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.

    • chameleon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      8 months ago

      DP is very much not free. VESA themselves is happy to tell you that DisplayPort is excluded from their list of free standards, and the leaked copies of old standards are stamped with a “distribution to non-members is prohibited” notice on every page.

      I’m not sure where that misconception came from, but it really needs to stop at some point. The best thing to say about VESA is they’re slightly less bad than the HDMI Forum. But only by so little.

        • Baŝto@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          DP also has the DRMs HDCP 2.2 and DisplayPort content protection 1.0

          And MPEG LA claims they have patents that are needed to implement the DP standard.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        8 months ago

        DisplayPort is open in name only. The specifications are locked behind membership (and requisite fees of ~$5k/yr - just enough to keep most hobbyists and the like out while being less than a rounding error for big companies).

      • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s not the point of my comment, the point is that whatever hdmi is, it’s got very healthy competition, so there’s no real reason for anti-trust stuff

        • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          No it doesn’t, because it’s generally monitor manufacturers that add display port, and people who want to run on large tvs are SoL

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              When most TV manufacturers are part of the HDMI “standards” committee, they obviously have a vested interest in not using other technologies, especially when they provide many of the accessories used with TVs. If they allowed competing standards on their TVs, why would consumers buy their products instead of the competitors?

            • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              A choice they are making in favor of a tech cartel instead of what is best for their customers, which is the problem we want addressed

    • Cirk2@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      8 months ago

      Display Port has a standing in Computer Displays but is basically unheard of in Home Entertainment.

      • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Doesn’t mean displayport can’t be used there.

        If the tv maker wanted to not pay licensing fees, they could put a displayport on the thing. But they don’t. Their call.

        • Cirk2@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          So the HDMI founders are Philips, Panasonic, Sony and Toshiba Known for their Players and in part TVs. The HDMI Forums consists of the rest of the TV Manufacturers and the big names in component Making (Analog Devices, NXP, Realtek, Qualcomm, etc.). So they are all members of a cooperation dedicated to “encouraging and promoting the adoption and widespread utilization of its Final Specifications”. I hesitate to call their decisions on connectivity options unencumbered by interests.

          oh btw: Anti-Trust does not require to there be no competing offer, just vast majority of market share.

          • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            Oh I know, but I do think anti-trust would require an erection of some sort of barrier. Say, if HDMI required that if HDMI is present, displayport cannot be.

            Right now, tv makers are complete free to choose.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              No, that’s not required. Microsoft was hit with antitrust despite users being able to install alternative browsers and even operating systems. The problem was that Microsoft was being anti-competitive by making competition more difficult, not that competition wasn’t allowed.

              You can certainly get a DP-to-HDMI adapter if you want, but that doesn’t mean there’s no anti-trust happening. If a new TV manufacturer can’t reasonably enter the market due to the protocol being overly restrictive for most accessories, I can see that being grounds for an anti-trust case. If they want HDMI to be a standard, it needs to be open. If they don’t, they need to provide alternatives in their products.

        • Thorned_Rose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Not entirely their call. I have little sympathy for the likes of Sony, Samsung et al but they’re also beholden to the entertainment industry which is very VERY pro-DRM (and the like). Open Source standards will make it much harder to lock down TVs and make it easier to pirate shit (or, you know, actually fully own your TV and do whatever the fuck you want with it). They won’t be dropping those ‘calls’ any time soon, not unless pissing off the entertainment industry worked out as more profit.