Apple Deprecating OpenGL

[DrMacintosh]

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Losing dev support is not good for any company.  So, they should care.

Their ultimate goal is the Mac App Store, so all they care about making sure it’s easier for devs to port over their applications and making sure that new developers have a foundation of skills for one platform if they have experienced coding for the other. 

 

Sorry if devs who made programs years ago refuse to support their own products, that’s not Apples fault. 

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Universal platforms aren't usually praised.  UWP for example.

Apple is not aiming for a universal platform.....

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Then what are they aiming for?  API restrictions to piss of devs and lose support?

Devs using better APIs to make macOS a better OS. 

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Forcing them to do more work is not how you make a dev happy.

Getting rid of lazy devs might be part of the reasoning behind the switch. 

[LAwLz]

50 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

There are always drawbacks. You need to keep the framework for each API for as long as you support it.

And this is an issue because...? Apple literally doesn't have to do anything to support OpenGL. The support is already there, and it's Intel/AMD/Nvidia writing the drivers for it.

 

50 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Apple doesn’t want to support OpenGL anymore and that’s a good thing.

How is that a good thing?

 

50 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Developers don’t get to tell Apple what is on Apples platform. 

I never said they did, but that is the biggest "non argument" I have ever seen. I asked "why" and you come back with "they can do whatever they want!".

 

 

50 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

It objectively does make the OS more efficient, Metal is a technologically superior API for what Apple uses it for. It’s also significantly more modern.

You don't understand.

You keep going back to Metal vs OpenGL, but what we're talking about is OpenGL with Metal vs just Metal.

It does not make the OS more efficient at all. If you truly believe that then I want you to come back with some evidence.

 

 

51 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

And it does allow Apple to do more, the more aspects of the OS that is under 1st party control, the better the end user experience can be.

That is a massive load of bullshit. Please explain to me how removing OpenGL allows Apple to do more. Remember, anything that has to do with Metal could be done while also supporting OpenGL, so all arguments about Metal being better than OpenGL are completely irrelevant.

Also, please explain to me how having more aspects of the OS under 1st party control makes the end user experience better.

 

Do you understand how software works? Are you a programmer? I don't think you are, based on your posts.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

10 hours ago, 2Buck said:

I'm just wondering if Apple will back pedal on this when Mac OS gets less support.

I'd be surprised if they weren't already counting on getting less support.

I read this as seeking a tighter grip on niches where Apple already is the weapon of choice, while giving up on the remaining areas when they are already a footnote.

[JoeCoke]

5 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I'd be surprised if they weren't already counting on getting less support.

I read this as seeking a tighter grip on niches where Apple already is the weapon of choice, while giving up on the remaining areas when they are already a footnote.

Ah... Well that does make a lot of sense. Thinking about it there's no way they'd not know this already. My post was dumb. :\

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

 Thinking about it there's no way they'd not know this already. My post was dumb. :\

Sounds a bit extreme to me  

 

(inb4 you brought dishonor to your family )

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Apple. "Hey, dev!  You can't make the game how you want, you have to do more work because fuck you, and you have to meet our restrictions because fuck you."  Ya, that's going to go over well.  That's going to help their minimal support.

Well devs have a lot of time to get their apps ready, if they can't do that in 2 years, then yeah, they don't deserve to be on macOS. 

[DrMacintosh]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Your optimism is scary.

Everything is a calculated move under Tim Cook and basically every move has paid off for them so far. 

[Drak3]

11 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Well devs have a lot of time to get their apps ready, if they can't do that in 2 years, then yeah, they don't deserve to be on macOS. 

No, if Apple can't bother with the arduous task of letting someone else do the work on a basic API, then OSX doesn't deserve the time and effort of these developers.

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I'm sorry, but what?  Why are you defending this bs?  How is being a dictator good for anyone?

Is this your first time reading his posts?

[Thaldor]

28 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Their ultimate goal is the Mac App Store, so all they care about making sure it’s easier for devs to port over their applications and making sure that new developers have a foundation of skills for one platform if they have experienced coding for the other. 

 

Sorry if devs who made programs years ago refuse to support their own products, that’s not Apples fault. 

So, it's just Apple, once again, pulling dictator BS for their own gain.

 

OpenGL is a old technology that has been run over left and right and I don't really mind removing support for it at least when we are talking about Apple who just cannot play along with others (if it were for Apple, I wouldn't even be suprised if they would make their own networking "standards" just to make life harder for everyone). Dropping the support for OpenGL strtaight outdoesn't really hurt developers, it hurts end users who may still be using some softwares that are tailored for them and use OpenGl.

 

What makes this bad is that Apple doesn't even support Vulkan that everyone else supports (MoltenVK isn't support, it's a bandage). And supporting it wouldn't even cost Apple a cent or even take an hour of working time, because Intel, AMD and Nvidia handel Vulkan support for their GPUs (except for Apple, who is still makes their own drivers because "We don't want to support what everyone else supports and we want to dictate what is on our platform and what our users can do"). Also if Apple decides to make "Mac App Store" MoltenVK is probably banished faster than you can spell Metal.

 

I honestly cannot see anyone else starting to support Metal and probably Apple wouldn't even let anyone else support it without licence prices so high that no one is ready to pay them. So probably quite many non-Mobile developers need to choose do they want to support one platform that is quite marginal in gaming scenes or just forget it because supporting it would take a lot more man hours and other resources. Honestly, I cannot even see EA to support Metal to sell their lootboxes called games to Apple users, just too marginal market segment and costs too much. Unity and Unreal might already have some Metal support build in, but it's probably only for mobile games.

