Hacker News Reader

Comment by shmerl | Hacker News Reader

The article points out that their API matches the hardware and it's the only API they care about:

> Their only properly supported API is their own Metal, which they may shape to fit the hardware rather than contorting the hardware to match the API.

Meaning they don't care to take Vulkan into account when making their GPU. If it would happen to work well - good. If not - tough luck. So it's not just about macOS, it's about making hardware too.

If you don't find it a damaging stance - well, good for you. I find it pretty nasty and I don't see a reason to avoid criticizing Apple. They aren't some neutral party in this especially with their size and impact.

View on HN

Your argument is equivalent to criticizing ARM for putting in instructions to optimize Javascript into their architecture, as if that "sabotages" every other programming language. Or Intel for putting in instructions to optimize AES into their architecture, as if that "sabotages" Salsa20.

It doesn't make any sense. Of course Apple optimizes Metal for their GPUs and their GPUs for Metal. None of that is hostile towards other APIs. All of this hardware is Turing-complete and by definition can implement any conceivable graphics API. The only question is how well it performs with those APIs, and until we have benchmark numbers, your argument is based on assumptions lacking any evidence.

I'm not sure what Turing completeness argument has to do with anything. Turing machine is also Turing complete. You are going to make GPUs like that.

We are talking about a simple fact - Apple don't care to collaborate on Vulkan, neither when designing their GPUs nor for their OS. I see no point to further argue about facts. And I see criticism of that as completely valid.

Supporting both Vulkan and Metal in a game engine is not a huge task. I work in the games industry, my job is to implement and maintain graphics backends to a renderer engine, so I can speak from experience.

Huge or not, duplication of effort is a tax. And no, it's not trivial as you claim. Especially when some engine wasn't designed from the ground up to address these differences.

I think you haven't effectively countered their point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com