music. The problem was that they could not sell music DRM free from the iTunes store at the insistence of the music companies. Ironically, the music companies in their short-sightedness made Apple's position stronger. In the beginning, the music company thinking was Apple was a small player and surely the PlaysForSure architecture would overtake FairPlay with its larger number of hardware options and outlets. In actuality, the issue was PlaysForSure wasn't as reliable or user-friendly and FairPlay was far easier for the consumer to use. People were less likely to switch to other platforms if they lost their music licenses and stuck with Apple's ecosystem.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    63. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Company A joins a standards body to try to unify the solution to some problem. That solution gets near, and Company A leaves, then proposes a new standard for everybody, further fragmenting the solution.

      That isn't the problem in this case. Apple initially joined the Vulkan group in 2014 when it was announced; however by 2015, they had left the group. The Vulkan spec wasn't released until a year later. I would guess that the Vulkan group moved too slowly for Apple.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    64. Re:Vulkan by exomondo · · Score: 1

      So are you talking about ZeroConf or Bonjour?

    65. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Bonjour is Apple's version of ZeroConf which they open sourced before Avahi was a project in Linux.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    66. Re:Vulkan by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Also, Jobs took up the suggestion he had made to Skully and started selling sugar water to kids, by putting labels for 'free itunes songs' on the bottlecaps of popular brands of soda.

      The irony was missed by many.

    67. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      No I am not wrong, you simply misunderstand.

      From the page again:
      "The following are the currently available licenses:
      Open source license - for use of the S.I. This is a Free Software License B closely modeled on BSD, X, and Mozilla licenses.
      Trademark License - for new licensees who want to use the OpenGL trademark and logo and claim conformance."
      It says it in black and white: OPEN SOURCE LICENSE.

      To help you along just try and show me Apple's open source OpenGL implementation. Oh you cant do that? Im not surprised, because it is not open source.

      Please read what I wrote above: "OpenGL is one of many open source projects Apple has supported. As a company, Apple abandoned it when they decided to go in another direction and with their own platform." Nowhere did I say Apple's implementation was open source only that they supported OpenGL. Even though Apple hasn't implemented anything beyond 4.1 the 4.5 latest release notes show they still contribute to OpenGL.

      Do you understand the difference that I pointed out? It seems you do not or you are ignoring it because you dont like it.

      I am following the English definition of available:

      able to be used or obtained; at someone's disposal

      Can you use Vulkan? Yes. Is it officially supported? No. When you says something isn't available it means there is no way to get it. An out of stock item is not available meaning even if you put down money, the retailer can't sell it to you. At best you can get a rain check for later.

      Even Apple's proposal for WebGPU points out that Vulkan is not available on their platforms because to implement it on top of another 3d graphics API completely defeats the purpose of a low-level API. Do you understand that? Or are you still confused?

      I don't think you understand Apple's plan here: They want to base WebGPU on ideas in Metal to start. That does not mean it will be Metal APIs. It does not mean it will be Vulkan APIs.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    68. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The thing is it is all too easy for a company like Apple to deceptively jump in bed with a huge number of external devs and then turn over and leave with an insane amount of knowledge now headed for the proprietary development of their own system.

      Your assertion would be false: Apple announced Metal at WWDC 2014 (June). They even have a video of the presentation. It was released in Sept 2014 for iOS 8.

      Vulkan API was not formally announced until March 2015. Version 1.0 of the specification would not be released until Feb 2016.

      In any way you look at it, Apple released Metal long before the Khronos Group announced Vulkan.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    69. Re:Vulkan by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Bonjour is Apple's version of ZeroConf which they open sourced before Avahi was a project in Linux.

      I know what Bonjour is, I'm wondering why you said they open sourced ZeroConf, which is a specification that has a variety of implementations. In any case I think this is going off topic, the point is when it comes to 3D graphics Apple's history is extremely poor support of OpenGL, no support for Vulkan at all and ultimately going a proprietary API despite being a promoter member of the Khronos group.

    70. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I know what Bonjour is, I'm wondering why you said they open sourced ZeroConf, which is a specification that has a variety of implementations.

      Apple released Bonjour as open source. It was the first ever open source release of this framework. While the ZeroConf Working Group had been started in 1999, Apple's implementation was one of the first and the first one released as open source. The only other player at the time was MS and they have not released their code as far I know. While different implementations existed, Apple's AppleTalk framework was much better than MS NETBIOS at handling the requirements. Based on Bonjour, Avahi was built.

