Comment by notepad0x90 12 hours ago
I understand that, I meant they made the choice to use power and resources on the client end when internet bandwidth is abundant and they can utilize server resources for cpu intensive workload. Design choices such as these are exclude anyone who can't afford decent hardware and are inefficient in terms of power/energy usage.
I can only speak from my experience, and it is bad. If there are enough people that like this, then of course this should be a good library to use. but I'm just expressing my experience and feedback that I usually don't expose my gpu and cheaper hardware has less gpu power. GPU also uses a lot of energy (did everyone stop caring about that?). Browsers are already using too much power. I've seen other services like netflix vs prime as I mentioned earlier where I'm getting the same bandwidth utilization but less performance because someone at netflix decided to not care about cpu/gpu usage. I'm just asking for devs to be considerate unless the target audience is clearly people who have lots of gpu and don't care about energy usage (like graphics editors,vfx workers,etc..)
If they made the opposite choice then people would argue that they're not prioritizing bandwidth for those with poor internet connections like those living in rural areas or third-world countries. My gut says it's much more likely that clients have access to a discrete GPU than they do to broadband Internet. I also do not believe it would be possible to deliver the experience they're shipping with pre-rendered assets shipped over the wire, or, at the very least, I can't readily conceptualize how that would be implemented.
I feel it's totally within scope for an animation-focused library to expect clients to have GPU hardware acceleration. The fact you're running in an isolated environment, and haven't configured it to be able to use your host machine's GPU (which is possible!), feels niche enough to me to write off.