5 ms·

> Really just drives home how big of a mistake it was ignoring Vulkan for the past decade on Apple's behalf, but lord knows they won't admit that until it's too

by burnte 2y ago

> Really just drives home how big of a mistake it was ignoring Vulkan for the past decade on Apple's behalf, but lord knows they won't admit that until it's too late. They'll never admit it. They only caved on USB-C because they were legally required to. They won't cave on this, or NVidia support, or putting the charge port on the side of the mouse and not the belly, etc.

mantas 2y ago
Nobody required USB-C charging for laptops and iPads. It would have happened on iPhones eventually too.
- eptcyka 2y ago
  They were the (one of the) first ones to usb-c on laptops. I don’t think they were ever planning to do usb-c on the iPhone, they had no reason to be this late.
  - chipotle_coyote 2y ago
    They didn't have a technical reason to be that late, but they probably had a marketing reason -- and I don't mean "they made money by licensing Lightning." (They did, obviously, but I don't think it was raking in big bucks, at least not Apple standards.) When the iPhone switched to Lightning from the clunky 34-pin iPod connector, a whole lot of people got pissed off with Apple and stayed pissed off with them for years. Literally years. People were convinced Apple did it just to sell more cables. So if you're Apple, and you know the history of the last time you forced everyone to buy new cables, and now you have orders of magnitude more people using your phone…you probably put this off as absolutely long as possible. Would they have gotten there without pressure from the EU? Honestly, I think so -- I used to agree with you, but when the iPad Air, not just the Pro, went to USB-C, I changed my mind.
    - kalleboo 2y ago
      When Apple went up on stage and announced Lightning, they said "this is our connector for the next 10 years". 10 years later, almost on the dot, they replaced Lightning on the iPhone with USB-C. Doesn't seem weird at all to me.
      - talldayo 2y ago
        It wouldn't be weird if they simply picked one side and stuck with it. They put USB-C on Mac, because obviously Lightning couldn't fill the role they wanted with Thunderbolt. And then they made iPhones Lightning because... they wanted to sell IP to cable manufacturers. And they made the Magic Trackpad/Keyboard accessories use Lightning because... why again? It's just USB, it probably takes more work to make a Lightning peripheral than a USB-C one. The more you think about MFi and Lightning design patents the harder it is to believe that they were simply being honest and sticking to their word.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        troupo 2y ago
        When they made Lightning USB didn't even have an agreed-upon charging standard. Much less all the other requirements Apple had for the cable. Do not try and pretend that USB was any good when Lightning was announced. And even USB-C is a mess of conflicting and confusing optional specifications.
        talldayo 2y ago
        > And even USB-C is a mess of conflicting and confusing optional specifications. Certainly one that Apple didn't struggle to navigate, considering they designed Thunderbolt around the specification.
        troupo 2y ago
        As I understand, original Thunderbolt was mostly Intel's work, and Apple figured out how to have it with the mini-DP connector. Later Thunderbolt is Intel doing the right thing: they took many of the features that USB-C lists as optional, and made them required for Thunderbolt specification. That's why the first M1 Macbook was Thunderbolt-capable/enabled, not fully Thunderbolt certified
  - philistine 2y ago
    Apple did USB-C on the iPad before the Europeans forced them to do USB-C at all. They could have kept developing Lighting, it supported USB-3 speeds for one device (the first iPad Pro), but they instead chose to rally around the common standard. USB-C on phones was a certainty, it was clear to everyone. The problem is not that Apple didn't want to standardize, it's that they didn't want to be forced. In the history of technology, Apple has chosen to switch connectors countless times. Every single time people complain, and every time Apple has the same exact reason for choosing a specific connector: its the one that makes sense for its customers when the device is released.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      Speaking of, can you buy a Magic Trackpad that uses USB-C yet? I've got a Magic Trackpad 2 that requires this annoying special cable no one uses and it ends up making me buy trashy gas-station connectors to feed it power. Maybe we're still waiting for that one to make "sense for it's customers when the device was released". Good grief.
      - philistine 2y ago
        The Magic Trackpad 2 was released in 2015. you want a third version, but the second one had to be Lighting.
    - ThatPlayer 2y ago
