4 ms·

These are good points, but here are some more to consider: - Apple, particularly recently, have been terrible on supporting modern web proposals. Worse than an

These are good points, but here are some more to consider: - Apple, particularly recently, have been terrible on supporting modern web proposals. Worse than anyone. Much worse than the typical historical reputational lower bar that is Microsoft. - Apple's record on proposing new web standards has been demonstrably aggressively anti-open and not generally condusive to promoting interop https://www.w3.org/2012/te-pag/pagreport.html https://www.w3.org/2012/te-pag/pagreport.html - Apple's general record on cross-platform development is pretty much non-existent. To the contrary, much of their business decisions are specifically based on limiting interop with non-Apple platforms. I think on a holistic level, if you take Apple's record into account at all, any criticisms from them of a cross-platform proposal of any kind need to be taken in context. Before you even start considering the pros and cons of Vulkan or WebVulkan, there's a very blatant case of cui bono to examine behind this. Even if you do get past that, the points about commonality between native and web APIs are growing more and more relevant every day as Emscripten, WebAssembly and other such tech brings the two worlds closer to each other. Cross-compilation efforts will invariably be made easier with a more consistent API between (web and native) platforms.

hutzlibu 10y ago
"Before you even start considering the pros and cons of Vulkan or WebVulkan, there's a very blatant case of cui bono to examine behind this." Not really. Because yes, it is well known that Apple closes down their system and wants full controll over it and locks other partys out. One of the Reasons for me, to not buy them. But what does this have to do, when they propose a new Web API? If Apple chooses to go a different way with metal (and a way apparently quite some devs like), than I don't see much point in trying to force them to go another way. Maybe metal is even superior - I can't judge that, but I am not going to say vulkan is superior, just because it is open(even though I would like it to be superior just for that fact). ButI don't see much point in dragging Web-Technologys into these discussion in the first place. Especially since apparently it is possible to implement the proposed WebGPU on top of metal, vulkan or Direct3D !! And even though "Cross-compilation efforts will invariably be made easier with a more consistent API between (web and native) platforms." is true , it is not gonna happen at the moment, since simply not everybody wants vulkan at the moment, but 2 major players stick with something else. And I am not sure it is only for power reasons, but maybe also for technical reasons, as I read from quite some devs, that working with vulcan is huge pain(and they prefer metal, if it would be open) .... as it is not made for working with it directly, but rather to be worked through a higher level API. So ... is there a different proposal for that higher level API than WebGPU to be discussed right now?
- lucideer 10y ago
  > But what does this have to do, when they propose a new Web API? The web being inherently cross-platform in nature there's a motivation on their part to not support it, or - in this case - cripple it (perhaps to a mild degree but at least enough to render it categorically inferior to native metal and not worth the trade-offs). I can't say that their proposal does this necessarily, but there's inarguably a motivation to do so. For a previous obvious example of this kind of thing, see the deliberate crippling of iOS UIWebView. > I am not sure it is only for power reasons, but maybe also for technical reasons Call me a cynic, but while there may be good, valid technical arguments against Vulkan, it's mainly for power reasons.
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    Hm, do you really believe, that Apple wants to artifical cripple the web? I see, that they hypothetically might have motivation, to do so ... but this is not valid, since the web is inferior to native implemantations in the first place! The "only" advantage of the web is, that it is more or less, cross plattform.
    - macawfish 10y ago
      As far as i can remember, they've been consistently behind on support for emerging web technologies (since the app store came out), it just doesn't seen to be in their business interests to keep up.
      - hutzlibu 10y ago
        But it is something different, to not "keep up" with full priority, than to intentionally sabotage WebStandards ...
        lucideer 10y ago
        The UIWebView is an interesting example. They released significant performance advances in the iOS Safari web browser, but denied those features to developers of cross-platform apps on frameworks such as Cordova, artificially degrading the performance of Cordova apps compared to natively developed iOS apps. Both need to go through the AppStore anyway, but keeping as much dev lock-in as possible in terms of the tech used is obviously an interest here. Add to that the fact that what positive feature development there has been in Safari (e.g. the above-mentioned excellent es6 support in the Technical Preview) has very specifically excluded the addition of any of the APIs that begin to blur the web/native divide (web notifications, userMedia, service workers, &c.)

hutzlibu 10y ago

"Before you even start considering the pros and cons of Vulkan or WebVulkan, there's a very blatant case of cui bono to examine behind this." Not really. Because yes, it is well known that Apple closes down their system and wants full controll over it and locks other partys out. One of the Reasons for me, to not buy them. But what does this have to do, when they propose a new Web API? If Apple chooses to go a different way with metal (and a way apparently quite some devs like), than I don't see much point in trying to force them to go another way. Maybe metal is even superior - I can't judge that, but I am not going to say vulkan is superior, just because it is open(even though I would like it to be superior just for that fact). ButI don't see much point in dragging Web-Technologys into these discussion in the first place. Especially since apparently it is possible to implement the proposed WebGPU on top of metal, vulkan or Direct3D !! And even though "Cross-compilation efforts will invariably be made easier with a more consistent API between (web and native) platforms." is true , it is not gonna happen at the moment, since simply not everybody wants vulkan at the moment, but 2 major players stick with something else. And I am not sure it is only for power reasons, but maybe also for technical reasons, as I read from quite some devs, that working with vulcan is huge pain(and they prefer metal, if it would be open) .... as it is not made for working with it directly, but rather to be worked through a higher level API. So ... is there a different proposal for that higher level API than WebGPU to be discussed right now?

lucideer 10y ago
> But what does this have to do, when they propose a new Web API? The web being inherently cross-platform in nature there's a motivation on their part to not support it, or - in this case - cripple it (perhaps to a mild degree but at least enough to render it categorically inferior to native metal and not worth the trade-offs). I can't say that their proposal does this necessarily, but there's inarguably a motivation to do so. For a previous obvious example of this kind of thing, see the deliberate crippling of iOS UIWebView. > I am not sure it is only for power reasons, but maybe also for technical reasons Call me a cynic, but while there may be good, valid technical arguments against Vulkan, it's mainly for power reasons.
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  Hm, do you really believe, that Apple wants to artifical cripple the web? I see, that they hypothetically might have motivation, to do so ... but this is not valid, since the web is inferior to native implemantations in the first place! The "only" advantage of the web is, that it is more or less, cross plattform.
  - macawfish 10y ago
    As far as i can remember, they've been consistently behind on support for emerging web technologies (since the app store came out), it just doesn't seen to be in their business interests to keep up.
    - hutzlibu 10y ago
      But it is something different, to not "keep up" with full priority, than to intentionally sabotage WebStandards ...
      - lucideer 10y ago
        The UIWebView is an interesting example. They released significant performance advances in the iOS Safari web browser, but denied those features to developers of cross-platform apps on frameworks such as Cordova, artificially degrading the performance of Cordova apps compared to natively developed iOS apps. Both need to go through the AppStore anyway, but keeping as much dev lock-in as possible in terms of the tech used is obviously an interest here. Add to that the fact that what positive feature development there has been in Safari (e.g. the above-mentioned excellent es6 support in the Technical Preview) has very specifically excluded the addition of any of the APIs that begin to blur the web/native divide (web notifications, userMedia, service workers, &c.)