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.
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.
Why did HDMI succeed over display port? Always the same problems with closed source.
HDMI didn’t succeed over display port; they’re two different formats meant for two different audiences.
HDMI is meant for consumer electronics like TVs / set-top boxes because it focuses on delivering a little bit of everything (audio, video, network, DRM, etc) in a single cable for the best, easiest (minus the DRM) singular TV / device experience.
Display port is meant for computers because it focuses on delivering the best responsive multi-monitor experience.
In other words, if you are working or gaming on a computer, you should be using Display port; however, if you are using anything else, you should be using HDMI.
I just hate how my monitor came with a HDMI cable
Regardless of the cable that came attached, check the monitor to see if it supports a Display port – It most likely does. Your monitor likely came with an HDMI cable for sake of cost reduction (I guess better than no cable at all). If the monitor doesn’t support Display port, it means that manufacturer didn’t build or manufacture that monitor to be a true computer monitor class product.
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.
Because the movie studio execs like their hdcp drm
Which in a lot of cases can be easily removed with adding an HDMI splitter in between. Fuck DRM!
Which is funny because of how easy it is to circumvent
HDMI did have a head start, but nowadays, the answer is money. As usual.
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.
Most modern monitors have a single displayport, and then a small army of HDMIs.
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.
You forget every desktop GPU having 3 DisplayPorts and only 1 HDMI, and USB C supporting DisplayPort?
Is display port still open source? I thought something happened.
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.
I… don’t think display ports add 100 on top of the price. Do you have a source for it that its so much more expensive?