      . In any case I think this is going off topic, the point is when it comes to 3D graphics Apple's history is extremely poor support of OpenGL, no support for Vulkan at all and ultimately going a proprietary API despite being a promoter member of the Khronos group.

      As for OpenGL support, Apple does not use OpenGL as they favor their own framework; however, they are still involved with OpenGL as noted in the latest versions where they are still contributing to OpenGL.

      Again, Apple wants to work in the W3C groups to promote a new standard. They want to start with the Metal framework being the initial implementation, and Apple has said they don't expect WebGPU to be Metal. How is that going to be a proprietary API if it's a standard adopted by W3C?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    71. Re:Vulkan by dddux · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Of all these "standards" we should choose a non-proprietary open standard like Vulkan and never even give any thought to any of these other proprietary and platform bound standards. Please don't let Flash happen all over again. It took us so many years to finally get rid of it, and you can still find some websites using it. Keep Internet standards open and platform agnostic folks! WebGL is at least open and platform agnostic, but Vulkan definitely has less overhead and it's more modern.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    72. Re:Vulkan by exomondo · · Score: 1

      As for OpenGL support, Apple does not use OpenGL as they favor their own framework; however, they are still involved with OpenGL as noted in the latest versions where they are still contributing to OpenGL.

      Where exactly are they contributing? You realize they don't even support a version even close to the latest version of OpenGL, right? What part of the latest versions have they contributed? And why do they not even support these supposed contributions?

      Again, Apple wants to work in the W3C groups to promote a new standard. They want to start with the Metal framework being the initial implementation, and Apple has said they don't expect WebGPU to be Metal. How is that going to be a proprietary API if it's a standard adopted by W3C?

      I didn't say it is going to be proprietary but it most certainly is in their interest to try and drive it to map best to their underlying driver implementation of their API to minimize the overhead of an abstraction layer.

    73. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Where exactly are they contributing?

      Well if you didn't read the release notes, (and I suspect you didn't) Apple still works within the Khronos Group on OpenGL extensions.

      You realize they don't even support a version even close to the latest version of OpenGL, right?

      Also as I stated before, Apple itself does not use anything newer than 4.1 in their OS; however, that doesn't mean they can't contribute to the spec, the group, etc. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

      What part of the latest versions have they contributed?

      As I stated above they've contributed to EVERY version of OpenGL even the latest one 4.5.

      And why do they not even support these supposed contributions?

      What does that mean? Apple supports OpenGL; they choose not to use it in the latest one in their own OS. These are not mutually ideas. Just like macOS is UNIX 03 compliant; it is not UNIX 98 compliant.

      I didn't say it is going to be proprietary but it most certainly is in their interest to try and drive it to map best to their underlying driver implementation of their API to minimize the overhead of an abstraction layer.

      WebGPU is likely to be so abstracted from the driver that your point is moot.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    74. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Open source license for what? Where is the source they contributed that is covered by this license

      Dear Lord, can you even read? To use OpenGL and see the source, it is covered by open source. To use the trademarks and claim conformance, you need to work out a separate license. Where is the source? Are you saying you are incapable of seeing the source code from 15 years ago is your problem?

      So show me the "open source" contribution they made.

      Bahahahahahaha, So now you are moving the goal posts since you were proven wrong. You refuse to accept that won't you.

      So what exactly are you saying they contributed that is open source? Where is their contribution?

      Because unlike you I don't claim to know every single line of the specification Apple contributed to. Do you know what ARM contributed to OpenGL? You don't know don't you. You were frankly wrong and won't admit it.

      If you actually bothered to read what they contributed it was Apple-specific extensions to make legacy features work on their platforms.

      From the release notes:

      OpenGL 4.5 is the result of the contributions of many people and companies. Members of the Khronos OpenGL ARB Working Group during the development of OpenGL 4.5, including the company that they represented at the time of their contributions, follow.

      Some major contributions made by individuals are listed together with their name, including specific functionality developed in the form of new ARB extensions together with OpenGL 4.5. In addition, many people participated in developing earlier vendor and EXT extensions on which the OpenGL 4.5 functionality is based in part; those individuals are listed in the respective extension specifications in the OpenGL Registry.