      > it supported USB-3 speeds for one device (the first iPad Pro) I'm always unsure about this because it only supported USB 3 host for one specific accessory, the camera adapter. I question whether that implementation was just a hack or something that could've scaled to proper USB client support and others. There was never a USB 3 Lightning to USB-A or USB-C cable.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      They did the exact opposite of rally. USB-C on iPhone took an extra eight years. Even if I agree it was a "certainty", that's far too long. They did not want to standardize. The idea of forcing them didn't come up in any significant way until after they proved that. And I don't know what their laziness about USB 3 is supposed to prove. They didn't consider 3 support necessary for USB-C either.
  - oreilles 2y ago
    Actually they had one, they released the Lightning connector by claiming they would stick with it for at least a decade. And they did exactly that.
- burnte 2y ago
  > Nobody required USB-C charging for laptops and iPads. Nobody said that happened. I said for phones.
troupo 2y ago
> They'll never admit it. Admit what? That they had their own API before anyone even thought about Vulkan? That they have Metal running on one of the most popular platforms in the world (iOS)? That other major platforms don't support Vulkan (Xbox, Playstation; Windows supports DX and defers Vulkan support to GPU vendors)?
- talldayo 2y ago
  Admit that Metal isn't enough. People were more willing to write a DirectX translation framework for Vulkan than Mac users were willing to write one for Metal. And now with Game Porting Toolkit we basically have confirmation that nothing has been stopping Mac users from playing DirectX games with DXVK besides... working Vulkan drivers. So it would be nice to see Apple's explanation for being so insular. Especially when their "solution" is repackaged and relicensed free software that we've all been using for years.
  - troupo 2y ago
    > Admit that Metal isn't enough. By what criteria? > People were more willing to write a DirectX translation framework for Vulkan than Mac users were willing to write one for Metal. There were significantly more games playable on Mac than for Linux for years, even after Vulkan's introduction. Apple hurt gaming on Mac by dropping 32-bit support and changing CPU architectures significantly more than any fantasy about not supporting Vulkan (which is really not supported by most major platforms, and isn't supported by game developers either). And it wasn't some vague nebulous people willing to write a DirectX translation framework. It was Steam pursuing its business strategy (and doing an amazing job of it). Before steam not a single person could be bothered to get off their asses and do a similar job for any platform.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      > By what criteria? ...games? Isn't that what we're talking about? How Apple suffers from spurning the gaming industry, and does absolutely nothing to improve the scenario? > There were significantly more games playable on Mac than for Linux for years > Apple hurt gaming on Mac by dropping 32-bit support and changing CPU architectures significantly more than any fantasy about not supporting Vulkan Oh, well this is just wrong. Box86 had "solved" the x86 -> ARM translation path before Apple Silicon even existed, albeit slowly. The 32-bit depreciation was bad, but wasn't a dealbreaker for applications like WINE; there is a working codepath for WOW64 in WINE today. Once again; the OP's post is about how they currently have games working on Linux that are flat-out unplayable on MacOS. Whether you want to blame fantasy features or not, Apple has clearly made some sort of arbitrary limitation on the userland capabilities that has stopped developers from doing this in MacOS and forced them onto Linux. Seems to me that the pretty clear difference is in the title of the article; Asahi supports Vulkan 1.3, MacOS does not. > Before steam not a single person could be bothered to get off their asses and do a similar job for any platform. Before Steam, there was no incentive to develop it. But people most certainly did do the same, job for multiple platforms. Codeweavers wrote several D3D translation layers over the years, WINE had multiple old and slow DX drivers (DirectX-D3DX9) that semi-worked, and even without that you could still run most titles through software acceleration. And look; if Steam goes rogue and decides to drop support for all platforms but Android Wear, we don't really have to worry that much. The important work is upstreamed in DXVK and distributed by multiple parties, not just Valve. Frankly, the biggest advantage Valve still holds over the community is how smoothly their UI goes from clicking "play" to launching the game. I struggle to imagine a situation where Valve goes full-Monty and the community suffers for it.
zbentley 2y ago
Maybe so. But they did cave on/rethink decisions around: the MagSafe adapter; butterfly switches; laptop thinness generally (but only a little); onboard HDMI/SD; touchbar controls (for now). Not saying that means they'll immediately see the light WRT 3D graphics APIs. Just that they aren't universally hostile to revising prior decisions.

