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.

  • Cirk2@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    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.