> I just don't see how it's incumbent on Apple to implement a standard only because it exists.

I mean it isn't. But it would be nice if they supported at least any graphics standard.

Developers don't want to create seperate Apple only backends for everything. Users want to use software, they don't care about what backend is used. When Apple has to personally implement a metal backend for blender, it's obvious that there is a problem. This is despite blender being one of the most well-funded open source projects. Having to support multiple backends also increases development time and future tech-debt surface area. It's mostly not a moral arguemt as you seem to imply. This is just a feature that developers and users want. Apple is free to not implement it. It just means that many apps will not support Apple, or they will support it at the cost of other features, or they will use MoltenVK.

What? I'd argue the graphics APIs are one of the most important interfaces right now. It's not that we all feel good if apple would adhere to standards for once, it's supporting a legacy of applications that have been build over the last 20 years or so. Allowing a platform to be used however the rest of the industry has been evolving, not cheap vendor locking

>> I just don't see how it's incumbent on Apple to implement a standard only because it exists.

Well Apple does implement the standard. They DO have OpenGL, but their driver is not fully compliant apparently.

>> It takes significant resources and impacts release schedules

Well it seems 2 people working for a couple years managed to do it without much in the way of documentation that Apple clearly has (they built the F-ing thing).

Apple has considered OpenGL deprecated for a long time now, but they do support it (they brought it to M1 and M2) and it makes sense to keep doing so. They really should be more conformant. If a standard is worth supporting, it's worth supporting well - and Apply has unlimited funds in comparison to these two people.

They support it because they built some stuff on it at some point. They just want those things to continue working. They have no further need to support it.

> It takes significant resources and impacts release schedules to, say, support an on-going vulkan implementation...

Let's see... on one hand we have two devs who made it happen (for OpenGL; with Vulkan coming in the future), with essentially no funding, purely in their spare time and without any documentation, just by reverse engineering the hardware.

On the other hand we have a trillion dollar corporation, with 100 billion dollars in profit last year, with over 150k employees, with full documentation for the hardware.

Yep, it checks out. Apple's definitely resource strapped and can't afford to do it. No way they can compete with two spare-time hobbyist. Would be too expensive.

I'm sometimes really amazed how Apple-biased a big portion of HN is. People here can always find some sort of excuse to justify whatever shitty new thing Apple is doing (or why it isn't doing something), no matter how much mental gymnastics it requires.

No one said they don’t have the resources. They just asked why it’s incumbent on Apple to spend them, which your response.. doesn’t address at all? If we’re going to post with that much sarcasm let’s try to have equal amount of substance to go with it?

I personally do not believe in those 'the market will fix it' arguments, there is not only community goodwill but also some corporate responsibility to support open standards. Since apple is dominating a large part of the market and strongly profits from locked in effects, open standards are the few things that make competition over the best OS (aka a market) work. I understand however, that it is mostly commercial or regulatory incentives that makes current big tech moce. A bit of shame is still approriate IMHO: they could easily also support an open source driver without releasing something official.