cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/12544593

Alex Deucher:

The HDMI Forum has rejected our proposal unfortunately. At this time an open source HDMI 2.1 implementation is not possible without running afoul of the HDMI Forum requirements.

  • LittleWizard@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Why did HDMI succeed over display port? Always the same problems with closed source.

          • WIZARD POPE💫@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I know it’s probably for cost cutting. But the monitor does indeed have a DP input option. Maybe the HDMI is included because it has inbuilt speakers and as far as I know those aren’t usable thrpugh DP and I don’t know if it has a separate audio input.

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 months ago

      HDMI did have a head start, but nowadays, the answer is money. As usual.

      • spongebue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        That also includes money to upgrade, for example, display equipment in virtually every office conference room, classroom, home theater, etc. It took a long time to shake VGA in those settings and now that that’s largely been dropped in favor of HDMI it’ll be a tall order to chase after the next best thing with no benefit noticeable to 99.9% of people.

    • vividspecter
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s an older interface than DP and has “better” support for audio (I.e. all of those proprietary passthrough audio formats that home theater setups support) so it became dominant in TVs. Monitors are still DP first but likely have a HDMI port as well.

        • didnt_readit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          That kind of makes sense though. I figure they assume you’ll have one computer hooked up and then a bunch of consumer devices that all use HDMI. And if you need a second computer hooked up you can also use HDMI if needed. Probably makes the most sense to the most people as having more DP in place of HDMI would just mean the average user couldn’t hook up as many devices since (almost?) no consumer devices use DP unfortunately.

    • gray@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      You forget every desktop GPU having 3 DisplayPorts and only 1 HDMI, and USB C supporting DisplayPort?

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      In my experience, its cause monitors are already over priced, and adding a display port to it seems to add at least another 100 on top of that.

      Which is why I prefer HDMI. Less cable headache too, since I only have to keep one type of cable in stock and so i can easily switch for testing/diagnostics/layout change purposes.

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I didnt say they did, I said they seem to, since in my experience every monitor that had similar spec, but had a display port, was about 100 dollars on top of whatever the hdmi only one had.