2 ms·
The only time standardization unlocks innovation is when agreement is core to the function of the system (TCP/IP, communication protocols, etc). If it's simply
by enos_feedler 5y ago
The only time standardization unlocks innovation is when agreement is core to the function of the system (TCP/IP, communication protocols, etc). If it's simply to create a common abstraction across similar things, then it won't unlock anything. It's simply a nice to have.
- smoldesu 5y agoWhy doesn't Apple consider their GPU to be a core function of their system, then?
- ncmncm 5y agoStrangely, the fact still never prevents it being trotted out again, every time.
- rowanG077 5y agoA GPU is not core to the function of modern personal computers? It's not 1990 anymore. Literally every single personal computer has a GPU. In fact it would be more apt to say that nowadays you buy a GPU that has sacrificed a small part of its transistor budget to include a CPU.
- ncmncm 5y agoThe claim seems to be that the cited phenomenon applies only when interoperability between disjoint organizations is involved. But we see its wider applicability all the time, if only because education and similar infrastructure is exactly such an interoperation.
- enos_feedler 5y agoYes its true. Which is exactly why javascript and html gave way to a broader programmer market. This creates lots of educational content and improves the educational experience. Especially bc standards evolve slow and don’t typically break. So you can find old resources that are still useful. That being said, it doesnt create innovation. This is why you have so many web frameworks. Innovation cant truly run wild so people reorganize whats inside the box already. To get outside you must connect compute with new sensors, io, etc. and in this case standardization doesnt matter initially
- smoldesu 5y agoIf you find such innovation, let me know. We've given Apple just about 2 decades to blow us away here, and all we've got to show for it is Final Cut Pro.
- ncmncm 5y agoYet, every widely adopted standard leads to such an expansion of the whole market that overwhelmingly more resources become available to innovate. Thus, FORTRAN became FORTRAN II, III, IV, Fortran77, 90, driving demand for supercomputers CDC 6400, Cray, and on up. UNIX became Posix, now Linux. Bell Labs C became C++, then C++98, C++11, now C++20 and Rust. Silicon Graphics SGL became OpenGL that spawned numerous successors, and now Vulkan, which has already spawned Vulkan 1.1. So, the "innovation" argument is always trotted out, against copious evidence. But MBAs always fall for it, and we get things like DirectX, CUDA, and Metal that invariably end up acting to stall innovation, instead.
- enos_feedler 5y agoDirectX, CUDA and Metal are the product of copious amounts of innovation themselves. What is your best guess at the missing things we don’t have today because of their stalling? Just curious what you are thinking.
- ncmncm 5y agoEach receives nothing but the investment allocated to it by the one or, sometimes, two or three companies under contract, to address exactly the business goals of those companies and nothing else.
- pjmlp 5y agoLots of innovation, that is why OpenGL and Vulkan were basically copying DirectX features via extension spaghetti. Next on the pipeline, mesh shaders. Additionally why OpenCL only cared about anything beyond C after getting punched to the ground via C++ first alongside polyglot PTX. Khronos innovates so much that the graduation ceremony of using their APIs is to create a self built SDK, hunting for libraries and graphic debugging tools from each card vendor. Afterwards one is worthy to wore the ring of portable 3D mighty league.
- enos_feedler 5y agoYes but in no way do gpus being able to talk to other gpus in a standard way is core to the function of computer equipped with a GPU. All that matters is that the GPU can be programmed in some way.
- rowanG077 5y agoWe are not talking about inter-GPU communication. Only about using a single GPU.