Autodesk Drops Support For Alias, VRED In macOS Mojave Over OpenGL Deprecation (appleinsider.com) 309
"Autodesk has published a support document announcing that it is stopping development of its Alias and VRED vertical market packages, and that older versions will not work on Mojave due to Apple's OpenGL deprecation," writes Stephen Silver for Apple Insider. Alias is software predominantly used in automotive design and industrial design, while VRED is 3D visualization software. From the report: According to a note posted on Autodesk's support website, while older Alias versions can run on High Sierra or earlier, "no versions of VRED will run on that operating system due to the OpenGL deprecation." The change, according to the Autodesk note, "allows Autodesk development teams to focus on bringing innovations to market faster, and allows for more frequent software updates." "In the end, the entire Alias and VRED community will benefit from this streamlined approach," wrote the company.
This follows the announcement by Apple in June at WWDC that Mojave will require graphics hardware to support Metal, and that active development has ceased for OpenGL and OpenCL on the Mac. It isn't clear why Autodesk made the declaration that OpenGL's deprecation was responsible for the applications not working in Mojave. Deprecation does not mean removed, and the existing OpenGL implementation in High Sierra remains in Mojave. The move at present does not appear to affect the core AutoDesk product.
This follows the announcement by Apple in June at WWDC that Mojave will require graphics hardware to support Metal, and that active development has ceased for OpenGL and OpenCL on the Mac. It isn't clear why Autodesk made the declaration that OpenGL's deprecation was responsible for the applications not working in Mojave. Deprecation does not mean removed, and the existing OpenGL implementation in High Sierra remains in Mojave. The move at present does not appear to affect the core AutoDesk product.
God forbid (Score:3, Informative)
Apple should have some sort of a system where the GPU drivers can install their own OpenGL stack, similar to the ICD in Windows.
It boggles my mind how much money that company has and how poorly written OS X seems to not be able to do the things Windows has been able to do for a decade or more. I'm surprised Autodesk didn't just drop support for OS X entirely and tell Apple to piss off. They actually deserve it this time, especially considering what a clusterfuck Metal 2 is (and it still doesn't support everything OpenGL 4.5 does- nor will it ever, according to Apple- nice mobile API you back ported to the desktop there).
Re: (Score:2)
nice mobile API you back ported to the desktop there
Precisely. If it won't work natively on mobile it doesn't belong in MacOS as the two won't remain separate for long.
People have been predicting this since OS X 10.7 (Lion).
Hasn't happened. Never will.
Deprecation may not mean "removed" (Score:4, Interesting)
But it sure as fuck means the OS publisher isn't supporting it. If I"m making a product that requires support from the publisher for bugs, security issues, or what have you for a given module, and they drop it on the floor, I drop them on the floor. I'm not going on the hook for something that isn't supported. Not worth the fucking time.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, surely for a forward-thinking developer "deprecated" has pretty much the same effect on your decision-making as "removed".
Re: Deprecation may not mean "removed" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah so what. AutoCAD is a mature product. It just needs to keep working on the existing API.
what happend to pro market apple ? (Score:2)
so apple came out and said they wanted professional software then "deprecated" OpenGL
Apple can reverse this course and sort it out but they need to do it now !
The Customer is Always Right (original meaning) (Score:4, Interesting)
The original meaning of "The Customer is Always Right" stems from demand for a product, not the parades of boorish people so often seen quoting this adage. More specifically, if customers demand a certain product, then that's the product that should be made. Apple is attempting to cram down the throats of the users something the users don't want.
Re: (Score:2)
This is hardly surprising behavior for Apple, and far from the first time. They have already discovered that they can do the most amazingly abusive shit and still the sheeplike fanbois/girls will bend over and religiously continue to overpay for Apple hardware.
Time Cook should read Slashdot (Score:2)
Time Cook should start reading Slashdot, right? So coulda avoided this embarrassing mistake. Looking forward to the upcoming walkback, how can Apple PR hacks possibly spin that as anything other than ignominious capitulation?
Re: Time Cook should read Slashdot (Score:2)
probably not.
They refused to support java on mobile, and lost virtually all their market share in a decade.
refusing to support vulkan just means they get shut out of the Vr wave.
