Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
NVIDIA trying to win back Macs?? Is it possible?
- Thread starter pat500000
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What? OpenCL is dead on macOS, just like OpenGL. Apple doesn't even support OpenCL 2.x. As I said, they're all in on Metal at the expense of all other APIs on their platform. Notice how more and more of their OS and applications were moved from CL to Metal with 10.12?
Thats because Metal integrates OpenCL into the API. Just like Vulkan does with OpenCL and OpenGL into single queue. It still has to have OpenCL drivers in the system(are integrated with the API, just like with Vulkan) to execute the code.
OpenCL has future, especially on mobile platforms.
What? OpenCL != compute. Metal has compute functions, but it's a totally different implementation than OpenCL. Why do you think the Metal implementation uses the heavyweight OpenCL driver implementation?
Vulkan is a low-level graphics and compute API. It absolutely does not "integrate OpenCL and OpenGL into a single queue", it integrates compute and graphics into a single queue but absolutely does not use OpenCL and OpenGL drivers to accomplish this. If you don't believe me, go and run some driver overhead tests.
Which mobile platforms are using OpenCL? iOS is moving to Metal, and Android is moving to Vulkan. I stand by my statement that Apple doesn't care about OpenCL and is all in on Metal.
Apple doesn't care about portability. They don't care about Vulkan. I said OpenCL is dead on macOS, because the only thing Apple cares about is Metal. Just like OpenGL is dead on macOS.
- There have been no additional OpenGL features for many years, it is stuck at 4.1 + a couple of 4.2 extensions.
- There have been no additional OpenCL features for many years, it is stuck at 1.2 (if I remember correctly).
- There has been a whole new API added in Metal, which has received major updates each year since its released.
Please look at those facts and tell me what Apple cares about. They are in complete control of Metal, and thus no longer have to deal with a multi-company standards body (Khronos). Just like Microsoft only cares about DirectX, Apple only cares about Metal, and the other APIs are in maintenance mode at best on their platform.
Which doesn't invalidate anything I said. Why would they implement Vulkan? Why would they keep working on OpenGL or OpenCL, when they're in complete control of their own next-gen API?
But hey, according to you, I don't even know the difference between OpenGL and OpenCL, right?
Because OpenGL, OpenCL, and Vulkan are industry standards, and many people will just ignore Apple platforms.
How's that working out for Microsoft? They seem to be doing pretty well ignoring all 3 of those APIs and going with their own. We can obviously agree to disagree, but having written code for all 3 of the APIs available on macOS, it's extremely clear where Apple's focus is right now. I simply do not believe that Apple is going to turn around and abandon the path they have been on for many years, drop everything they've done with Metal, and switch back to "industry standard" APIs that are designed by a committee.
Metal is right now industry standard as well. iOS, and macOS combined are one Metal platform. They are not small. They are very large, combined. So Metal is industry standard.
Who are these people, and why are we talking about them on an Apple-related forum then? Apple has clearly written off a section of the industry that wants OpenCL or Vulkan (or even OpenGL). As I've said many times, all signs point to Apple being all-in on Metal, at the expense of these other APIs.
It is not an industry standard. It is a proprietary API available only on Apple platforms.
And how's that working out for Apple? You can ignore iOS and Metal if you like, but Apple is doing extremely well for themselves.
Are you seriously saying that is evidence that Apple isn't doing well for themselves? Apple has about 15% of the mobile phone market, but 91% of the mobile phone profit. It seems like a profoundly good strategy to me.
Apple should NOT compete against garbage Android phones sold in the corner drug store bargain bins with razor thin margins. What would be the point when you already have nearly all the profit? A couple more percent? It would just tarnish the brand and dilute their effort.
Did you read what it says? That sales are going down. No time to throw away business by not supporting standards.
Yes, I did. Maybe you could have made a point in your post instead of just posting a link so we wouldn't have to guess which part of the article you were referring to. Now that you've indicated which fact in the article you meant, I can respond to it.
Of course sales fell. As a shareholder I follow Apple stock news, and everyone following the stock knows why sales have fallen--its been expected for a long, long time.
Sales were high at first because Apple revolutionized phones. Then their high sales growth was sustained by substantial improvements to the phones as they moved away from the early generations to more mature products. Then high sales continued as they entered new markets all over the world, one country at a time.
Well all of that is over now. With all the major markets tapped and the product matured, all that's left are replacement sales. Everyone knew this day would come, in fact it's been predicted every year for years now and Apple was able to defy it for a long, long time beyond expectations.
There is no way, NO WAY, that Apple's sales figure were sustainable without gigantic change in strategy such as selling dirt cheap phones.
You seem to imply that sales are falling because iOS uses Metal, which seems absurd to me.
I did not imply anything of the sort, but that you want as many developers as possible porting their applications going forward.
Developers are not porting to iOS. Developers are porting their Applications FROM iOS to other platforms. That's how big success Apple achieved with their platform.
This is definitely off-topic.