On http://webglstats.com/ with about 7-8 million visits across its contributing sites, I measure 90% desktops and 10% mobiles. For much of 2012 and 2013 the trend for mobiles has been rising, but in 2014 it's flagging somewhat.http://gs.statcounter.com/ has Desktops at 62% and mobiles at 30% (the rest being uncategorizable other things). The change from last year is desktops -12% and mobiles +14%. Even assuming the trend'd continue linearly, you'd look at years before you could "lay desktops to rest" as an audience.However I'd also not be happy with a situation where a machine that I can stick in a GTX-980 that'll get about 1000x as much performance as any of the latest smarphones, is something that can't run WebGL well. I think that's counterproductive to WebGL.On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 5:49 PM, John Davis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:I would suggest we weigh the number of smart phones and tablets on the planet against the number of PC's. Think big picture, India, China, U.S., ...On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Florian Bösch <email@example.com> wrote:On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 5:33 PM, John Davis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Beginning with a clean slate is always easier. ES 3.1 is so different, it affords this opportunity. There is no backwards compatibility chain for existing developers. Everyone is starting again with a new API.I'll prefer WebGL 2.0 because it's quite likely it'll arrive next year (around 8 months) and it'll support a lot of desktop and mobile hardware. WebGL 2.1 would probably not arrive next year and its support for desktop and mobile hardware would be substantially lower than WebGL 2.0.MANGLE is the hell you're speaking of.A Web technology that doesn't work for most people is not very attractive.