Apple isn't dying, its dead already, just gonna take a bit longer for Goldman Sachs to unwind their positions.
Anyone know why Apple's dropping OpenGL (Score:2)
Re:Anyone know why Apple's dropping OpenGL (Score:5, Interesting)
OpenGL is shit and has always been shit. It has a convoluted API that was designed around configuring fixed-function 3D rasterisers and is ill-suited to programmable GPUs, multi-threading and has extremely high overhead for modern graphics pipelines from the multitude of function calls and GPU state validations.
Metal, Vulkan, D3D12 are all very similar in the way they offer lightweight APIs that are a minimal abstraction of modern programmable GPUs and are designed to work in multi-threaded, multi-process environments.
In my opinion as a crusty old games developer, all of the new-generation APIs are inspired by Sony/Nvidia's GCM library from the PlayStation 3, which in itself draws upon the PlayStation 2's GS & DMAC libraries.
Re:Anyone know why Apple's dropping OpenGL (Score:4, Interesting)
Correct. OpenGL is an antique API - if you have a modern high end video card (like a GTX 1050 or higher) OpenGL will run like crap on it - it just has too much overhead causing most of the power to go underutilized.
The big problem is what OS X is going to use - Metal, Vulkan and the like all came out around the same time because of the issues of OpenGL One should note when Metal came out, Vulkan was actually AMD's API set - it was donated to Khronos to offer a standardized next-generation API set, and renamed to Vulkan. We are in a huge transition period where legacy apps will need to be ported over to take advantage of modern video card performance.
Re: (Score:2)
it was the one thing they had going for them from both a high end app and game standpoint. e.g. that they used a well known library. Who's going to put the work into writing to Apple's custom library? Maybe for iPhone games, but it kind of kills the desktop.
Considering the graphics requirements of the average videogame running on an iOS device running Metal, vs the average Desktop CAD Application, I simply don't see why it would be such an onerous task for AutoDesk to provide Metal API support. After all, they already have iOS Applications that presumably use Metal in the App Store...
Re: (Score:3)
They're not dropping it, simply stopping further internal development. OpenGL is pretty much legacy at this point, the most used implementation is ~10 years old and Khronos has moved on to Vulkan (basically OpenGL 5).
Khronos initially wanted money for Vulkan so Apple went off on their own and developed Metal, now Khronos is releasing their own Vulkan libraries for Mac and iOS (and made MoltenVK royalty-free, although not patent-free).
Re: (Score:3)
Khronos initially wanted money for Vulkan so Apple went off on their own and developed Metal
Not quite. Apple created Metal [wikipedia.org] a couple of years before Vulkan [wikipedia.org] was first released. So Apple first released Metal in 2014 and the Khronos Group first announced Vulkan in 2015. The first release of Vulkan was in 2016.
Who was first does not really matter. Just wanted to note that the motivation for developing Metal was to improve performance / battery life in iOS devices. It was not a vanity project driven by the need to do everything on their own. Well maybe partially, but there were no good alternat
Wtf did people think was going to happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't seek support from your library vendors, then it's completely understandable to drop support for the platform. This is exactly what anyone with half a mind knew was going to happen when Apple announced they were dropping support for OpenGL.
Deprecation does not mean removed (Score:2)
But it means it is essentially an unsupported part of the system.
Apple: We will not support OpenGL in the future.
Autodesk: Then we will not support macOS in the future.
Summary is misleading (Score:2)
"Autodesk has published a support document announcing that it is stopping development of its Alias and VRED vertical market packages,"
No, this is not true, what is true is:
"Autodesk has published a support document announcing that it is stopping development of its Alias and VRED vertical market packages for macOS", or as the support document on their knowledge base says, "Discontinuation of Mac Support for Autodesk Alias and VRED".
In other words, development for other platforms that haven't deprecated OpenG
Re: (Score:3)
Can't they just use Vulkan?
The most logical reason is that Apple doesn't want to put the development of a crucial part of their OS in someone else's hands. It's why they don't use gcc anymore. And why they developed their own web browser.
Fuck Metal, anyway. It's like DirectX but nobody worth a damn fucking uses it.
Nobody but the millions of Mac and iOS users.
