Apple is now officially endorsing OpenAL and has provided a new branch of Mac OS X code which is now in OpenAL’s CVS (it requires to install Apple’s latest CoreAudio SDK before compiling).
Apple Endorses OpenAL
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
awesome!
Can anyone explain me what this means? I don’t see if this is important or irrelevant. Why should this be useful for the mac community? Little more information welcome.
Well, I’m no expert but by embracing OpenAL, among other open standards, Apple is making it much easier to port games over to Mac OS X. Instead of using DirectX and DirectSound, game developers can use OpenGL (some success) and OpenAL in their code and make games more portable between Windows, Linux, and Mac systems.
I’m not really sure how Aspyr managed to port Command & Conquer: Generals to the Mac.. considering it was a heavy DirectX 9.0 game.. I guess there is a pretty hefty conversion toolbox for that sort of programming but I bet there is a major speed penalty on the Mac side since there may be a lot of crappy x86/DirectX-dependent code still there, plus no G4/G5/SMP optimization.
This exactly the type of thing I have been saying apple should do for a long time.
Now it would be really cool if they put their weight behind SDL as well. OpenAL and OpenGL are great of cross platform high performance graphics and sound, but it is still missing some elements required for cross platform game development (eg an input layer).
OpenAL is an audio API that does for audio what OpenGL does for graphics. It allows you to write cross-platform programs that use 3D audio. From the openal.org site, a list of programs that already use OpenAL:
AlienFlux (Windows, Linux, Macintosh)
America’s Army: Operations (Windows, Linux, Macintosh)
Bridge Construction Set (Windows, Linux)
Escape From Monkey Island (Macintosh)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Windows, Macintosh)
Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy (Windows, Macintosh)
Jedi Knight 2 (Windows, Macintosh)
Marble Blast (Windows, Linux, Macintosh)
MegaCorps Online (Windows, Linux, Macintosh)
Orbz (Windows, Linux, Macintosh)
Postal 2 (Windows)
Soldier of Fortune 2 (Windows)
Unreal 2 (Windows)
Unreal Tournament 2003 (Windows, Linux, Macintosh)
Unreal Tournament 2004 (Windows, Linux, Macintosh)
OpenAL has nothing to do with OpenGL, nor OpenML nor Khronos.
OpenAL was invented by Loki, the Linux game software company (that has already gone belly-up). The OpenGL group should have sued Loki for trademark infringements.
This is great news. Mac gaming (and PPC in general) is improving big time as it is, but more moves like this would be nice. Open standards need to be dominant, so DirectX becomes the odd man out, not the other way around. I’ve got no “religious” qualms against Microsoft, but I do think DirectX is Evil
On a side note, an open Core Audio/Logic would rock. I know Linux has ALSA/Jack, but Core is a helluva lot better and would be great for all OSS, Mac/BSD and Linux. Not to mention Logic, the app…Even a slim version would be fine by me. I’d change all my opinions about Open Source music creation then. Not a TDM/DSP killer, but I always thought Logic made much better software (at least) than Digidesign.
>>>Open standards need to be dominant, so DirectX becomes the odd man out, not the other way around.
For the Nth time, OpenAL is not an “open standard”. The now bankrupted Linux gaming company, Loki, just started this project during the internet bubble and then Loki immediately went belly-up. It’s just another stalled open source project that has its corporate sponsor went belly-up, and then have these great talks about how it would rule the world.
OpenGL/OpenML/Khronos — these are “open standards” — created by a consortium of companies.
Bite thyne tounge blasphemer! Loki was the best thing to happen to Linux EVER, and it’s only because most Linux users are cheap bastards that Loki died.
Bad management would be more appropriate. Most “cheap bastards” actually bought their games instead of pirating them like pretty much all the MS Windows users I know.
Bad management would be more appropriate. Most “cheap bastards” actually bought their games instead of pirating them like pretty much all the MS Windows users I know.
Well, I sure bought their games. I cried when they went out of business. Didn’t they also write SDL?