by burnte 2y ago

mantas 2y ago

Nobody required USB-C charging for laptops and iPads. It would have happened on iPhones eventually too.

eptcyka 2y ago
They were the (one of the) first ones to usb-c on laptops. I don’t think they were ever planning to do usb-c on the iPhone, they had no reason to be this late.
- chipotle_coyote 2y ago
  They didn't have a technical reason to be that late, but they probably had a marketing reason -- and I don't mean "they made money by licensing Lightning." (They did, obviously, but I don't think it was raking in big bucks, at least not Apple standards.) When the iPhone switched to Lightning from the clunky 34-pin iPod connector, a whole lot of people got pissed off with Apple and stayed pissed off with them for years. Literally years. People were convinced Apple did it just to sell more cables. So if you're Apple, and you know the history of the last time you forced everyone to buy new cables, and now you have orders of magnitude more people using your phone…you probably put this off as absolutely long as possible. Would they have gotten there without pressure from the EU? Honestly, I think so -- I used to agree with you, but when the iPad Air, not just the Pro, went to USB-C, I changed my mind.
  - kalleboo 2y ago
    When Apple went up on stage and announced Lightning, they said "this is our connector for the next 10 years". 10 years later, almost on the dot, they replaced Lightning on the iPhone with USB-C. Doesn't seem weird at all to me.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      It wouldn't be weird if they simply picked one side and stuck with it. They put USB-C on Mac, because obviously Lightning couldn't fill the role they wanted with Thunderbolt. And then they made iPhones Lightning because... they wanted to sell IP to cable manufacturers. And they made the Magic Trackpad/Keyboard accessories use Lightning because... why again? It's just USB, it probably takes more work to make a Lightning peripheral than a USB-C one. The more you think about MFi and Lightning design patents the harder it is to believe that they were simply being honest and sticking to their word.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - troupo 2y ago
        When they made Lightning USB didn't even have an agreed-upon charging standard. Much less all the other requirements Apple had for the cable. Do not try and pretend that USB was any good when Lightning was announced. And even USB-C is a mess of conflicting and confusing optional specifications.
        talldayo 2y ago
        > And even USB-C is a mess of conflicting and confusing optional specifications. Certainly one that Apple didn't struggle to navigate, considering they designed Thunderbolt around the specification.
        troupo 2y ago
        As I understand, original Thunderbolt was mostly Intel's work, and Apple figured out how to have it with the mini-DP connector. Later Thunderbolt is Intel doing the right thing: they took many of the features that USB-C lists as optional, and made them required for Thunderbolt specification. That's why the first M1 Macbook was Thunderbolt-capable/enabled, not fully Thunderbolt certified
- philistine 2y ago
  Apple did USB-C on the iPad before the Europeans forced them to do USB-C at all. They could have kept developing Lighting, it supported USB-3 speeds for one device (the first iPad Pro), but they instead chose to rally around the common standard. USB-C on phones was a certainty, it was clear to everyone. The problem is not that Apple didn't want to standardize, it's that they didn't want to be forced. In the history of technology, Apple has chosen to switch connectors countless times. Every single time people complain, and every time Apple has the same exact reason for choosing a specific connector: its the one that makes sense for its customers when the device is released.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    Speaking of, can you buy a Magic Trackpad that uses USB-C yet? I've got a Magic Trackpad 2 that requires this annoying special cable no one uses and it ends up making me buy trashy gas-station connectors to feed it power. Maybe we're still waiting for that one to make "sense for it's customers when the device was released". Good grief.
    - philistine 2y ago
      The Magic Trackpad 2 was released in 2015. you want a third version, but the second one had to be Lighting.
  - ThatPlayer 2y ago
    > it supported USB-3 speeds for one device (the first iPad Pro) I'm always unsure about this because it only supported USB 3 host for one specific accessory, the camera adapter. I question whether that implementation was just a hack or something that could've scaled to proper USB client support and others. There was never a USB 3 Lightning to USB-A or USB-C cable.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    They did the exact opposite of rally. USB-C on iPhone took an extra eight years. Even if I agree it was a "certainty", that's far too long. They did not want to standardize. The idea of forcing them didn't come up in any significant way until after they proved that. And I don't know what their laziness about USB 3 is supposed to prove. They didn't consider 3 support necessary for USB-C either.
- oreilles 2y ago
  Actually they had one, they released the Lightning connector by claiming they would stick with it for at least a decade. And they did exactly that.
burnte 2y ago
> Nobody required USB-C charging for laptops and iPads. Nobody said that happened. I said for phones.