LLVM (Score:5, Interesting)
It's why they don't use gcc anymore.
No, now they use LLVM/CLANG, which they also don't develop, though they contribute quite a bit to it's development.
Re:LLVM (Score:4, Interesting)
No, now they use LLVM/CLANG, which they also don't develop, though they contribute quite a bit to it's development.
No Apple didn't initially develop LLVM but they have contributed significantly to it as you've noted. The main reason Apple doesn't use gcc anymore is that they felt there were not getting enough support from the GNU Project. Since Objective-C has much smaller base than C or C++, many of the changes and optimizations Apple wanted for their languages wasn't being done as quickly as they wanted. I suspect also that making those kinds of changes would have broken many things for other languages. So Apple went with another compiler. Same story with WebKit.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason they abandoned gcc is because of the GPL. Intellisense-like features required the code parser from the compiler to be integrated into the IDE, the GPL didn't allow that without making XCode free software which Apple didn't want to do so having a modern closed-source IDE required a compatible (licensed) compiler.
Considering that until 2011 (XCode 4.1), gcc was the compiler, I find that hard to believe. Also before 4.1, XCode cost $4.99 to the general public and free for paid Apple Developers ($99 yearly). After 4.1, XCode was free to the general public. That seems to go against your narrative because Apple made XCode free after it dropped gcc.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It didn't send it to them because Apple wasn't integrating GCC's code parser within Xcode. That's the point of what he's trying to say; Apple couldn't do so under GCC without having to potentially open up part of or all of the source code for Xcode, since the GPL requires that any GPL source integrated into another product requires that product to also comply with the GPL. LLVM's BSD license is much more permissive, so they switched away, so they could then implement their intellisense feature. He's saying
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason they abandoned gcc is because of the GPL.
The reason they abandoned gcc (and other GNU programs) is GPLv3, most likely because of the anti-Tivoization clause. Notice how GNU programs in OSX (if there are still any) are all very old versions, right before they switch to GPLv3.
Apple would rather give their customers ancient software than loosen their grip on the iThings.
Re: LLVM (Score:2)
I'd badly call llvm ancient in the scheme of GCC. It's significantly younger in fact
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Not yet anyway. It will eventually become part of emacs. Then ultimately rolled into systemd, along with the kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
And then that kernel will get integrated by The Turtle.
Re: (Score:2)
The most logical reason is that Apple doesn't want to put the development of a crucial part of their OS in someone else's hands.
It's not a crucial part of Apple's OS, it's just a library. The most logical reason is that Tim Cook is a crack addict.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a crucial part of Apple's OS, it's just a library. The most logical reason is that Tim Cook is a crack addict.
Maybe we have different definitions of crucial but I consider the graphics API a crucial part of the OS.
Re: (Score:2)
We have different definitions of "OS". What you call OS, I call platform. At least we don't disagree about Tim Cook's crack habit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
to be clear you don't think the graphics API is important enough for Apple to develop on it's[sic] own?
Apple should develop its own implementation of Vulkan. But I don't really give a crap whether they do or not, it's your funeral.
Re: Vulkan? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which part of your fevered imagination makes you think that supporting standards amounts to being beholden?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple can and should participate in the group that develops the standard. To do otherwise would make Apple seem like a bunch of assholes. Oh wait, I'm starting to understand. You are from Apple right? You certainly are an asshole, so that would fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Well of course it's a dead standard. You can thank Nero for that. Fucking Romulan.
Re: (Score:3)
Vulcan is a dead standard. Nobody uses it.
Bullshit. Vulkan is now available on over 40% of Android devices, which by itself makes it the second most widely distributed graphics API in the universe, second only to OpenGL ES, available on 100% of Android devices. Vulkan is supported by numerous PC titles. [wikipedia.org] Most AAA game engines support Vulkan, the others have it on the way. Unity Engine supports Vulkan on Android, Linux and Windows. Likewise Unreal. ID tech 6 was the AAA engine to support Vulkan and is widely licensed. Steam's Source2 engine supports
Re: (Score:2)
Relying on The Open Group didn't seem to be a problem. Unlike Linux, OSX actually is Unix.