      Nowhere does it say that Apple only contributed Apple specific extensions. It does say that they did contribute them. Considering that version after version, Apple has contributed, it would no sense that's all Apple did.

      Because you are ignorant of the technical side of it. As I said it would be intentionally disingenuous to suggest that all Linux, Windows, Android and iOS programs are available on Mac, sure they are through VMs and emulators but that defeats the point of it and nobody who isnt being willfully disingenuous (or mentally defective) is going to argue otherwise. Since you have no idea about 3D graphics APIs you don't even understand why your suggestion is so ridiculous, go get educated so you stop looking so foolish.

      Are you sore that I prove you wrong over and over again. You were wrong. Accept it.

      So when Apple says Vulkan isn't available on their platforms you are saying they are lying? In fact they aren't lying it is just that you quite clearly cant understand the fundamental issue here. I have tried pointing it out to you but you refuse to learn.

      Apple does not support Vulkan; they don't provide it. That doesn't mean it isn't available. There's this whole group of software called "3rd party" that provides software that that manufacturer does not provide.

      I do, it is to start with an API that maps to their own native proprietary API, this means more performance and less overhead for them instead of going with an industry standard.

      No you don't. WebGPU may be so abstracted from APIs that it does not matter what is being used by the hardware. For example, all Javascript support has nothing to do whether you use Direct3D or OpenGL.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    75. Re:Vulkan by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Well if you didn't read the release notes, (and I suspect you didn't) Apple still works within the Khronos Group on OpenGL extensions.

      I did and what I saw was nothing but Apple-specific extensions so that old versions still work on their platform.

      Also as I stated before, Apple itself does not use anything newer than 4.1 in their OS; however, that doesn't mean they can't contribute to the spec, the group, etc. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

      Right so don't expect them to support the cross-platform industry standard. And expect that their contributions may be nothing more than platform-specific extension for legacy support of old versions.

      What part of the latest versions have they contributed?

      As I stated above they've contributed to EVERY version of OpenGL even the latest one 4.5.

      Yes but my point is you are lauding them for contributing when you have no idea what they contributed. What good is contributing to an industry standard that you don't even support? Their contributions are Apple-specific extensions that nobody else will ever use.

      I didn't say it is going to be proprietary but it most certainly is in their interest to try and drive it to map best to their underlying driver implementation of their API to minimize the overhead of an abstraction layer.

      WebGPU is likely to be so abstracted from the driver that your point is moot.

      Wrong, the whole point is to reduce the abstraction from the driver implementation of the native graphics API. Hence the reason you start with an API that maps well to your native one, like Vulkan...if Apple would just support Vulkan.

    76. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I did and what I saw was nothing but Apple-specific extensions so that old versions still work on their platform.

      And you're absolutely sure that the totality of Apple's contribution was Apple-specific extensions? See because Apple did contribute their own extensions doesn't mean they didn't contribute to other extensions. You don't know do you?

      Right so don't expect them to support the cross-platform industry standard. And expect that their contributions may be nothing more than platform-specific extension for legacy support of old versions.

      Again you are imposing a false dichotomy and illogical position. Because Apple as company does not want to use the latest version of OpenGL that does not mean they don't contribute to the latest spec.

      Yes but my point is you are lauding them for contributing when you have no idea what they contributed. What good is contributing to an industry standard that you don't even support? Their contributions are Apple-specific extensions that nobody else will ever use.

      Do you know what ARM contributes? How about NVIDIA? You don't know yet your burden is only on Apple.

      Wrong, the whole point is to reduce the abstraction from the driver implementation of the native graphics API. Hence the reason you start with an API that maps well to your native one, like Vulkan...if Apple would just support Vulkan.

      Your proposal is for Apple to use someone else's standard when proposing their own. Even though the final implementation may not resemble anything like Vulkan. That's just idiocy.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    77. Re:Vulkan by exomondo · · Score: 1

      And you're absolutely sure that the totality of Apple's contribution was Apple-specific extensions?

      Certainly seems so from the release notes.

      See because Apple did contribute their own extensions doesn't mean they didn't contribute to other extensions. You don't know do you?

      You're the one who made the claim about their contributions, you back it up.

      Again you are imposing a false dichotomy and illogical position. Because Apple as company does not want to use the latest version of OpenGL that does not mean they don't contribute to the latest spec.

      So what specifically did they contribute? You are lauding them for their contributions yet you have no idea what they are.