DirectX is Evil
What is the reason?
Actually, Creative Labs is also one of the sponsers. And the specification is an open standard. You don’t have to be a giant corporation (though, I ‘spose Creative Labs counts as one) to publish a standard, you know.
And for a stalled open source project, it sure seems to have some significant supporters (part of SDKs from Creative Labs, NVIDIA, and now Apple) and well as some significant users (Unreal, Jedi Knight, and America’s Army being the biggest).
Have you ever programmed DirectX? Its one of Microsoft’s better APIs, though that’s not saying much. The design is sound, but the programmer-interface is just so unclean. OpenGL is one of the cannonical examples of pristene, elegant APIs, and DirectX just doesn’t measure up to it.
The design is sound, but the programmer-interface is just so unclean. OpenGL is one of the cannonical examples of pristene, elegant APIs, and DirectX just doesn’t measure up to it.
Not only that, but it was created with “lock-in” in mind as much as “gaming”. MS can have all the dominance they want for all I care, but creating things to be a hindrance to portability pisses me off.
#include <windows.h>
Entertainment, _if anything_, should always be portable. I don’t think MS is only to blame, because game companies make the choice to use DirectX or not, but given the tools and education of a lot of these coders, it’s no mystery why. There has to be at least 20 million other gamers out there to cash in on (mac and linux), and companies should start keeping this in mind.
>>>And the specification is an open standard. You don’t have to be a giant corporation (though, I ‘spose Creative Labs counts as one) to publish a standard, you know.
It’s precisely what you said — that makes it an NON-open stardard. Open standard — means others get involved in drafting the standard itself.
What we have here is Loki, all by themselves, wrote a spec. Loki went belly up. The specs themselves are 4 years old, stuck in version 1.0. (Notice that Creative and Apple didn’t even bother talking about post version 1.0 specs.) Creative and Apple, as hardware manufacturers, implemented those specs into their own hardware. There is nothing “open” about it.
And for the record, the Khronos group of consortium companies make the OpenML standard — a REAL open standard, that incorporates the audio stream as well.
It’s just stupid to implemented a dead (and somewhat proprietary) OpenAL spec (I won’t even call it a standard) — when you can implement the audio portion of the OpenML standard (which is a real open standard).
Hmm…Weird..While I might disagree with people, why the hell am I seeing more “comment is currently pending review” when it’s totally uncalled for?
Is the reader base 12 and under or what? What is up?
‘Open’ (as opposed to proprietory) in the context of standards has a very specific definition. It means that something has no patents encumbering it (or offers them royalty free) and you don’t have to pay to implement the specification. That’s it. Nowhere in that definition is involvement of more than one entity required. Thus, Sun can say that SPARC is an open standard (and most people acknowledge that SPARC is an open standard), because it meets these criteria. SPARC is an open standard independent of the fact that the specification is entirely controlled by SPARC International Inc.
yes !
they did it !
Opengl, openML, Cups…
they takes the standart
This is also good for linux !
>>>’Open’ (as opposed to proprietory) in the context of standards has a very specific definition. It means that something has no patents encumbering it (or offers them royalty free) and you don’t have to pay to implement the specification. That’s it. Nowhere in that definition is involvement of more than one entity required.
First of all, that’s just wrong — even http://www.w3.org has (or was it had) a RAND (reasonable, non discriminatory) patent policy.
Also — how would you know that the OpenAL specs is not infringing on other people’s patents. Loki, a bankrupt small linux start-up, wrote the specs themselves, didn’t have the manpower to do patent searches, didn’t form a industry standard group to look at patent disclosure policies.
Rayiner,
My whole point is that this is NOT a discussion about OpenGL vs. DirectX.
This is about OpenGL/OpenML/Khronos (which has an audio portion in a REAL open standard with proper patent disclosure policies) vs. OpenAL (a dead, proprietary standard standard written by a bankrupt start-up and which has been implemented by proprietary hardware manufacturers like Creative, Nvidia and Apple).
