This list does not include a lot of industry use-cases in which OpenGL might be a better solution.

It seems to me that Vulkan is targeted at AAA video game developers, game engines, console game developers and high-performance rendering. In addition, as far as I understand it might not even be beneficial in a lot of cases to use Vulkan over OpenGL, for example in cases where the application/rendering runs in a single thread or when reaching the best possible performance is not a primary goal for an application. Also, another thread in this forum discussed that Vulkan might be overbearing for most computer graphics programming beginners, and that they would be better off learning, e.g. It was announced there will still be major updates to OpenGL in the future and the support for OpenGL will continue. However, from what I understand from discussions here and the info given in the presentation, Vulkan is supposed to be a low-level API that will exist alongside OpenGL. For example a popular question on stackexchange asks about this and a number of news websites that I will not cite here have made similar remarks either in the headline or their texts. The purpose of the thread is to achieve a clear answer to the question in the thread titles as there seems to be a lot of claims, doubts and dubious statements about OpenGL and Vulkan out there at the moment.ДЇrom what I have seen in other forums, news reports about Vulkan and internet discussions, there seems to be a general notion that OpenGL would be a replacement for Vulkan.

Not gonna die high note version