      Do you know what ARM contributes? How about NVIDIA? You don't know yet your burden is only on Apple.

      Irrelevant, we're discussing Apple, not ARM or nVidia. If you want to discuss their contributions we can do so in a separate discussion.

      Your proposal is for Apple to use someone else's standard when proposing their own. Even though the final implementation may not resemble anything like Vulkan. That's just idiocy.

      No I'm suggesting they base the web specification on an open native specification rather than a closed proprietary one.

    78. Re:Vulkan by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Certainly seems so from the release notes.

      Again your assertion which is not based on actual evidence. You're not on the board; you don't know that Apple hasn't contributed beyond their own extensions.

      You're the one who made the claim about their contributions, you back it up.

      No I said Apple still contributes to OpenGL as of 4.5. You are the one who has moved the goal posts in saying Apple hasn't contributed anything beyond their extensions.

      So what specifically did they contribute? You are lauding them for their contributions yet you have no idea what they are.

      Again, it doesn't matter. You must prove that they only contributed their extensions. The release notes have already supports my claim that they did contribute. i don't need to point every single line that they did.

      Irrelevant, we're discussing Apple, not ARM or nVidia. If you want to discuss their contributions we can do so in a separate discussion.

      I'm pointing out your lack of logic and your hypocrisy. ARM may only contribute their own extensions. NVIDIA too. But you still consider that they contribute. In fact I bet you that ARM only contributes to OpenGL ES and not OpenGL. Yet you demand I show what Apple contributed line for line.

      No I'm suggesting they base the web specification on an open native specification rather than a closed proprietary one.

      Did you even read the summary? It says specifically Apple will base it on the IDEAS of Metal. They're not basing it on the API of Metal. How hard is that for you to understand? Your position is that Apple base it on someone else's API for something they develop. That's as idiotic as saying when Apple decided to develop a browser they should have just taken Gecko and used it instead of forking KHTML and making it WebKit.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  2. The best thing about standards is by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    that you have so many to choose from.

  3. Gee, thanks Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now we know that you really are the Internet Explorer 6-era Microsoft of this era. It's not enough to just outright ignore or haphazardly support web standards, waiting for others to do the hard work before you quickly slap together your own implementation at the last minute. It's not enough that you got everyone hooked on shitty prefixed stuff and didn't work to remove it when the standard versions came around, forcing other web outfits to create a compatibility standard around your pwn garbage without even helping them. It's not enough that you've fragmented web video and other standards with your own inferior proprietary versions for years, with your glacial update pace for iOS and Safari forcing people to limit their sites to your whims, but now you want us to believe that you're way is the right way, and what everyone else already supports is inferior? Pathetic.

    1. Re:Gee, thanks Apple. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      There we go again, someone who doesn't understand why "prefixed stuff" exists in the first place. It's not Apple's fault that people only used their prefixes. You also can't blame them for not removing said prefixes when they add non-prefixed stuff so that old code doesn't suddenly break for no apparent reason.

      Blame Firefox and Opera for implementing -webkit-stuff instead.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  4. Incorrect title by MacColossus · · Score: 1

    Apple wants everyone to collaborate a technology that will sit above metal, Direct3D, and Vulcan that talks down to those disparate technologies. They provided a sample to show possibilities that they said they don't expect to be the standard. https://webkit.org/blog/7380/n... Relevant quotes to dispel the paranoid ramblings posted by others. "In order to expose a modern, low-level technology that can accelerate graphics and computation, we need to design an API that can be implemented on top of many systems, including those mentioned above." "We don’t expect this to become the actual API that ends up in the standard, and maybe not even the one that the Community Group decides to start with, but we think there is a lot of value in working code."

  5. Headline doesn't really match actual news by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

    Where in the article does it suggest that Apple is making a power play here to position Metal like the headline says? This really doesn't have a whole lot to do with Metal specifically, and is instead about leveraging the entire class of APIs that have been coming out that are closer to the (lowercase) metal. In fact, they specifically said so in the summary:

    As noted by Dean Jackson from the WebKit team, advancements in the GPU hardware space has led to identical enhancements in software APIs. He cites platform technologies like Apple's Metal, Microsoft's Direct3D 12 and the Khronos Group's Vulkan as offering lower overhead, and thus better performance, than the OpenGL standard.

