My iPhone came with Apple maps yet I use Google maps, I don't use an iCloud email and the default search engine just happens to already be Google, but I can change that.
So you do realise that just because something is the default doesn't mean you have to use it don't you? There is a simple browser setting to change the default search from bing to google. You also don't have to use Outlook.com just like on Android how you don't have to use Gmail. And you can use Google Maps through the website or through an app like Maps+.
FWIW Apple collects $6-$8 from HTC for every device sold for patent fees too. Nokia and Qualcomm collect patent licensing fees as well. The point is that the innovators then cross-license, so the more you innovate the more you have to cross-license and the less you have to pay in licensing fees.
I believe almost all CAD and 3D modelling software are OpenGL based.
Most support a Direct3D rendering path on Windows (just like we used to do in the 90s when we had to support Direct3D, OpenGL, Glide, S3D, etc...). Nobody ties their application directly to one graphics API.
I doubt it, ATi did this already nearly a decade ago just a couple of years after the release of DirectX 9.0c and open sourced it under the name HLSL2GLSL which was forked a few years ago to add support for OpenGL ES (mainly for porting from DirectX platforms to Android) and is already used in Unity and OGRE. Conversion of the programmable pipeline from DirectX to OpenGL has been done for many years already.
With a big company (in terms of money) like Valve pushing OpenGL there is a real chance DirectX will face serious and permanent competition.
Direct3D has almost always faced serious competition from OpenGL, however completely replacing Direct3D with OpenGL and only having one player in that space would be a terrible mistake, the market would stagnate. OpenGL is a follower of Direct3D innovation, and I say this as an OpenGL developer and a staunch advocate of OpenGL. In the last few years the innovation in graphics programming has come from Direct3D with geometry shaders in DX10 (implemented in OpenGL shortly after) and the programmable tessellation pipeline and compute shaders in DX11 (again, implemented in OpenGL shortly after).
It's still open in the sense that legally you can do whatever you want with it.
It's up to you if you want to make Google happy or not.
AOSP is open yes but how many devices actually ship with AOSP? All Google-approved devices ship with the proprietary application services platform and many also include other proprietary UI layers all with various license agreements governing their use. Then there are forked versions like the Kindle Fire OS which also has a whole lot of proprietary software lockdown. Darwin is open source too but realistically nobody uses it that way, they use OSX with all its proprietary layers on top.
While AOSP is open development is moving from AOSP anyway so that new features aren't dependent on the version of Android that is on the device and are instead implemented in a higher level platform services layer, which is good since many devices cannot upgrade their OS version (and those that can often take a very long time).
So there's absolutely no chance that people who created a web site to trade Magic The Gathering cards, then hastily modified it to trade bitcoins, could possible get in over their heads technically and financially?
Nope, none at all. The pitchfork and torch bearers have their malicious scapegoat and they will sleep better knowing it was a calculated malicious act rather than them putting their trust in an entity that wasn't really capable or worthy of their trust. I'm not saying blame the victims here but the idea that MtGox was a corrupt corporate enterprise that stole their money is a lot more palatable to them than it being a start-up derived from a trading card website that got too big for its boots and made mistakes.
The one that wrote the article either has no clue what he was writing about or he's getting paid to be dumb. Basically, you want to use Google's services? You gotta do it the way *they* want you to do it. It's their services and their terms.
I think his point is that Google is shifting their development on Android from AOSP to GMS - now arguably that makes sense given that this means they can roll out new features to devices that can't necessarily upgrade their operating system version, but the question is why make it closed-source and proprietary?
I think probably Microsoft has some deal with graphics manufacturers that they won't expose the DirectX interfaces on any platform but Windows. It's not a case of they have the spec, they can do what they like.
They do have the spec, that's how they implement it on Windows, if they didn't have the spec they wouldn't be able to implement it. It's the agreement that they don't do cross-platform implementations that stops them.
Which is more efficient?
1- a GPU architecture that can accept API calls almost straight-through
2- a GPU that requires middleware to re-arrange code and data going through the API
Obviously the former, but Mantle, OpenGL, Direct3D, Glide, RRedline, Heidi are all the latter so what is your point? Even if Mantle is slightly more 1 than 2 on some hardware that doesn't mean that it's not going to be better than the incumbents.
