> They would because it would mean more software support. Evidently, Apple doesn't think it's worth it. Who else would be in a better position to judge? > Pro

> They would because it would mean more software support. Evidently, Apple doesn't think it's worth it. Who else would be in a better position to judge? > Proper support for Vulkan would not be an abstraction layer. Metal is not the language of the hardware, GPUs operate on assembly like instructions Sure, but the point of Metal for Apple is to have an abstraction layer so they are free to change things underneath it as needed. A first-class Vulkan implementation would be a largely redundant, and sometimes conflicting abstraction (and a conflict Apple doesn't control). That's a lot of additional complexity. > What if I told you I can transfer a file between my Mac and PC using software built into Mac OS from a standard controlled by Microsoft. I guess you mean SMB? That has not exactly been a straight a smooth road on MacOS. I would guess Apple's experience supporting it helped them realize the value of controlling the foundational APIs of their OS. But even more so with web APIs. > GPU makers are plenty interested because it sells GPUs My point is the GPU makers have not yet been inspired to implement Vulkan for MacOS, and now that they face a near future where MacOS will be not be a market for them due to Apple silicon,