    The only thing special about Metal that's mentioned in the article is its role in the initial implementation. To pull the relevant quote:

    While Metal appears to underpin Apple's initial web graphics proposal, the company does not expect its concept to become the ultimate standard. That said, it appears Apple is angling to take Metal cross-platform.

    "We don't expect this to become the actual API that ends up in the standard, and maybe not even the one that the Community Group decides to start with, but we think there is a lot of value in working code," Jackson says.

    So, basically, Apple folks have access to Metal and understand how it works, so they're starting with what they know and have so that they can get the ball rolling quickly. Where it goes from there is up to the community, which, given Apple's typical approach their open source/community-driven projects (e.g. WebKit, LLVM, Clang, Swift, etc.), it's likely that they actually mean that. Of course, they'll no doubt use their role in the community to try and steer things to their own advantage, but if they do so too much it's likely that this will simply become another dead-end "standard" that no one adopts.

    1. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      If they want a cross-platform standard, all they need to do is implement the Vulkan API.

    2. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Where in the article does it suggest that Apple is making a power play here to position Metal like the headline says? This really doesn't have a whole lot to do with Metal specifically, and is instead about leveraging the entire class of APIs that have been coming out that are closer to the (lowercase) metal. In fact, they specifically said so in the summary:

      No way is Apple making this power play.

      If they did then they'd take 3d graphics hardware more seriously. As it is Apples graphics offerings are a joke, both literally and figuratively.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      So if Apple doesn't like a current open source implementation of something, then by your assertion, they should just implement it. No need to propose their own. Because that's how open source is supposed to work.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      If they did then they'd take 3d graphics hardware [on desktops] more seriously. As it is Apples graphics offerings are a joke [to me], both literally and figuratively.

      I think a problem here is everyone is only thinking about the PC. 3D and web content acceleration is something that affects mobile as well. Apple is looking for something that works for both their mobile GPUs as well as desktop ones. Currently Vulkan is an option however it is relatively new.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      You clearly have no idea what any of this is about, because what you just said is a terrible idea regardless of whether you support Vulkan or not.

      For one, Vulkan and its competitors aren't designed for use with untrusted code, so there are quite a number of significant security and technical concerns with your notion that we can simply adopt one of them as a web standard that any random web developer has full access to (which would've been just as true had you said Metal or Direct 3D 12 instead). What you "need", then, is a safe layer that abstracts the underlying API and provides safety to the user (I say "need" in quotes, because I'm not actually clear that this is something we want, let alone need).

      Second, neither Vulkan nor its competitors are actually cross-platform in practice today. It may be the case that one of them will become more widespread over time, but, for now, the world we live in is a fragmented one. Any given platform likely supports at least one of these competing standards, but you can't count on having support for any particular one. A web standard that lives over all of them would make it possible to tap into that power without having to know anything about any of them.

      When they talk about using Metal for this standard's initial implementation, what they mean is that they've already done most of the work of mapping Metal back to existing web standards (e.g. Javascript), so they have a head start on which features a standard may be able to support and what that web API may look like. They'll likely take something resembling the intersection of Metal's features with Direct 3D 12's and Vulkan's features so as to provide an initial release of the standard that works across most platforms.

      When they talk about Metal going cross-platform, that's a separate (but related) topic. It wouldn't affect this standard (i.e. you should eventually be able to use this standard with Metal as easily as with Vulkan), but it would provide them with a means for ensuring the availability of the standard across any platforms supported by Metal.

    6. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Where in the article does it suggest that Apple is making a power play here to position Metal like the headline says? This really doesn't have a whole lot to do with Metal specifically, and is instead about leveraging the entire class of APIs that have been coming out that are closer to the (lowercase) metal. In fact, they specifically said so in the summary:

      No way is Apple making this power play.

      If they did then they'd take 3d graphics hardware more seriously. As it is Apples graphics offerings are a joke, both literally and figuratively.

      Then why do you sound so nervous?

    7. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by geek · · Score: 1

      Apple has the best graphics on mobile by a wide margin. The desktop no but on mobile they are killing it.

    8. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      I'm simply pointing out that Apple don't really care for open standards. If they did they'd implement Vulkan.

    9. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Where in the article does it suggest that Apple is making a power play here to position Metal like the headline says? This really doesn't have a whole lot to do with Metal specifically, and is instead about leveraging the entire class of APIs that have been coming out that are closer to the (lowercase) metal. In fact, they specifically said so in the summary:

      No way is Apple making this power play.