If you want to implement an open audio standard — then implement the audio portion of OpenML, not OpenAL.
First of all, that’s just wrong — even http://www.w3.org has (or was it had) a RAND (reasonable, non discriminatory) patent policy.
Please read more carefully. I didn’t say that there couldn’t be any patents on the spec. I said that if there were patents, they would have to be royalty-free. That’s precisely what the W3C’s patent policy does.
Also — how would you know that the OpenAL specs is not infringing on other people’s patents.
Creative Labs was involved in the spec too. Indeed, the lead OpenAL guy now seems to work at Creative Labs.
My whole point is that this is NOT a discussion about OpenGL vs. DirectX.
I wasn’t talking to you about DirectX. I was referring to the post by Anonymous.
OpenAL (a dead, proprietary standard standard
It is neither dead nor proprietory. Please explain how it is either.
proprietary hardware manufacturers like Creative, Nvidia and Apple
All hardware manufacturers are proprietory. Their implementing an open spec doesn’t make the spec any less open.
If you want to implement an open audio standard — then implement the audio portion of OpenML, not OpenAL
OpenAL is high-level 3D audio API. OpenML’s audio layer is a low-level API with no 3D semantics. The two compliment, rather than compete with, each other.
>>>Also — how would you know that the OpenAL specs is not infringing on other people’s patents.
<<<Creative Labs was involved in the spec too. Indeed, the lead OpenAL guy now seems to work at Creative Labs.
How would Creative Labs know that they are not infringing on other people’s patents as well? The whole OpenAL spec was not written in a clearly defined public process. Was there a OpenAL group to deal with this matter? No. Was there a public consultation period? No. Was there a clearly defined patent disclosure policy? No.
Even the embedded linux standard has its own consortium, its own patent policy and its own Intellectual Property Agreement.
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8786943115.html
There was NO public process in making the OpenAL specs. How would you know that Creative is not pulling a RAMBUS? (RAMBUS didn’t disclose that they hold certain patents when they submit things into the SDRAM standard, and after the SDRAM standard was finished, RAMBUS started suing other RAM manufacturers.)
http://yahoo.pcworld.com/yahoo/article/0,aid,109132,00.asp
>>>If you want to implement an open audio standard — then implement the audio portion of OpenML, not OpenAL
<<<OpenAL is high-level 3D audio API. OpenML’s audio layer is a low-level API with no 3D semantics. The two compliment, rather than compete with, each other.
Then Apple/NVidia/Creative should join the OpenML group and start to add the higher level 3D functionalities in future OpenML 2.0 standard.
>>>First of all, that’s just wrong — even http://www.w3.org has (or was it had) a RAND (reasonable, non discriminatory) patent policy.
<<<Please read more carefully. I didn’t say that there couldn’t be any patents on the spec. I said that if there were patents, they would have to be royalty-free. That’s precisely what the W3C’s patent policy does.
There are loopholes to the W3C’s royalty-free patent policies.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html
Sam, not to be rude, but you appear to be just quibbling over what you *define* as “open standard” to mean. Why the fuss, man?
Open doesn’t mean _necessarily_ “consortium”, it just means, well, umm…”open”. “Adoption” from companies like Apple, NVidia, and Creative, and more, of an open source api, is not that much different from a consortium. The fact that they’re agreeing on something is what’s important, not that they didn’t draft it Lol. They may have not implemented it, as consortiums first do, but hell, all they’ve done different here is skip the first step.
What’s the goal here? Is it the adoption of open code, or is it the consorted agreement that open code must be adopted?
>>>Sam, not to be rude, but you appear to be just quibbling over what you *define* as “open standard” to mean. Why the fuss, man?
Open also means the process must be opened as well.
>>>Open doesn’t mean _necessarily_ “consortium”, it just means, well, umm…”open”. “Adoption” from companies like Apple, NVidia, and Creative, and more, of an open source api, is not that much different from a consortium. The fact that they’re agreeing on something is what’s important, not that they didn’t draft it Lol. They may have not implemented it, as consortiums first do, but hell, all they’ve done different here is skip the first step.
