4 ms·
> Not to a TV, tho, which makes it a deal breaker for me. They should put a proper HDMI port. I'd rather have an extra Thunderbolt 3/USB-C port, to be honest.
by chimeracoder 9y ago
> Not to a TV, tho, which makes it a deal breaker for me. They should put a proper HDMI port.
I'd rather have an extra Thunderbolt 3/USB-C port, to be honest. HDMI 2.0 is bigger and clunkier as a port, and Thunderbolt 3 is strictly better as a protocol (we're not even talking about HDMI 2.1). Maybe if you're talking HDMI 2.1, but the protocol can still be carried over a USB-C connector anyway, so keeping the standard connector interface is preferable in my books.
My bet is that TVs will soon start to have USB-C ports built-in (with whichever protocols they're willing to support). In the meantime, an adapter will do the trick; it can even live with the TV, since that's not meant to be portable.
- ClassyJacket 9y agoSorry I shouldn't have said port. They should've put in HDMI support. Over the USBC port. I agree that extra ports are superfluous.