I don't like it for a reason that it multiplies exclusive titles. I consider it a failure. Normally authors should aim to reach the most audience, not to exclude users because they use a different OS. This API will proliferate the later.
Re:Metal – Apple’s new graphics API
by MaxBarraclough on Tuesday June 03, 2014 @01:35PM
(#7841585)
A failure is something which doesn't succeed in achieving its goals. We often approximate this by looking at how widely used something is. For an API, this measure seems reasonable.
It has nothing to do with your views on vendor lock-in.
Direct3D also causes lock-in. That doesn't make it a failure.
Failure applies here to cross platform availability. Vendor lock is is a failure by default.
> Direct3D also causes lock-in.
It does indeed. That's why it also fails to be the proper portable graphics API.
Re:Metal – Apple’s new graphics API
by MaxBarraclough on Thursday June 05, 2014 @08:54AM
(#7851661)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7838196
I already spelled out for you what the word 'failure' refers to, but fine, I'll try again.
"Failure" does not mean "failure to please shmerl". That simply isn't the way the term is commonly used.
Direct3D fails to make me a coffee, too. So what? Portability to non-MS platforms was never a goal. Neither was my coffee.
It is clear that you are being deliberate obtuse to avoid conceding the point.
That doesn't make it a failure, that makes it something you don't like.
This could easily be very big. If it helps developers make faster/better looking games on iOS they'll do it, especially if it's supported by middlware (since most devs probably don't make their own engine).
It that happens to make it harder to port games to Android (or at least get them to look as good), so much the better for Apple.