Some people are looking at perception of others (public, industry ..) and forming their own opinion with and based on their existing perception of the information at hand.
It's a public percpetion that makes Physx currently more of a "hot feature". It's not even the same thing so why does it even get mentioned as a comparision? That is an invalid comparison, the 2 things are not of same type.
But then people state facts which are only valid right now in this moment, doesn't make any sense since when the reality of mantle get's shown to an extent it breaks the public perception
Some people like myself just understand and did a lot of research so just being closer to that reality that already is there, nothing will change in basics of mantle, just perception will change of living people, but ofcourse later they will say "omg mantle looks great now", the point is I know that already, I won't be surprised. And it doesn't look great now, it's your perception that has changed because of the new info introduced, it was great all the time. That's just clearing out this common context mismatch that happens many times in these kind of discussion (generally speaking, for all the web)
But people seem to talk and discuss about how they feel currently in this moment, with the given information, some of that being a perception of the information, and then they obviously have to pull out the "time will tell" card, ofcourse they say that because they don't really have the capacity to have a educated prediction, but that's not all, this is also a form of perception-based negative statement that somehow the fate is still to be decided, like it's something totally unknown, but just because the current viewer's perception is such, doesn't mean the reality will change, that is an opinion-based discussion which I think it's totally irrelevant and I usually don't discuss it, because I do objective analysis. The data shows this thing is a semi-revolution, and while the details are uncertain and in those cases time will tell how fast it gets adopted and how much it gets adopted, but that's not really the goal of mantle, many people speak about irrelevant things mantle is not trying to achieve, ofcourse it's good to have it used by all GPU vendors and as many developers, but this is a consumer-type of perception based "success".
The problem is, many people up their own standards for when to call it a success or failure based on their personal opinion or in other words the shaky perception of the information that formed the opinion.
That usually ends up cases where people say it's a failute just because the thing was not used on their platform or one of their favourite franchises, these kind of discussions have zero credibility and should be dismissed.
It's a mathematical certainty that mantle will be a success. It is however a perception of the public that will make up their own mind, largely based on their own expecations which mantle probably wasn't set out to do or designed for. First of all, mantle is not a replacement. Many people keep saying how "time will tell" if mantle makes it on Nvidia and Linux and all the rest, it doesn't have to, all the people talking about market share, it's all irrelevant, if mantle uses
If Mantle is not used as much, it doesn't make it a failure. It only makes the industry a failure to use it. The thing if used will work and it will make what it claims to do, to the ease of development, low level, application control etc.
So people will try to paint something a failure, but while it only was a "failure" of the industry to use it, and that "failure to use it" for example might have come from the industry it self having a shaky perception of the thing that formed their opinion which lead to not adopting it.
Mantle is primairly designed for AAA developers , if all the top 20 AAA developers use Mantle, it is a success in both areas. Mantle does not require to dominate, it's not designed for mainstream and casuals, butthurt consumers and fanboys of those games will whine anyways.
This is the same way how Glide is being treated, while it lasted it was great, and that thing actually lasted for years, and then it died, but why it died, it didn't had more to do with how it was percieved by the industry and how the industry didn't want to adapt, the industry was more interested in standardization which is oviously a choice and not a abolute thing, standardization is a CHOICE and not a "correct" way or a "better" way necessairly, it's all a set of tradeoffs in the big picture, but ofcourse when people debate they use their opinion-based consumer viewpoint which always ends up with standardization being "correct" way and everything else a "failure" which is ofcourse a totally subjective based on the how system works (includingly lifestyle, etc and ofcourse base on their limitation impsed by the fiat monetary system), there are so many other invalid points the Glide people make that I can't even phantom to explain, I basically did as the above explanation applies to how they think when using the Glide card to prove their perception-based points. Some of those points are the difference in time, that was 15 years ago, now it's totally different and developers are more experienced, more evolved, etc
Oh also, that "time will tell" card, with the "fate to be decided" ... you would notice I didn't reference the point of "adoptability" (popularity) because I actually learned from typing that, so what I want to add to that when I written the "fate to be decided" is actually the adoptability that is what I explained is just one of the subjective and practical points the people seek to judge it upon and pronounce either a failure or success. Yes, that's all invalid, mantle is not designed to replace industry standards, and it's just some people's joy to debate everything around the point of popularity. (adoptability might not be the correct term, i mean popularity throughout the post)
Also want to point out, that I'm not focusing on the "adoptability" discussion, in this case I mean adoptability (how costly it is for them to support, how viable, worth it or not) because that's all truly up in the air, that all depends on developer and their goals and their needs, it's pointless to debate how popular will it be, some developer might use mantle just for ease of development and not so much for consumer benefits, for example, it's all time will tell, in this case, so I don't debate stuff I cannot predict, because there's not enoug info to know this on a big scale. And ofcourse, the decision of each developer is based also on their PERCEPTION of mantle, so if they happen to , there's no way for me to know that so that's why it's
And speaking of this research, it's all mathematical and can be simply explained in this statement, with experience and understanding you can caluclate the equation and get a close approximation of the result, the values in the quation are information, the equation design is the understanding of how things work, there is also the accuracy of the information put into the equation (perception), now there can be many cases, and as you can see you need to basically know all those factors and variables to get the one result, and some people may lack the proper equation design, some may lack some values, etc, you can see there is more chance to be wrong than right.
Some people are so inexperienced, and lacking of information that they absolutely require to see the end result before they can understand, those are the kind of very short posts you see usually as "i'll believe it when I see it"
). There is no doubt whatsoever Mantle will be excellent for the owners of GCN cards but because of it's specificity - it cannot be a game changer unless the majority co-opt into it.
). 