Re: (Score:2)
"Vulkan is now available on over 40% of Android devices, which by itself makes it the second most widely distributed graphics API in the universe"
Available != widely distributed and supports != runs. The fact that there are bindings to support the engine does not mean that Vulkan is actually used on PC (DirectX). If I look at the list with "numerous PC titles" I see a grand total of 37 games - many of which are based on the same base game (such as Doom/Wolfenstein/Quake and the Serious Sam series), and a lo
Re:Vulkan? (Score:5, Insightful)
When vendors develop their own 3D graphics implementations, the result is always horrible. For example, 3fdx created glide. It sucked, so only a few companies added support for it to their engines. iD didn't bother. Instead, 3dfx wound up having to support the parts of opengl used by iD, and they called it minigl. Sadly, this came too late... Because Microsoft had time in the interim to create direct3d. As we all know, d3d went through many revisions before it was worth one tenth of one shit. Up until 7, IIRC, you could not even plot a pixel on top of a d3d window without resorting to GDI. Now Apple wants to have their own 3d API and apple users are in for a world of hurt, as this announcement demonstrates. Instead of simply continuing to use opengl until vulkan meets their standards, they've created yet another incompatible standard. Opengl permits vendor customization via vendor extensions, like e.g. multitexture used to be (SGIS_MULTITEXTURE, anyone?) But there was no good reason for Apple to rush to a new standard while developers were still happily using the old one. They did it anyway, and now their customers have to suffer — as do developers. If they are developing a cross-platform application, they now have no choice but to support multiple APIs... Or they can keep using opengl, which is still available on Windows and Linux, and simply drop Macintosh... Like what's being discussed here. And except for a tiny minority of developers who have more than a diminutive handful of Apple users to worry about, that's going to make a whole lot more sense. It's hard enough to find opengl developers with more than a little experience, but it's literally impossible to find any with much experience with Metal since it's new.
Microsoft was able to use its dominant market position and its game console to force adoption of d3d. Apple has no such advantage. Get ready to have even less available software, Apple users. You should be used to it by now...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
millions of Mac and iOS users wah wah wah
Reality: those millions of Mac and IOS users don't know or care what Metal or Vulkan are. Single button minds.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The bad thing about OpenGL is that it's not going anywhere (stagnant).
Certainly in an Apple-centric world it might appear that way, the latest version of OpenGL that Apple supports is 4.1 which was released in 2010. Apple's support of OpenGL stagnated long before Metal came about, back then OpenGL didn't even have compute shaders and as a result you can't run OpenGL compute shaders on any Mac despite them being introduced 6 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They've made some optimizations in recent years but they haven't really advanced it.
Optimization is the whole reason for lower-level APIs like DX12, Vulkan and Metal, I don't know what you mean by
Re: (Score:2)
The good thing about Vulkan is that it is cross-platform. The bad thing is that it's very finicky to use.
That's far from the only good thing about Vulkan. It also succeeds dramatically at killing off CPU load and removing the CPU as a render bottleneck. It was designed to suit highly skilled 3D developers for building engines and libraries. Anybody not capable of coding a 3D engine themselves should program to the engine or library API. That's the way everybody wants it except Apple, who wants a dumbed down API that doesn't excel at anything and instantly shoves Apple to the back of the crossport list. If you
Re: (Score:2)
That's the way everybody wants it except Apple, who wants a dumbed down API that doesn't excel at anything and instantly shoves Apple to the back of the crossport list. If you can see the point of that then you have more imagination than me.
And your evidence for that is what? You seem to assert that you know exactly what Apple wants. Unless you work in the upper echelons of Apple, you're merely asserting what you think Apple wants based on your own bias.
Re: (Score:2)
As I alluded to before, Apple management seems to be smoking crap in the back room, how else could they keep coming up with such braindamaged ideas.
Re: Vulkan? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Vulkan? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're complaining about insults so that you don't have to discuss the actual issue, which is that only a total moron would think that boning developers in this fashion for no good reason is a good idea. Microsoft was able to push direct3d on an audience which didn't want it first because of their dominant position in the market, and second (and later) because of their game console. Apple has neither of those things, so this is a true idiot move. You can now proceed to cry about Apple management being called idiots, or consider the strength of the argument, but either way, Apple is off its nut and you're engaging in a diversionary tactic to prevent yourself from having to realize it.