Can you honestly tell me AMD did not coordinate Mantle and GCN design efforts to provide close to the thinnest middleware layer possible between the API and GCN?
Why would I? I'm sure they probably did, that still means nothing in comparison to other vendors and APIs.
Can you honestly tell me the middleware for other architectures won't be thicker to match API features GCN handles natively but other GPUs have no native direct equivalent for?
Why would I? It probably will, but that doesn't mean it's worse than OpenGL or Direct3D.
Can you honestly tell me a thicker middleware is going to perform equally well?
Again, why would I? I think it's obvious that the more functionality that is in software as opposed to hardware the slower it will be.
I'm not saying there won't be any performance benefits for other vendors. Just that the decks are almost certainly stacked in AMD's favor to some potentially non-negligible extent.
Of course, we already know that, they developed Mantle.
The point is that they have said it is going to be much more efficient even on non-GCN architectures and while I'm not going to buy into that I don't see any reason to dismiss it just because Mantle was designed around GCN. There is going to be API overhead, there will always be API overhead and we already have it with existing APIs.
You can bash Microsoft all you want but this is good for other platforms. Microsoft is driving innovation in 3D graphics and forcing Khronos to continue developing OpenGL, the major features like geometry shaders and programmable tesselation have been Microsoft innovations which have then been implemented later in OpenGL. So as an OpenGL developer I would be very happy to see Microsoft continue forward with DirectX and I'm glad they are still going strong with it. So you can keep your petty festering hatred but if you don't like it, don't use it and then you won't have to cry about it. It's just great that we benefit from it without having to use it.
Everything you say is just speculation and given they also explicitly say: "Mantle would be a much more efficient graphics API for other vendors as well" I don't think I would put much stock in your assessment. Moreover just because you have middleware doesn't suddenly make it inefficient.
So your saying that if Microsoft opened up DirectX it would be possible to use on the same devices where OpenGL is used now?
No, that isn't what I'm saying at all, the spec is Windows-specific and even if it wasn't it would require the hardware manufacturers - that already have the spec anyway - to write platform-specific implementations of DirectX for their hardware. Opening up the spec would do nothing because what influential company would get it that doesn't already have it? And what good would an open spec do for platform portability when the spec is platform-specific?
The way they could support more platforms is by changing the spec to make it portable, all the hardware manufacturers have access to it already anyway so opening it won't change anything.
Since AMD was very clear that Mantle only works with their GPUs based on GCN architecture
No actually they were very clear it does not require GCN architecture, it works with GCN cards but does not require it. See the "Multi-Vendor" slide here.
Mantle is designed to be a thin hardware abstraction: -Not tied to AMD's GCN architecture
Yes but being an open standard has nothing to do with that, the key implementers also have access to the DirectX spec. The confinement of DirectX to Windows-based platforms is simply due to Microsoft restricting the API to those platforms. If they suddenly provided that API on other platforms the graphics driver writers would just write DirectX drivers for those platforms the same way that they do for OpenGL because they already have the DirectX spec. What you wouldn't get without an open spec is a Mesa implementation.
If you're a developer out there, please, don't let Microsoft get away with this.
So what should I do instead? AMD hasn't even released Mantle so this doesn't have the effect of 'freezing developers' at all. I'm primarily an OpenGL developer rather than DirectX but I always like when a new version of DirectX ships as that has an impact on pushing OpenGL forward. But do you really think developers should freeze development and wait for AMD to give us Mantle? I don't, I'll judge it when it's released but I'm not making a call on it now (same goes for DX12).
If only for the fact that it will push OpenGL forward. Mantle looks promising (and should support non-AMD GPUs as well) but is still some time away from public release.
Slashdot Mirror
My iPhone came with Apple maps yet I use Google maps, I don't use an iCloud email and the default search engine just happens to already be Google, but I can change that.
So you do realise that just because something is the default doesn't mean you have to use it don't you? There is a simple browser setting to change the default search from bing to google. You also don't have to use Outlook.com just like on Android how you don't have to use Gmail. And you can use Google Maps through the website or through an app like Maps+.