troupo 2y ago

> They'll never admit it. Admit what? That they had their own API before anyone even thought about Vulkan? That they have Metal running on one of the most popular platforms in the world (iOS)? That other major platforms don't support Vulkan (Xbox, Playstation; Windows supports DX and defers Vulkan support to GPU vendors)?

talldayo 2y ago
Admit that Metal isn't enough. People were more willing to write a DirectX translation framework for Vulkan than Mac users were willing to write one for Metal. And now with Game Porting Toolkit we basically have confirmation that nothing has been stopping Mac users from playing DirectX games with DXVK besides... working Vulkan drivers. So it would be nice to see Apple's explanation for being so insular. Especially when their "solution" is repackaged and relicensed free software that we've all been using for years.
- troupo 2y ago
  > Admit that Metal isn't enough. By what criteria? > People were more willing to write a DirectX translation framework for Vulkan than Mac users were willing to write one for Metal. There were significantly more games playable on Mac than for Linux for years, even after Vulkan's introduction. Apple hurt gaming on Mac by dropping 32-bit support and changing CPU architectures significantly more than any fantasy about not supporting Vulkan (which is really not supported by most major platforms, and isn't supported by game developers either). And it wasn't some vague nebulous people willing to write a DirectX translation framework. It was Steam pursuing its business strategy (and doing an amazing job of it). Before steam not a single person could be bothered to get off their asses and do a similar job for any platform.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    > By what criteria? ...games? Isn't that what we're talking about? How Apple suffers from spurning the gaming industry, and does absolutely nothing to improve the scenario? > There were significantly more games playable on Mac than for Linux for years > Apple hurt gaming on Mac by dropping 32-bit support and changing CPU architectures significantly more than any fantasy about not supporting Vulkan Oh, well this is just wrong. Box86 had "solved" the x86 -> ARM translation path before Apple Silicon even existed, albeit slowly. The 32-bit depreciation was bad, but wasn't a dealbreaker for applications like WINE; there is a working codepath for WOW64 in WINE today. Once again; the OP's post is about how they currently have games working on Linux that are flat-out unplayable on MacOS. Whether you want to blame fantasy features or not, Apple has clearly made some sort of arbitrary limitation on the userland capabilities that has stopped developers from doing this in MacOS and forced them onto Linux. Seems to me that the pretty clear difference is in the title of the article; Asahi supports Vulkan 1.3, MacOS does not. > Before steam not a single person could be bothered to get off their asses and do a similar job for any platform. Before Steam, there was no incentive to develop it. But people most certainly did do the same, job for multiple platforms. Codeweavers wrote several D3D translation layers over the years, WINE had multiple old and slow DX drivers (DirectX-D3DX9) that semi-worked, and even without that you could still run most titles through software acceleration. And look; if Steam goes rogue and decides to drop support for all platforms but Android Wear, we don't really have to worry that much. The important work is upstreamed in DXVK and distributed by multiple parties, not just Valve. Frankly, the biggest advantage Valve still holds over the community is how smoothly their UI goes from clicking "play" to launching the game. I struggle to imagine a situation where Valve goes full-Monty and the community suffers for it.

zbentley 2y ago

Maybe so. But they did cave on/rethink decisions around: the MagSafe adapter; butterfly switches; laptop thinness generally (but only a little); onboard HDMI/SD; touchbar controls (for now). Not saying that means they'll immediately see the light WRT 3D graphics APIs. Just that they aren't universally hostile to revising prior decisions.