7 ms·

> Does it though? Does it really? Of course not. It's just protectionism and rent-seeking. > I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a

• shmerl 2y ago
  May be it can change if USB 4 will sneak in and supplant HDMI in those devices, since it can route both HDMI and DP.
  • account42 2y ago
    Is HDMI over USB even a thing that any real devices support? But yeah, demand for mobile phone support might force TV manufacturers to adopt DP over USB.
    • duskwuff 2y ago
      > Is HDMI over USB even a thing that any real devices support? No. A spec for HDMI Alternate Mode was written, but almost nobody (possibly nobody at all?) implemented it, and it was eventually withdrawn. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/01/hdmi-to-usb-c-spec-axed-as-displayport-alt-mode-reigns-supreme/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/01/hdmi-to-usb-c-spec-a...
  • ignaloidas 2y ago
    It cannot route HDMI, partly because HDMI is built upon antiquated principles and doesn't really fit besides more modern protocol designs. USB4 would need to get entirely redesigned for tunneling native HDMI. Having a DP to HDMI converter on one end though, that's easy.
    • Pet_Ant 2y ago
      > HDMI is built upon antiquated principles I'm interested in learn more, in what way are they antiquated?
      • adrian_b 2y ago
        HDMI uses a digitalized form of the traditional TV signals. The format of the transmitted data still depends on the parameters that defined traditional TV signals, like video frame frequency, video line frequency, vertical and horizontal retrace intervals and so on. Such parameters are no longer essential for digital television and there is no longer any need to constrain the transmission of video signals with them. DisplayPort uses a typical communication protocol that can carry arbitrary data packets, not much different from the protocols used on USB or Ethernet.
• Rinzler89 2y ago
  >Of course not. It's just protectionism and rent-seeking. Don't know why you're being downvoted but it's true. Especially when you see that the HDMI standard was developed by the cartel of TV manufacturers and major movie studios[1] when DVI and Display Port already existed but those didn't generate royalties or have DRM. Despicable standard. There wasn't even a standards "war" like in VHS vs Betamax, or SD vs MemoryStick, or USB vs Fire Wire, to say that HDMI won over DisplayPort, it was simply shoved down consumers' throats since every TV, media player and games console only shipped with that port alone as they were manufactured by the same cartel that developed the HDMI standard. So much for the so called "free market". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#History
  • trilbyglens 2y ago
    Works exactly as a free market is designed to. The strong and coercive win. That's what market dynamics are really about. Monopolies form easily and naturally unless regulation stops them.
    • drchaos 2y ago
      One could argue that at least this specific tactic would not be possible without the state granting a monopoly on "intellectual property". Without that, nothing would hinder AMD from just shipping their already existing implementation.
      • Certhas 2y ago
        The irreducible state role in a free market is to enforce property rights. Almost all free market fans I have seen think that this should extend to some notion of intellectual property.
        • Y_Y 2y ago
          I think the standard answer to your point is that you can recognise "intellectual property" without granting a (limited) monopoly. There are plenty of proposals floating around for copyright and patent reform that curtail or replace the ability of the creator/owner to unilaterally set the price and decide who can license the material and how they can use it.
• 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
  I have fewer display port devices now than 8 years ago.
  • KeplerBoy 2y ago
    Don't forget about usb-c. Video over usb-c is almost always display port in disguise.
    • squarefoot 2y ago
      What about latency? Is it on par or at least in the same league compared to direct connection? Not an issue for most people, but gamers could disagree if it is too high.
      • duskwuff 2y ago
        Performance is identical. DisplayPort Alternate Mode (which is what most displays use) isn't transmitting video data over USB; it's agreeing to use some of the high-speed wire pairs in the cable to transmit DisplayPort data instead of USB.
        • squarefoot 2y ago
          This is very interesting to know, thanks!
      • seba_dos1 2y ago
        It's still direct connection, so there's nothing to compare there.