      If they did then they'd take 3d graphics hardware more seriously. As it is Apples graphics offerings are a joke, both literally and figuratively.

      Then why do you sound so nervous?

      Because I know that my non-adoring comments on Apple products are going to be modded into oblivion.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    10. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by Kjella · · Score: 1

      For one, Vulkan and its competitors aren't designed for use with untrusted code, so there are quite a number of significant security and technical concerns with your notion that we can simply adopt one of them as a web standard that any random web developer has full access to (which would've been just as true had you said Metal or Direct 3D 12 instead). What you "need", then, is a safe layer that abstracts the underlying API and provides safety to the user (I say "need" in quotes, because I'm not actually clear that this is something we want, let alone need).

      I would hope they already offer some protection against one malicious or malfunctioning process crashing or snooping on other processes or hogging all the resources, I'm sure you need some kind of sandbox but creating a whole new API for that seems like major overkill. You got JS in the browser, Node.JS on the server. Java applets in the browser, Java on the server. If you need a whole new API something's very wrong.

      Second, neither Vulkan nor its competitors are actually cross-platform in practice today. It may be the case that one of them will become more widespread over time, but, for now, the world we live in is a fragmented one. Any given platform likely supports at least one of these competing standards, but you can't count on having support for any particular one. A web standard that lives over all of them would make it possible to tap into that power without having to know anything about any of them.

      The DirectX/OpenGL divide is ancient, AMD's Mantle API mostly got rolled into Vulkan so Apple is the only company that in modern times has caused more fragmentation.

      When they talk about using Metal for this standard's initial implementation, what they mean is that they've already done most of the work of mapping Metal back to existing web standards (e.g. Javascript), so they have a head start on which features a standard may be able to support and what that web API may look like. They'll likely take something resembling the intersection of Metal's features with Direct 3D 12's and Vulkan's features so as to provide an initial release of the standard that works across most platforms.

      Actually the article said they skipped the "shading language" part which where the bulk of the work is done because it's split between HLSL (DirectX), GLSL (OpenGL tranditional), SPIR-V (Vulkan) and MSL (Metal). And let's just start with Apple's own, sounds a lot like the tag without actually requiring a common codec but let's start with H.264 and see what happens.

      When they talk about Metal going cross-platform, that's a separate (but related) topic. It wouldn't affect this standard (i.e. you should eventually be able to use this standard with Metal as easily as with Vulkan), but it would provide them with a means for ensuring the availability of the standard across any platforms supported by Metal.

      Yeah... but nobody except Apple has shown any interest in Metal, they're deeply committed to DirectX (Windows, Xbox) or OpenGL (most everyone but Apple). It's Apple that want to spread their first-party creation, not any collaborative effort.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      > For one, Vulkan and its competitors aren't designed for use with untrusted code,

      [[Citation]]

      Do you have an _actual example_ that shows this or are you just repeating dogma that everyone else does?

      > neither Vulkan nor its competitors are actually cross-platform in practice today.

      Um, Hello, McFly. We already have WebGL. Hell, even Microsoft supports it on Edge! Of all the graphics API available WebGL is the most cross-platform. The only exceptions that I'm aware of are consoles such as PS3/PS4 and Xbox360/Xbone.

      WebGL 2.x was here in 2013. We don't need Yet-Another-Graphics-API. It is time to get rid of proprietary vendor lock-in regardless of how much "freedom" it promises.
       

    12. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by willy_me · · Score: 1

      Apple does not have any "graphics" on mobile. They license the best design for their specific needs and then build it into their CPU core. No reason why others can not do the same - they just have to be willing to pay for it. So Apple does have killer graphics with their iDevices - but it is not their design. I do give them credit for making excellent engineering decisions because licensing the design has worked out quite well for them.

    13. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      > For one, Vulkan and its competitors aren't designed for use with untrusted code,

      [[Citation]]

      Do you have an _actual example_ that shows this or are you just repeating dogma that everyone else does?

      Do you have an _actual example_ that shows there is not an invisible, intangible unicorn standing next to you right now, or are you just repeating dogma that everyone else does?

      Repeat after me: you can't prove nonexistence, which is why the onus is on the side claiming existence. If you want to claim that they designed it that way, the onus is on you to prove it. Have fun.