If the process is not open and transparent from the start — how would you know that Creative and NVidia (2 companies that have in recent years gotten even higher market share than Microsoft itself) is not pulling a RAMBUS?
So I am a small start-up writing a computer game software and decided to use OpenAL. How would I know that when I finish writing the game, that Creative is not going to sue me for patent infringement. There was no open process and no patent disclosure policies.
SGI disclosed what OpenGL patents they had. They then sold them to Microsoft. Now every OpenGL vendor has to worry about MS sueing them for patent infringement.
So much for patent disclosure policies preventing a RAMBUS situation.
Adam
Wow.
Sam appears to be a troll. He spews more worthless misinformation than candidates for office. So as to minimize the the confusion of readers that don’t know what’s going on, they should completely ignore Sam’s comments. Seriously.
Sam, in this case, “open” means that the specification is free for all to use and adopt. Open generally, never means that everyone had their input. Period. Heck, even the Linux kernel can be called open, yet I assure you few people actually had input as to what features are available and how they would be implemented. Your definition is non-standard and completely inaccurate. As someone pointed out, and again as I’m highlighting, open means that the specification is free for general consumption, and should there be royalties, they would be unencumbered from their use as it relates to this specification. Period.
Sam also went on to make, what appears to be many very poor assumptions to counter very reasonable, defacto assumptions. Sam, you do realize that you can pay an attorney to do a patent search? You do realize that it’s not very expensive, especially if you already have council available. Based on the number of contracts they had to negotiate, chances are high, they had such resources readily availble. Having said that, chances are, they didn’t search for patents because this isn’t exactly rocket science. In fact, no one has stepped forward to claim patent infringment, so it’s therefore reasonable to assume it’s a non-issue.
So Sam, unless you can actually offer facts which trump common sense, real definitions, and defacto assumptions underwhich the world functions, you’re probably best simply not posting again along your previous lines as it’s a waste of everyone’s time at best and a troll at worst.
Did anyone else notice that Sam’s whole purpose here appears to be to derail OpenAL and to push OpenML with the use of FUD and total BS? Anyone else care to take odds on the chances that Sam is attempting to manipulate this thread for his own agenda and selfish needs?
>>>SGI disclosed what OpenGL patents they had. They then sold them to Microsoft. Now every OpenGL vendor has to worry about MS sueing them for patent infringement.
And because of OpenGL’s patent disclosure policies, Microsoft is willing to license its technology on a RAND basis.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26125.html
There is no such policy in place for OpenAL — so Creative and NVidia (these are 2 big monopolies as well) can just refuse to license you the technology, or offer the license as a DISCRIMINATORY rate.
But my point is that Apple/Creative/NVidia can just use OpenML and if OpenML doesn’t have the big 3D sound functionalities, they could just join the OpenML standards group and make recommendations for future version 2.0 standards.
What we have here is that 3 hardware companies (2 of which have monopolistic market share and apple have refused to open up their hardware for clone manufacturers) — picked up a dead spec from the dead Loki and used the spec in a non-open, non-transparent manner.
>>>Sam, in this case, “open” means that the specification is free for all to use and adopt.
>>>As someone pointed out, and again as I’m highlighting, open means that the specification is free for general consumption, and should there be royalties, they would be unencumbered from their use as it relates to this specification. Period.
But the problem is that Creative and NVidia (2 monopolies in their own right) — didn’t have to disclose whether they own any patents on the OpenAL specs. How can you be so sure that you are not going to be sued by Creative in the future.
Tell me — if you are ATI, would you implement OpenAL?
>>>Sam, you do realize that you can pay an attorney to do a patent search?
You can never be sure — even IBM has worries about that.
http://www.sslug.dk/patent/strassemeyer/transr-del.shtml
>>>Did anyone else notice that Sam’s whole purpose here appears to be to derail OpenAL and to push OpenML with the use of FUD and total BS? Anyone else care to take odds on the chances that Sam is attempting to manipulate this thread for his own agenda and selfish needs?