The idea that Apple can push their own 3d API is a fever dream. What was good about OSX is that it was standards-based. Now Apple is moving away from that, and there is nothing good or intelligent about it. Rather, it is a delusional decision, and you are being equally delusional — and defensive.
Re: (Score:2)
only a total moron would think that boning developers in this fashion for no good reason is a good idea
I wouldn't put it past ol' Timmy.
Re: (Score:2)
users donâ(TM)t have to know about Metal, they can still get the benefits.
Huh? That is actually an argument for not using metal. Since users don't know about Metal they dion't give a flying fuck about it, and can get more benefit from Vulkan, which is lower level and more efficient, and which developers actually do care about.
(Thanks for the car analogy. Not.)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody but the millions of Mac and iOS users.
It's just single-digit [netmarketshare.com] market share, so might as well just ignore them for now...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Vulkan? (Score:2)
Because the OS vendor has made it more expensive to support their users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are less than 10% of your potential user base, and now you need to create a completely new code base to support them. And there are thousands of Alias users, not millions - meaning that macOS probably has mid-to-high 3 figure number of users. No longer really compelling, when you think of that number of users...
Apple has never had high number for decades now but you're saying that now you should abandon them because they don't have high number of users. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody but the millions of Mac and iOS users.
It's just single-digit [netmarketshare.com] market share, so might as well just ignore them for now...
It's nearly 600 Million users across macOS and iOS.
Sorry, that's enough.
Re: Vulkan? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't they just use Vulkan?
The most logical reason is that Apple doesn't want to put the development of a crucial part of their OS in someone else's hands. It's why they don't use gcc anymore. And why they developed their own web browser.
Fuck Metal, anyway. It's like DirectX but nobody worth a damn fucking uses it.
Nobody but the millions of Mac and iOS users.
Hundreds of millions, actually. Close to 600 million if you combine macOS (which is over 100 million by itself) and iOS, which both use Metal.
Re: (Score:3)
The main reason Apple dropped GCC was because of the GPL3. Both the patent clauses and the anti-DRM clauses in it are bad for Apple (they need to be able to lock down the iOS devices and they need to be able to enforce their patents)
Re: Vulkan? (Score:3)
Ever tried to use Vulkan? Even Carmack is calling for an API on top of the Vulkan API. Not sure who is moving to direct Vulkan but most likely it'll end up being a buggy mess (manual memory management in large projects?) and the same reason OpenGL "lost" to DX in the early 2000s.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure who is moving to direct Vulkan but most likely it'll end up being a buggy mess
Unity, Unreal, IdTech6 are some pretty big names that have Vulkan support just fine. Unity even has it for its Android version.
manual memory management in large projects?
Yes, where do you get the idea that memory is just magically managed for you in OpenGL (or Metal)? You realize you still need to allocate and deallocate buffers in OpenGL and check whether the allocation does indeed succeed, the basics of memory management. In OpenGL the default behaviour for the driver is to shuffle memory in and out of vram and system ram in oversubscription cases
Re: (Score:2)
The question is why.
Apple made Metal because Vulkan wasn't being released and the work done on it became a big mess. Metal is a lot simpler to use and works directly on the hardware, there is no need for Vulkan if you have Metal. If Apple wants to conquer the world, they could release Metal implementations for Windows/Linux and quickly take over both DX and Vulkan, but Apple isn't in that game.
Re: (Score:2)
but Apple isn't in that game
To the detriment and ultimate demise of Metal, along with their viability as a CAD, graphics, and video editing workstation vendor.
Re: Vulkan? (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter wether it's better...
Apple are a niche vendor, the more they can do to ease porting of applications to their platform the better... If developers have to port all their code to a completely new graphics api then the effort requires increases significantly. This is going to directly result in less software being ported to apple platforms.
Re: Vulkan? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple simply doesn't have the market share to push Metal other than as afterthoughts. Industry moves ot Vulkan because it runs everywhere.... except Apple.
Except that's not exactly what Apple is doing. Apple has never said that everyone else should use Metal. What they've said is they are going to use Metal.