      Moreover, what does the cross-platform capabilities of WebGL have to do with my statements regarding Vulkan? Yes, WebGL is cross-platform. What of it? Apple's proposed standard may compete with or attempt to displace WebGL, but both of those are built on top of underlying technologies like OpenGL, Vulkan, and Metal, and between Vulkan, Metal, and Direct 3D 12, none are widely available across a multitude of platforms yet.

    14. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I'm simply pointing out that Apple don't really care for open standards. If they did they'd implement Vulkan.

      And if they don't like a standard, the direction, or the process it takes to change something, you're still arguing that they should implement a standard they don't like? That seems counter to open source. Could Apple fall flat on their faces for implementing a new standard? Yes. That doesn't mean they should always just follow what others do.

      For example, everyone in open source used gcc as the compiler for years. So did Apple; however, they found they got less than stellar support when trying to get changes to optimize Objective-C code as opposed to C or C++ code as their codebase was relatively small. After a few years, they backed Clang/LLVM instead. These days open source developers can use either as there are definite advantages of either compiler.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    15. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I'm simply pointing out that Apple don't really care for open standards. If they did they'd implement Vulkan.

      As I've already pointed out elsewhere in response to you, you seem to be very confused about what all of this means. You're basically suggesting Apple doesn't care about open standards because they're making a car (a safe abstraction for the graphics/compute layer) instead of implementing a gasoline engine (the unsafe graphics/compute layer). Never mind that they intend to use the gas engine--as well as other engines--in their car.

    16. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > which is why the onus is on the side claiming existence.

      Uhm, Hello, McFly. You are the one making this claim:

      For one, Vulkan and its competitors aren't designed for use with untrusted code,

      1. Where, specifically are the security issues with untrusted code using Vulkan or WebGL ???
      2. How is Apple's Metal any better?

    17. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Oh hi, Anubis IV!

      I'm very interested in your claim about Metal being designed to deal with "untrusted code" and would like to see your practical example that shows how Metal is designed better than known extensions designed to deal with "untrusted code" in OpenGL (these functions are usually the only ones available in environments where trusted code is an issue), such as ANGLE_instanced_arrays, EXT_blend_minmax, EXT_color_buffer_float, EXT_color_buffer_half_float, EXT_disjoint_timer_query, EXT_frag_depth, EXT_sRGB, EXT_shader_texture_lod, EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic, OES_element_index_uint, OES_standard_derivatives, OES_texture_float, OES_texture_float_linear, OES_texture_half_float, OES_texture_half_float_linear, OES_vertex_array_object, WEBGL_color_buffer_float, WEBGL_compressed_texture_atc, WEBGL_compressed_texture_etc, WEBGL_compressed_texture_etc1, WEBGL_compressed_texture_pvrtc, WEBGL_compressed_texture_s3tc, WEBGL_debug_renderer_info, WEBGL_debug_shaders, WEBGL_depth_texture, WEBGL_draw_buffers and WEBGL_lose_context.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    18. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Hi Ash-Fox,

      I never implied, nor said, nor would say said that Metal is designed to deal with untrusted code. In fact, I never asserted in any of my posts that Metal was in any way superior in any regard whatsoever to the other, competing APIs, nor would I. I merely criticized some overstated headlines and then some poor arguments that would have been just as poor had they come from a Metal or Direct 3D 12 supporter. They just happened to come from someone supporting Vulkan.

      Understandably, I won't be replying to the rest of your comment, since you're making a point that I already agree with.

    19. Re: Headline doesn't really match actual news by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      Protip:

      Open source and standard are two very different things.
      There is not even that much overlap.
      You are confusing the two.
      Some standards do not even allow an open source implementation (sure to associated patent coverage).
      Most open source in no way represent a standard.

      They. Are. Two. Different. Concepts.

      Please stop trying to treat them as the same thing. It's is stupid.

    20. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I never said Metal was better. Just because I disagree with what I think is a bad argument coming from you, it doesn't mean I'd support the same bad argument coming from someone on the other side. I honestly don't care which "wins" between Metal and Vulkan.

      I never said WebGL was unsafe to use. I was confused why you even brought it up, and still am. It's safe to use and it was designed for the web, but it doesn't provide the close-to-the-metal access this new standard is designed to provide, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.

      None of the close-to-the-metal APIs (i.e. Metal, Vulkan, and Direct 3D 12) are safe to use with the web as they are now. Additionally, keep in mind that this standard is not just about opening up the graphics layer, it's also about exposing the compute layer. Between that and the fact that none of these APIs provide sandboxing, it should be obvious that they're unsafe.