What derailment? OpenAL was a dead project — that have been “picked up” by Creative. For those who love anti-MSFT conspiracies — why can’t Creative (in the audio chip business, Creative is a bigger monopoly than Microsoft in the computer OS business) have other monopolistic thoughts.
Hmm….seems like sam is trolling again. Everything has already been answered. You’re working hard to keep the thread derailed. As such, ignoring the spawm by sam.
I personally think it’s a good thing that an open specification is being adopted by Apple. Hopefully this will encourage more game companies to make use of OpenAL, which in turn, may help benefit the Linux gaming croud too. Anyone know if NWN uses OpenAL? Who knows, with Apple behind OpenAL now, perhaps the OpenAL specification will start making some forward progress again (as in capability revisions).
>>>Hopefully this will encourage more game companies to make use of OpenAL, which in turn, may help benefit the Linux gaming croud too.
>>>Sam, you do realize that you can pay an attorney to do a patent search? You do realize that it’s not very expensive, especially if you already have council available.
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t encourage other companies to use your so-called “standard” when all you can offer them is “buyers beware” (i.e. Creative, a big monopoly, is not disclosing their patent holdings and you have to do your own patent searches).
I personally think it’s a good thing that an open specification is being adopted by Apple. Hopefully this will encourage more game companies to make use of OpenAL, which in turn, may help benefit the Linux gaming croud too. Anyone know if NWN uses OpenAL?
NWN uses the Miles Sound System library (or something like that). However, it also uses SDL for I/O.
And because of OpenGL’s patent disclosure policies, Microsoft is willing to license its technology on a RAND basis.
For how long? Till they honestly start to feel threatened by it?
Adam
If the process is not open and transparent from the start — how would you know that Creative and NVidia (2 companies that have in recent years gotten even higher market share than Microsoft itself) is not pulling a RAMBUS? […] But the problem is that Creative and NVidia (2 monopolies in their own right) — didn’t have to disclose whether they own any patents on the OpenAL specs.
Monopoly means the exclusive control of a market. That’s a definition that suits Microsoft quite nicely (as they push the software industry in the direction they want) but nVidia and Creative? Give me a break. Creative was once a monopoly in PC sound cards but their golden years have passed. Their marketshare is quickly vanishing since onboard audio is becoming popular. Their competitors are getting better while they are getting worse (esp. their drivers, just ask anybody with a SB Live). They are still somewhat a reference for most people but they hardly push in which direction the PC sound market should go. Just take a look at their recent EAX HD crap. NVidia? I’ve seen some sells results about two months ago and nVidia was third, behind Intel and ATI. They never, ever got a marketshare similar to Microsoft in the video card market, not even at their peak.
Your points ain’t that bad, but you should definitely learn what is a monopoly before using that word or your credibility will seriously be hurted.
>>>Your points ain’t that bad, but you should definitely learn what is a monopoly before using that word or your credibility will seriously be hurted.
I used “has or had” — when Creative was really trying to sell OpenAL — it was in 1999-2000 — basically the prime of their marketshare. If you turn back the clock to that time period, you had a audio card monopolist trying to force an OpenAL “standard” similar to Microsoft trying to force a DirectX “standard”.
I’ll agree that NVidia didn’t approach those figures, but my point is that it was 1 major graphics player supporting this spec — no public consultations, no public disclosure — and you don’t see the other major graphics player ATI supporting it because ATI doesn’t want to be suckered into supporting this “standard” and then find out later that ATI has to pay a licensing fee to NVidia.
>>>And because of OpenGL’s patent disclosure policies, Microsoft is willing to license its technology on a RAND basis.
<<<For how long? Till they honestly start to feel threatened by it?
