WebGPU is the only one of those I’ve really followed, but hasn’t that had a huge amount of input and changes due to other voices in the working group? That seems to contradict the simplistic picture painted above of Google just dictating standards to the industry.

Would webgpu exist at all if Chrome hadn’t just pushed through with an implementation?

Who knows.

Not us, we’ll never know.

To add insult to injury, we probably would have gotten WebGL 2.0 Compute, which was initially done by Intel, if Chrome had not refused to ship it on Chrome, arguing that WebGPU was right around the corner, and it would take too much space, this was about 5 years ago.

And to those rushing out to point out the excuse part about OpenGL on Mac not having support for compute, WebGL already back then wasn't backed up by OpenGL on all platforms, see Windows (DirectX), PlayStation (LibGNM).

Also eventually Safari also moved their WebGL implementation from OpenGL to Metal, and Chrome did as well, replace their WebGL to run on top of Metal on Mac.

So not really that much of a problem regarding the state of OpenGL on Mac as "required" implemenatation layer for WebGL.

Not true about webgpu, but true about some APIs in Google's project-fugu

We had very few products that use the fugu apis., and I don't believe we were the first to ship them either in a production website.

If you're looking at fugu in particular (especially in the latter stages) we had external developers or businesses wanting the features.

Note: there are some apis that a Google customer wanted to use first.

But the other browsers objected yet Chrome still shipped them