      Just think about it for a sec: if Vulkan or even OpenGL were already safe as they are, why does WebGL only expose a subset of the features they provide? We already have implementations for them, after all, so if they were safe to use, we'd already be using them.

    21. Re: Headline doesn't really match actual news by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Has Apple backed open standards? Yes, they've even created some. Have they backed open source? Yes. The original poster is somehow ignoring that while Apple does back proprietary things, they also back open standards and open source.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    22. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Because I know that my idiotic comments on Apple products are going to be rightfully modded into oblivion.

      Fixed that for you.

      Thanks because as a fanboi you are totally in your right to correct my erroneous and heretical comments.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    23. Re:Headline doesn't really match actual news by geek · · Score: 1

      Some simple googling would keep the egg off your face. Just sayin

  6. Re:Apple getting Cooked again. by Quzak · · Score: 1

    Just emulate the fastest possible GPU. Problem solved and no need to upgrade like EVER! Also emulate a 1 million ThZ cpu and a billion TB of ram.

    --
    Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
  7. Re:Apple getting Cooked again. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    And since we're going with emulation of the fastest possible CPU and GPU, there's no need to use quad-core multi-GHz intel processors and nVidia graphic chips anymore. That means we can run all our computers and smartphones on something like an Atmel ATmega328p!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  8. Re:Why not? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    You mean the two technologies that don't even exist on some platforms? I'm glad I don't have to deal with your bullshit.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  9. 927 by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

    How was this not the first post? And just so we don't ruin a perfectly good law...NAZIS

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  10. Good. by ruir · · Score: 1

    Now if they made decent Macbooks ago, and stopped rubbing as blind in Europe asking for more 600 USD than the equivalente machine in the US...

  11. Where does this fit in Apple's global strategy? by iampiti · · Score: 1

    I'm all for making the web browser more powerful platforms since that can help us be more independent of any concrete OS but I can't understand why Apple does something like this. I mean, they're one of the companies more intently trying to lock everyone in to their platforms. How does this "open" initiative fit with that?

    1. Re:Where does this fit in Apple's global strategy? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I'm all for making the web browser more powerful platforms since that can help us be more independent of any concrete OS but I can't understand why Apple does something like this. I mean, they're one of the companies more intently trying to lock everyone in to their platforms. How does this "open" initiative fit with that?

      Apple uses lots of open source software. They've championed lots of open source software. This would be no different. One possible advantage is that with everyone using this new standard, Apple isn't locked to a GPU on any platform. Also for them, programming is more simplified Currently they use PowerVR for their mobile and Intel/AMD/NVidia for computers.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Where does this fit in Apple's global strategy? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Think of it as the days of Microsoft Chrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Apple now thinks a fast 3d layer for their content will be useful. Just like Microsoft wanted in the mid to late 1990's.
      A fast 3d Web was always a hardware and software dream to different OS teams. A feeling by OS creators that only their OS could bring a gpu and 3d web GUI code together for users and content creators.
      That browser developers needed help to fully use all the gpu or cpu with a gpu on modern computers. Only the OS could offer/allow/grant full gpu access and allow an app or browser to be 3d ready.....
      A creative person would use the browser ready code to make nice content, the browser would work well with the OS, the OS would be the gateway to a complex GPU.
      The CPU and GPU could change a lot but the nice OS team would always support the browser and user as very complex GPU/CPU hardware updated.
      The idea is to allow app creators to be creative by having an OS layer always run their code over the years. The OS then has the option to move to the next hardware or software versions, not some gpu or cpu brand offering new tools to the app/browser.
      The OS will tell a developer what GPU and CPU 3d support is accessible. The OS is the gateway that builds a wall around any new CPU, GPU so all apps can be fully supported at the design pace an OS sets. The developers codes to the OS, not to hardware.
      The OS brand is then free to swap out any hardware they want.

      The app will still work, the browser will still feel all 3d, but the developer is required to code to an OS teams internal 3d standard, often with years of difference between what new hardware could do and what has to be supported of the older apps on the OS.

      The OS would finally only allow signed, pre approved apps to get full 3d...
      An OS approved safe space for any 3d work, games, code.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  12. Obligatory XKCD by swamp_ig · · Score: 1