3DLabs Cg Rebuttal

[LeStoffer]

Having said that (taking cover for incoming missiles!) I would like to point to this quote from John Schimpf (Director of Developer Relations for 3Dlabs):

Contrary to their implied positioning, Nvidia's is not planning to offer Cg to the OpenGL Architecture Review Board for consideration as a standard of any type. Rather, they have stated that they fully intend to control the specification and implementation. Other graphics hardware vendors would be offered the ability to implement this Nvidia-specified language, under Nvidia licensing terms, for their own hardware.

At this point (Cg being merely a toolset) I would say that this is fair enough. If ATI wants to expand Cg to fully expoit some hardware features that Nvidia doesn't have, they have the option although they have to pay for it.

I agree, however, that looking futher into the future things might get much more tricky: nVidia clearly hopes that rendering in the future is based solely on vertex and pixel shaders so that Cg will be key to any game development (and not just a convient toolset). I just think that Cg only will succed if and only if nVidia is flexible towards the other players.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think they will be pushed to make that happen.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I just think that Cg only will succed if and only if nVidia is flexible towards the other players.

Or it will have achieved its aim if a large publishing house, such as EA, took it up.

 

[demalion]

All it seems to do is point out that nVidia realizes they misstepped, yet is trying to do exactly the same thing again with their positioning of Cg and their requirement of licensing fees to offer a Cg implementation.

Huh? Other vendors can still create their own compilers because of the open-source parser code and the public Cg language specification. It's true that the code generation isn't open-source but I cant really see why that should pose a huge problem for developers unless ATI, Matrox, 3Dlabs and others decides not to make that darn profile.

I'm basing my understanding of Cg on the text DaveB quoted in the 2nd post in this thread. If I misunderstood that text, let me know. I wouldn't be making a comment of this nature if I was under the impression that any hardware vendor would be free to come up with their own optimizing backend without paying licensing fees nVidia dictates...I feel this in combination with nVidia dictating the language specifications is an attempt to put a chokehold and leverage a share of proceeds from all graphics card vendors, once/if developers jump on the Cg bandwagon.

The rest of the text you quote struck me as doublespeak for saying "well, they go ahead and do the work again for all the other graphics cards companies unless the companies go ahead and pay us". Again, I may misunderstand, but that is my current understanding. It just seems to me that the PR releases are geared towards achieving acceptance and sidestepping the control and profit share from all companies that wish to "join the club" that nVidia would gain.

 

[demalion]

I'm puzzled as to how you highlight text that points out how nVidia tried to act before, and makes clear how not trying to charge other vendors for licensing is in contratst to past behavior, and ask me if I've read the article. I make reference to track record, and say that they are trying to do the same thing they have done in the past, but now with Cg...it makes me question whether you really gave my post a good read. Perhaps I misused my tenses in discussing what nVidia has done and is now trying to do again with Cg, but as I reread I fail to notice where, and can't credit that your highlights contradict anything I stated. All it seems to do is point out that nVidia realizes they misstepped, yet is trying to do exactly the same thing again with their positioning of Cg and their requirement of licensing fees to offer a Cg implementation.

How many companies in the past tried to sell something and then when they found out the market reaction were forced to give it away for free?

How many of your corporate heros that you cheerlead here were trying to license and maximize their IP a few years ago? Should we look at their past behavior as well before they were, "reformed" by the goodness of their hearts ( failure in the market place )?

I really wish you'd quit placing me in a generic group of "those who cheer for the other side" and address the points I actually presented. I say this because I notice no cheerleading "here" in my post, or any mention of corporate heros in the first place, and it sounds like you are referring to someone else.

Boy oh boy, Netscape was such a magnaminous company for giving away the source to their browser and going totally open. They are the heros of the open source world now. Microsoft is EVIL, Netscape is golden. But they only reformed after they tried to sell their browser for $30+ a pop and their application server for thousands, and MS completely crushed them by giving both away for free.

Hmm...Netscape was a browser company, back when browsers were sold. If I were to attack M$, which I hadn't up until this point, though you seem to think I have, it would be for the way they leveraged their OS control as a platform to eliminate competition...i.e., if M$ wanted to control the future of a specific technology, they simply include it for "free" in the OS (with no OS competition, however, they have no competitive pressure to control price...so how "free" is it really?). But, strangely, this really is not directly related to the topic at hand, atleast with the level of connection and analysis you've provided, and I'd direct you to start another thread which I may or may not reply to to discuss "the evils of M$", and stick to actually addressing what I stated while in this thread, and addressing the validity of the points directly.

And of course, 3DLabs does not exist to make a profit, but to promote the general welfare of 3D apis. Oh no, they never tried to force IP licenses down anyones throats for an API.

Hmm...well, looking at my post, I was talking about OpenGL, which someone (3dlabs? SGI?) developed and all vendors have subsequently benefited from. I pointed out that as OpenGL exists NOW it is a forum for common advancement of an Open standard to which multiple vendors share enhancements, and multiple vendors can use to their profit. I targetted nVidia as a company that seems to have a consistent track record of trying to "hijack" the future of this standard and gain a direct share of profitability for all future developments by licensing fees for their implementation of a feature directly associated with the future direction of it (vertex and pixel "shaders"). I then stated that Cg seems to be another attempt to do the same thing, and you can see in my reply just prior to this further clarification of why I think so.

If you disagree, and you seem to, please address why you think I'm wrong in this, whether by providing an alternate example that directly relates to this situation, or an analysis where my understanding of some aspect is wrong, as your chosen method of counterargument didn't seem helpful or informative as it doesn't seem to parallel my understanding of what OpenGL is.

 

[LeStoffer]

I wouldn't be making a comment of this nature if I was under the impression that any hardware vendor would be free to come up with their own optimizing backend without paying licensing fees nVidia dictates...

Okay, I didn't understand that you were taking about other vendors having access to making their own backend for free. Since the code generation isn't open-source, yes, they could either buy that licens from nVidia or - as I understand it - try and make their own implementation of Cg from scratch. I don't really know whether one would infringe on nVidias IP if they did go with the last option.

Anyway, I still think that Cg is open enough to make it as a reasonable standard.

It is also important to note that nVidia is trying to walk a thin line between a open standard and a IP-controlled nVidia-tech. This is ackward, yes, and it suggest to me that they may not yet have the balance right. In other words: Cg might just get more open if nVidia is pushed.