 

Not to take things too thightly, a joke:

Linux and Windows: "You can enjoy thousands of games that take the full advantage of your computer hardware."

Mac: "You can play millions of mobile games on your $5000 computer."

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

I'm sorry, but what?  Why are you defending this bs?  How is being a dictator good for anyone?

macOS is my favorite operating system and I like seeing it grow and develop. Moving away from OpenGL, which is basically dead at this point, is how Apple plans to do that. 

 

You see it as Apple being a Dictator, I see it as Apple moving the best Desktop OS forward. 

[JoeCoke]

16 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Sounds a bit extreme to me  

 

(inb4 you brought dishonor to your family )

Spoiler

 

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, if Apple can't bother with the arduous task of letting someone else do the work on a basic API, then OSX doesn't deserve the time and effort of these developers.

And that is a choice that developers are going to have to make.

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

So basically...

If that's what you think, then sure. 

[NoOverflow]

27 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Getting rid of lazy devs might be part of the reasoning behind the switch. 

Not wanted to learn a different API for each OS is not being lazy. Apple needs to support Vulkan period.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Ya, and most devs are going to abandon them because there is no dev who enjoys forced restrictions.  I don't see any dev being as optimistic about this as you.

Just saying, you're being terrifyingly optimistic at a clear fault.

That's cool, Apple just would rather not support devs making 32Bit apps capable of only running OpenGL for graphics. Metal is just better and that is evident from the significant boosts in performance across macOS now that Metal is essentially all macOS uses for rendering graphics. 

 

We have to move away from legacy software and Apple has a history of doing that move very abruptly. Devs know that before diving into macOS and if they didn't well they had this coming.

 

If you want an app on the Mac, be ready to develop in Metal and in 64Bit. That is just the way things are going to be.

 

 

 

 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

We have to move away from legacy software

Unless supporting legacy hurts performance, no, we don't.

 

We can make it a modular component that's only installed/activated when needed, but outright forced removal is stupid.

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, NoOverflow said:

Apple needs to support Vulkan period.

Developers need to figure out how to tell Apple that Vulkan is important. Vulkan has basically no adoption in any category, and Vulkan, while seemingly being a fantastic API, has not proven itself to be the best choice for a company like Apple which has spent millions developing their own API to meet the demands of their OS. 

 

If Devs want Vulkan then Devs need to prove that Vulkan has a future. 

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

There is no justifying it no matter how you spin it.

It doesn't have to be justified, Apple isn't a Republic. The movement is happening and the only thing that could stop it is if Developers can make an argument for other APIs, something that they simply are not doing. 

[LAwLz]

18 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

If that's what you think, then sure. 

Hey, I replied to you here and would like a response.

 

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

And this is an issue because...? Apple literally doesn't have to do anything to support OpenGL. The support is already there, and it's Intel/AMD/Nvidia writing the drivers for it.

 

How is that a good thing?

 

I never said they did, but that is the biggest "non argument" I have ever seen. I asked "why" and you come back with "they can do whatever they want!".

 

 

You don't understand.

You keep going back to Metal vs OpenGL, but what we're talking about is OpenGL with Metal vs just Metal.

It does not make the OS more efficient at all. If you truly believe that then I want you to come back with some evidence.

 

 

That is a massive load of bullshit. Please explain to me how removing OpenGL allows Apple to do more. Remember, anything that has to do with Metal could be done while also supporting OpenGL, so all arguments about Metal being better than OpenGL are completely irrelevant.

Also, please explain to me how having more aspects of the OS under 1st party control makes the end user experience better.

 

Do you understand how software works? Are you a programmer? I don't think you are, based on your posts.

 

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

It doesn't have to be justified, Apple isn't a Republic. The movement is happening and the only thing that could stop it is if Developers can make an argument for other APIs, something that they simply are not doing. 

Developers have been begging Apple to support Vulkan ever since it was released. Developers have even gone as far as to make compatibility layers for it in order to make it work.

Stop with your bullshit blame shifting. It is not developers who are at fault here. It's Apple that don't want to support Vulkan, most likely because they do not want easy code portability.

 

 

15 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Just saying, you're being terrifyingly optimistic at a clear fault.

I don't think "optimistic" is the right word. Docile is more accurate.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

So, if I wanna develop something for Windows MS should force me to use DirectX 12?  No, see this is typical Apple bs and one of the reasons Woz can't stand their leadership.  They like to force people to do things that are convenient to them, not the developers, and they enjoying holding back their own creative devs.  There is no justifying it no matter how you spin it.

Umm, Microsoft does force you to use DX12 for UWP apps, which they're pushing for.

[NoOverflow]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

Developers need to figure out how to tell Apple that Vulkan is important. Vulkan has basically no adoption in any category, and Vulkan, while seemingly being a fantastic API, has not proven itself to be the best choice for a company like Apple which has spent millions developing their own API to meet the demands of their OS. 

 

If Devs want Vulkan then Devs need to prove that Vulkan has a future. 

The proof is gonna be the little number of games port to Mac Os
Apple doesn't care about developers complains and of course, it's there right to do so

But at the end the user is impacted

No one ask for Apple's API

 

At the end of the day it doesn't matter, if you want to games you install Windows with Bootcamp and if you want to launch HPC programme you boot on a linux distro

Mac OS is for day to day, working/chilling use and he's good there