If Apple wants a gaming scene on Macs going forward it's got to (1) preserve OpenGL support which still has the majority of games and (2) offer native Vulkan, which has got the industry momentum.
And how long has Apple been pushing Macs to be a gaming machine. Almost never. With iOS, if you're not developing on Metal, you're not going to be doing much graphics.
Re: Apple doesn't have market share to push Metal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically Apple has shown over and over that they only care about 30 percent of the market, and everyone else can go fuck themselves. Here they are doing it again.
No, Apple in this exact example has shown they want to control their own ecosystem. It's the exact same reason they developed WebKit and switched to LLVM. You want to proscribe more to their intentions, then that's your call.
I'm glad I'm not locked into that crap platform
So if I understand you correctly, you're not remotely affected by this decision yet you feel extremely slighted by it?
that doesn't even have an escape key (if only there were another company that made such durable laptop frames).
And when was the last time you actually looked at a Mac keyboard because all the ones I see have Escape keys.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple in this exact example has shown they want to control their own ecosystem. It's the exact same reason they developed WebKit and switched to LLVM.
Apple failed at controlling Webkit because Google got fed up with Apple's governance and forked it (Blink) and rapidly made Webkit irrelevant, now used by Safari and nobody else. Apple will eventually give up backporting Blink improvements and repurpose their engineers officially as Blink contributors. Apple has to play nice with LLVM or that history will play out again the same way.
Unlike HTML and Compiler tech, Apple has no credible business case for a bespoke 3D library. In fact there is a strong case to
Re: (Score:2)
Apple failed at controlling Webkit because Google got fed up with Apple's governance and forked it (Blink)
Reading that statement it seems you don't understand what open source is. Apple developed WebKit from a fork of KHTML. As open source, Google wanted to fork it and make Blink. So when you said Apple "failed" to control WebKit, that sentence is nonsensical.
rapidly made Webkit irrelevant, now used by Safari and nobody else
That is rather factually untrue in two regards. [wikipedia.org] First, there are browsers that use WebKit still and second, what proof do you have that WebKit was "rapidly made" irrelevant.
Apple will eventually give up backporting Blink improvements and repurpose their engineers officially as Blink contributors,
Do you have proof of that or that your assertion without evidence?
Apple has to play nice with LLVM or that history will play out again the same way.
Again your assert
Re: (Score:2)
As open source, Google wanted to fork it and make Blink.
Well governed open source projects don't get forked. Apple wasn't sufficiently responsive to Google's needs so Google forked it, simple.
That is rather factually untrue... [wikipedia.org]
Read your own link. Count the number of discontinueds. It's basically down to just Apple and Adobe. That happened really fast.
Apple will eventually give up backporting Blink improvements and repurpose their engineers officially as Blink contributors,
Do you have proof of that or that your assertion
My assertion. Mark it down. I said the same about Metal, mark that down too. Do LLVM too while you're at it, though I think that of the three it has the best chance of avoiding a fork for now.
Apple has no credible business case for a bespoke 3D library...
You mean beside Metal?
Apple has no credible business case for Metal, which is a
Re: (Score:2)
Well governed open source projects don't get forked.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow you certainly don't know anything of open source. There are whole operating systems that have been forked. For example BSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.
Apple wasn't sufficiently responsive to Google's needs so Google forked it, simple.
HAHAHAHAHA. [Citation Needed]
Read your own link. Count the number of discontinueds. It's basically down to just Apple and Adobe. That happened really fast.
You said " now used by Safari and nobody else." That is factually untrue. Certainly not every browser is currently being used but you are either ignoring all of them or are delusional.
My assertion. Mark it down. I said the same about Metal, mark that down too. Do LLVM too while you're at it, though I think that of the three it has the best chance of avoiding a fork for now.
So you have no evidence for anything that you've said then. Then I can discount your posting as mere imagination.
Apple has no credible business case for Metal, which is a bespoke 3D API. I thought that was clear.
No you are merely wr [macgamerhq.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well governed open source projects don't get forked.
There are whole operating systems that have been forked. For example BSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.
You know nothing of FreeBSD. For example DragonflyBSD started after a food fight that ended up with revoking one of the core dev's commit access.