FWIW Apple collects $6-$8 from HTC for every device sold for patent fees too. Nokia and Qualcomm collect patent licensing fees as well. The point is that the innovators then cross-license, so the more you innovate the more you have to cross-license and the less you have to pay in licensing fees.
Yeah awesome, I'm sure everybody would love chasing up drivers for all their hardware for the specific version of their particular OS of choice.
I believe almost all CAD and 3D modelling software are OpenGL based.
Most support a Direct3D rendering path on Windows (just like we used to do in the 90s when we had to support Direct3D, OpenGL, Glide, S3D, etc...). Nobody ties their application directly to one graphics API.
I doubt it, ATi did this already nearly a decade ago just a couple of years after the release of DirectX 9.0c and open sourced it under the name HLSL2GLSL which was forked a few years ago to add support for OpenGL ES (mainly for porting from DirectX platforms to Android) and is already used in Unity and OGRE. Conversion of the programmable pipeline from DirectX to OpenGL has been done for many years already.
With a big company (in terms of money) like Valve pushing OpenGL there is a real chance DirectX will face serious and permanent competition.
Direct3D has almost always faced serious competition from OpenGL, however completely replacing Direct3D with OpenGL and only having one player in that space would be a terrible mistake, the market would stagnate. OpenGL is a follower of Direct3D innovation, and I say this as an OpenGL developer and a staunch advocate of OpenGL. In the last few years the innovation in graphics programming has come from Direct3D with geometry shaders in DX10 (implemented in OpenGL shortly after) and the programmable tessellation pipeline and compute shaders in DX11 (again, implemented in OpenGL shortly after).
Yes I know that, that's hardly the same thing.
It's still open in the sense that legally you can do whatever you want with it. It's up to you if you want to make Google happy or not.
AOSP is open yes but how many devices actually ship with AOSP? All Google-approved devices ship with the proprietary application services platform and many also include other proprietary UI layers all with various license agreements governing their use. Then there are forked versions like the Kindle Fire OS which also has a whole lot of proprietary software lockdown. Darwin is open source too but realistically nobody uses it that way, they use OSX with all its proprietary layers on top.
While AOSP is open development is moving from AOSP anyway so that new features aren't dependent on the version of Android that is on the device and are instead implemented in a higher level platform services layer, which is good since many devices cannot upgrade their OS version (and those that can often take a very long time).
There's no other reasonable explanation.
So there's absolutely no chance that people who created a web site to trade Magic The Gathering cards, then hastily modified it to trade bitcoins, could possible get in over their heads technically and financially?
Nope, none at all. The pitchfork and torch bearers have their malicious scapegoat and they will sleep better knowing it was a calculated malicious act rather than them putting their trust in an entity that wasn't really capable or worthy of their trust. I'm not saying blame the victims here but the idea that MtGox was a corrupt corporate enterprise that stole their money is a lot more palatable to them than it being a start-up derived from a trading card website that got too big for its boots and made mistakes.
The one that wrote the article either has no clue what he was writing about or he's getting paid to be dumb. Basically, you want to use Google's services? You gotta do it the way *they* want you to do it. It's their services and their terms.
I think his point is that Google is shifting their development on Android from AOSP to GMS - now arguably that makes sense given that this means they can roll out new features to devices that can't necessarily upgrade their operating system version, but the question is why make it closed-source and proprietary?
I think probably Microsoft has some deal with graphics manufacturers that they won't expose the DirectX interfaces on any platform but Windows. It's not a case of they have the spec, they can do what they like.
They do have the spec, that's how they implement it on Windows, if they didn't have the spec they wouldn't be able to implement it. It's the agreement that they don't do cross-platform implementations that stops them.
Which is more efficient?
1- a GPU architecture that can accept API calls almost straight-through
2- a GPU that requires middleware to re-arrange code and data going through the API
Obviously the former, but Mantle, OpenGL, Direct3D, Glide, RRedline, Heidi are all the latter so what is your point? Even if Mantle is slightly more 1 than 2 on some hardware that doesn't mean that it's not going to be better than the incumbents.
Can you honestly tell me AMD did not coordinate Mantle and GCN design efforts to provide close to the thinnest middleware layer possible between the API and GCN?
Why would I? I'm sure they probably did, that still means nothing in comparison to other vendors and APIs.