At least what Microsoft is offering in terms of RAND licensing — it’s better than nothing. With OpenAL, Creative is offering you nothing. We don’t know if Creative holds any patents on the openAL specs and we don’t know if Creative will be even willing to license those patents to you at all (let alone on a RAND basis).
You hit the nail on the head! Meanwhile, sam continues to troll. I can’t but wonder why he’s really posting here? To FUD OpenAL, to push OpenML, or both? Wonder if he has any commercial interests in OpenML.
I can’t help but wonder about his angle for spreading so much misinformation and obvious junk. One thing is for sure, he’s got some angle and it has nothing to do with him trying to be a “good guy”. Is he part of the MS camp, working hard to spread FUD like MS guys used to do for OS/2? Thus far, it’s the only angle I can see that might explain his obvious attempts at FUD. Either that, or he really believes his own BS and is too…err…ignorant to realize what he’s saying.
This really is a wonderful thing. With Open[GL/AL], it creates a crossplatform gaming solution. That means Apple, Linux and Windows. If more people embrace SDL for I/O, and use Open[GL/AL], it suddenly becomes much, much easier for developers to target multiple platforms with high quality games for much the same costs as writing just for Windows. It even becomes much more attactive if any developer is looking to support multiple platforms from the word, “go”. Especially from a support and cost perspective.
Like it or not, Linux is starting to get desktop penetration and now does have numbers big enough to start support game sales. It may take another year or two to really hit critical mass, nonetheless, if Linux and Apple platforms can be developed as almost gimme-platforms, it would seem very silly for game developers to ignore these solutions.
>>>With Open[GL/AL], it creates a crossplatform gaming solution. That means Apple, Linux and Windows. If more people embrace SDL for I/O, and use Open[GL/AL], it suddenly becomes much, much easier for developers to target multiple platforms with high quality games for much the same costs as writing just for Windows.
The basic flaw in your argument is that you equate cross-platform with open standard. It’s like java — it’s cross-platform but the “standard” is controlled by only 1 company, SUN.
>>>Is he part of the MS camp, working hard to spread FUD like MS guys used to do for OS/2? Thus far, it’s the only angle I can see that might explain his obvious attempts at FUD.
From the movie, the usual suspects —- The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn’t exist.
So we all know that Microsoft is the devil. But circa 1999-2000, Creative held a monopoly in audio card business — and they were trying to push this so-called OpenAL “standard”. To me, there is no difference between Microsoft pushing DirectX and Creative pushing OpenAL.
While OpenML sounds interesting, it seems to be covering a lot of what QuickTime already does, it hasnt been ported to PPC or to OS X, so I think OpenAL is better right now. besides, OpenAL has existed for PPC for a while now, its just been officially *endorsed*.
It is kind of hard to argue that OpenML is better when it only has been ported to Win32 and Linux on x86.
>>>While OpenML sounds interesting, it seems to be covering a lot of what QuickTime already does, it hasnt been ported to PPC or to OS X, so I think OpenAL is better right now. besides, OpenAL has existed for PPC for a while now, its just been officially *endorsed*.
Well, the OpenAL specs haven’t changed 5 years, so it’s circa DirectX 6 or DirectX 7 technology.
Secondly, you have to question why apple/creative/nvidia *endorsed* it in the first place and why they *endorsed* it in this non-transparent manner. You have to question why the competitors of apple/creative/nvidia (such as ATI or intel or amd) are not endorsing it.
Still, Apple cannot endorse a technology that does not exist on their platform. Also I see how the OpenAL spec itself not being updated changes anything if you consider that the code itself is being updated, and still being used in modern applications.
>>Secondly, you have to question why apple/creative/nvidia *endorsed* it in the first place and why they *endorsed* it in this non-transparent manner. You have to question why the competitors of apple/creative/nvidia (such as ATI or intel or amd) are not endorsing it.<<
Why should I question this?
>>>Still, Apple cannot endorse a technology that does not exist on their platform.
That’s a circular argument. If Apple chose to join OpenML group, it would have been Apple’s responsbility to implement those specs into Apple’s OS.