Apple wasn't sufficiently responsive to Google's needs so Google forked it, simple.
HAHAHAHAHA. [Citation Needed]
Sweet, your concept of intelligent discourse marks you as an Apple employee. Then you criticize other people's posts like an asshole. Again, how Apple of you. Chrome's multiprocess architecture was awkward to develop in Webkit. Apple could have moved Safari in the same direction but chose not to. So bam, fork.
You said " now used by Safari and nobody else." That is factually untrue.
You niggle. Close enough to describe the reality. Would
Re: (Score:2)
it's factually untrue that Apple has no 3D library
It's also factually untrue that anyone here claimed otherwise. What was claimed, which you even quoted, is that Apple has no credible business case for their own 3D library.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what he said. Read it again moving your lips this time of necessary. There was no business case for Apple to get into the 3D API business.
Do you know how many games use Metal? That alone says that there is a business case for Apple to get into the 3D API business; however, their API is only for them and they don't want to release it for every one. Other software they have released like OpenCL when it suited them.
Yet they did, and now they expect everyone else to jump through the resulting flaming hoop of dogshit.
No they don't. Apple doesn't expect "everyone" to jump through hoops. Certainly Apple isn't expecting Linux and Microsoft user to do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean beside Metal? Autodesk doesn't want to code in Metal, that's their choice, but it's factually untrue that Apple has no 3D library.
That's not what he said. Read it again moving your lips this time of necessary. There was no business case for Apple to get into the 3D API business.
Yet they did, and now they expect everyone else to jump through the resulting flaming hoop of dogshit.
Hmmm. Seems to be no problem for legions of iOS Devs.
Perhaps you are just too tired or stupid to learn a new API that generates the displays for Application software with hundreds of millions of users.
Re: Apple doesn't have market share to push Metal (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple doesn't want devs to be able to easily port apps between platforms. They're hoping that devs making mobile apps will spend their efforts just on iDevices.
All it will really do is push Apple further out of the gaming and graphics design markets.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike HTML and Compiler tech, Apple has no credible business case for a bespoke 3D library.
*Cough* ARKit *Cough* ...to name one that immediately comes to mind...
Re: (Score:2)
Could have used Vulkan, did not need to create a home rolled API to do the same thing less flexibly, leaving out important features, and not used by anybody outside of Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
And when was the last time you actually looked at a Mac keyboard because all the ones I see have Escape keys.
Now you're just trolling.
Re: (Score:3)
A Mac Book with touch bar has no ESC key. ...
Which you clearly can see on the article you linked
It might have an "ESC - area" on the touchbar, though.
As a 'vi' user: that is out of the question.
Having no F-keys is out of the question as well for heavy game play.
Yes: I have a Mac, and yes, I play games on it, and yes, I map commands to function keys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The industry is moving to Vulkan, with the heavy hitter gaming and 3D engines going that way.
Don’t the big engines already support Metal? Unreal, Unity, etc.? Last I checked they all already support it.
Apple simply doesn't have the market share to push Metal
They aren’t trying to push it at all, so the point is moot. They’re only trying to control their own platforms. Metal debuted back when Vulkan was still floundering in the market as Mantle and OpenGL was falling behind DirectX in functionality and performance. Vulkan will hopefully receive third-party support on macOS and perhaps iOS eventually, perhaps even first-party support, but
Re:Apple doesn't have market share to push Metal (Score:4, Interesting)
Don’t the big engines already support Metal? Unreal, Unity, etc.? Last I checked they all already support it.
Yep they do.
Vulkan will hopefully receive third-party support on macOS and perhaps iOS eventually
It's already there [github.com]. Instead of just breaking from Khronos and going off and doing their own thing it would have made sense to contribute Metal to Khronos as an industry standard, or at least make it an open spec.
Re: (Score:2)
No disagreement from me. I’d love to see Vulkan adopted as an industry standard, including on Apple platforms.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Really, no one is using Apple for high-end CAD anymore because the hardware sucks.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is not for professionals anyway.
Soon it won't be for amateurs either.
Meanwhile in MS-DOS... (Score:2)
... still playing games that call mode 13h.