Can you honestly tell me the middleware for other architectures won't be thicker to match API features GCN handles natively but other GPUs have no native direct equivalent for?
Why would I? It probably will, but that doesn't mean it's worse than OpenGL or Direct3D.
Can you honestly tell me a thicker middleware is going to perform equally well?
Again, why would I? I think it's obvious that the more functionality that is in software as opposed to hardware the slower it will be.
I'm not saying there won't be any performance benefits for other vendors. Just that the decks are almost certainly stacked in AMD's favor to some potentially non-negligible extent.
Of course, we already know that, they developed Mantle.
The point is that they have said it is going to be much more efficient even on non-GCN architectures and while I'm not going to buy into that I don't see any reason to dismiss it just because Mantle was designed around GCN. There is going to be API overhead, there will always be API overhead and we already have it with existing APIs.
You can bash Microsoft all you want but this is good for other platforms. Microsoft is driving innovation in 3D graphics and forcing Khronos to continue developing OpenGL, the major features like geometry shaders and programmable tesselation have been Microsoft innovations which have then been implemented later in OpenGL. So as an OpenGL developer I would be very happy to see Microsoft continue forward with DirectX and I'm glad they are still going strong with it. So you can keep your petty festering hatred but if you don't like it, don't use it and then you won't have to cry about it. It's just great that we benefit from it without having to use it.
DirectX has handles, Mantle probably has pointers ... that's where I think much of the speed will come from.
"Handle" is a generic term for a reference to a resource - which often means pointer. Where would you get a massive speed increase from?
Everything you say is just speculation and given they also explicitly say: "Mantle would be a much more efficient graphics API for other vendors as well" I don't think I would put much stock in your assessment. Moreover just because you have middleware doesn't suddenly make it inefficient.
So your saying that if Microsoft opened up DirectX it would be possible to use on the same devices where OpenGL is used now?
No, that isn't what I'm saying at all, the spec is Windows-specific and even if it wasn't it would require the hardware manufacturers - that already have the spec anyway - to write platform-specific implementations of DirectX for their hardware. Opening up the spec would do nothing because what influential company would get it that doesn't already have it? And what good would an open spec do for platform portability when the spec is platform-specific?
The way they could support more platforms is by changing the spec to make it portable, all the hardware manufacturers have access to it already anyway so opening it won't change anything.
Since AMD was very clear that Mantle only works with their GPUs based on GCN architecture
No actually they were very clear it does not require GCN architecture, it works with GCN cards but does not require it. See the "Multi-Vendor" slide here.
Mantle is designed to be a thin hardware abstraction:
-Not tied to AMD's GCN architecture
Yes but being an open standard has nothing to do with that, the key implementers also have access to the DirectX spec. The confinement of DirectX to Windows-based platforms is simply due to Microsoft restricting the API to those platforms. If they suddenly provided that API on other platforms the graphics driver writers would just write DirectX drivers for those platforms the same way that they do for OpenGL because they already have the DirectX spec. What you wouldn't get without an open spec is a Mesa implementation.
If you're a developer out there, please, don't let Microsoft get away with this.
So what should I do instead? AMD hasn't even released Mantle so this doesn't have the effect of 'freezing developers' at all. I'm primarily an OpenGL developer rather than DirectX but I always like when a new version of DirectX ships as that has an impact on pushing OpenGL forward. But do you really think developers should freeze development and wait for AMD to give us Mantle? I don't, I'll judge it when it's released but I'm not making a call on it now (same goes for DX12).
...except when the comment title explicitly says "open source": Why not open source it?.
But the OpenGL standard is very much open. Unlike DirectX.
Which goes a big way to explain why it is king everywhere except Windows PCs.
How so?
Well then perhaps you should get on to the graphics card manufacturers, they are the people that implement the spec for their hardware.
Open development, more involvement from the community, more trust. Would be good for both Microsoft and its users.
Does it really need to be? Despite the name you will find that most OpenGL implementations aren't open source.
If only for the fact that it will push OpenGL forward. Mantle looks promising (and should support non-AMD GPUs as well) but is still some time away from public release.
You spin off lean and mean small units from the cash cow.
The operating system division isn't "lean and mean" or a "small unit" and for the most part it is the cash cow.