• Cu3PO42 2y ago
  > I don't think so, at least at this point. Most people don't have hardware that requires HDMI 2.1 in order to get full use out of them, and of those who do, not all of them use Linux and/or care about open source drivers. I do, but this hardware doesn't have DisplayPort. I switched from Nvidia to AMD specifically for the open source Linux drivers, so I'm quite mad at the HDMI forum for this. On the other hand, my next TV likely won't have DisplayPort, either, because almost none of them do, so it is indeed questionable whether this is going to loose them any mind share.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• matja 2y ago
  > Most people don't have hardware that requires HDMI 2.1 in order to get full use out of them, and of those who do, not all of them use Linux and/or care about open source drivers. Arguably true, but I think that is changing all the time while there is a push towards open-source drivers regardless of the average user knowing/caring what that is, along with resolutions and refresh rates increasing. I was affected by HDMI Forum's decision by buying an off-the-shelf 4K 120Hz monitor which refused to work at that resolution/refresh rate on an HDMI cable. I was not expecting an arbitrary decision affecting software to be the cause instead of a hardware problem - which took me a while to figure out. Now I know if I want to use my hardware to the full capacity, I need DisplayPort in future.
  • Hendrikto 2y ago
    > off-the-shelf 4K 120Hz monitor which refused to work at that resolution/refresh rate on an HDMI cable. I run a 4K 144Hz monitor over HDMI. Are you sure you don‘t just need a better cable?
    • matja 2y ago
      My HDMI cables work at 4k 120Hz with the same monitor with an NVidia card using closed-source drivers, not with AMD open-source drivers, because of the issue in the article.
• mobiuscog 2y ago
  Linux gamers with modern TVs wanting VRR. Maybe that's still a tiny amount, but it's likely the most common 'need'.
• account42 2y ago
  > Most people don't have hardware that requires HDMI 2.1 in order to get full use out of them. Most people maybe not but a simple 4K TV that can do > 60 FPS fits that criteria. Those aren't that rare anymore.
• arghwhat 2y ago
  > At any rate, for some reason DisplayPort has just not caught on all that much. DisplayPort won everything, except not becoming the physical connector for home cinema. Heck, even within those HDMI-exposing devices, DP won. The vast majority of display drivers speak eDP. Few things actually implement HDMI, and instead rely on DisplayPort to HDMI converters - that's true whether you're looking at a Nintendo Switch or your laptop. Heck, there is no support for HDMI over USB-C - every USB-C to HDMI cable/adapter embeds a HDMI converter chip, as HDMI altmode was abandoned early on. The only devices I know of with "native" HDMI are the specialized TV and AV receiver SoCs. The rest is DP because no one cares about HDMI. However, seeing that home cinema is pretty much purely an enthusiast thing these days (the casual user won't plug anything into their smart TV), I wonder if there's a chance of salvation here. The only real thing holding onto DisplayPort is eARC and some minor CEC features for AV receiver/soundbar use. Introducing some dedicated audio port would not only be a huge upgrade (some successor to toslink with more bandwidth and remote control support), but would also remove the pressure to use HDMI. With that out of the way, the strongest market force there is - profitability - would automatically drive DisplayPort adoption in home cinema, as manufacturers could save not only converter chips, but HDMI royalties too.
  • pjc50 2y ago
    > Introducing some dedicated audio port would not only be a huge upgrade I'm not sure about that - suddenly there's a cost in board space and BOM, and they're not automatically linked together. Or do you just mean for audio output from TV to soundbar? I feel like USB would suffice for that if anyone could be bothered. Personally I use regular TOSLINK to a stereo amplifier and accept having another remote.
    • arghwhat 2y ago
      Heh, good point, USB 2.0 would absolutely suffice. You'd hardly need more than a standard audio profile either. Some TVs even support this already - recent Samsung models at least. A specialized port could theoretically have a lower BOM cost through simpler silicon or port design, but USB 2.0 is free at this point so why bother. > Personally I use regular TOSLINK to a stereo amplifier and accept having another remote. The problem with TOSLINK is not only the remote scenario (which I do think is absolutely a necessary feature for any kind of adoption), but also lack of bandwidth for uncompressed surround sound. Large surround setups at home are uncommon these days, but soundbars with virtual surround is common, and some of us still manage to squeeze in a simple 5.1 setup.
• lexicality 2y ago
  > At any rate, for some reason DisplayPort has just not caught on all that much. You very rarely see them on TVs, and a good number of mid-/lower-end monitors don't have them either. I suspect all the nice features that make DisplayPort a better standard are harder to implement cheaply, eg chaining