Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

(Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design

panic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 175 posts

Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design

#91

Post by jaegerpicker »

buro9 wrote: post #66
scott_karana wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I sympathize, this isn't just about A/V standards. This allows for absolutely ANYTHING, barring bandwidth concerns. Ubiquitous body computers with skin access ports? We can make an interface for that. "Quantum broadcast" antenna technology? We can make a dongle for that.

Which is precisely why I gave the example of cabling for telecommunications.

Which actually doesn't make any sense. Sure copper and cable has been around for thirty years but as Google Fiber, Verzion FioS, and AT&T U-Verse show it's often required to install new cabling and other hardware. This is true of Phone (dsl upgrades) and Cable internet also. I used to work as a Subcontractor for Time Warner's Road Runner internet service when it first arrived in North East Ohio. Part of the common work was installing new routers and switches after the new cable lines were installed in the individual neighborhoods.

Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design

#92

Post by XorNot »

gilgoomesh wrote: post #47
revelation wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't streaming, its the last 50cm from your computer to your display. The 200 times more of data are already handled without a sweat by today's interfaces. Dual link DVI, from 1999, can already do more than 1080p.

Apple are trying to handle all technologies without custom hardware in the device. Effectively, they have turned it into a streaming scenario. It's not as weird as you'd think -- there are USB3 video adapters that work the same way. DVI, HDMI and MHL all require custom hardware in the device. As the Apple engineer said, Apple are trying to avoid this.

Taking 1 master protocol (DisplayPort) and converting appropriately would make a hell of a lot more sense then starting with your own proprietary format, and putting compressed video decoders in your cables.

Avoiding custom hardware in devices just seems ridiculous - to support new standards Apple are either going to have to update their chips or update their devices, and they will have to update the cables too. There's not a saving here that isn't achieved by simply using an existing standard.

Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design

#93

Post by XorNot »

fredsted wrote: post #62
cake wrote: post #59

Man, a computer in a cable seems like such a waste and complex design. What's the point of doing so ? I don't get it.

Sorry, but did you read the comment?

It still doesn't make any sense. "Here's a world standard which is being built into literally every display on the planet, and is signal compatible with many others" (i.e. HDMI/Displayport/DVI).

And for some reason they're worried about some new standard being incompatible and not being able to upconvert?

The exact same logic would apply if the devices had native display connectors, and then eventually needed some new connector for it. If you can't get a raw framebuffer or HDMI over your current link, you're never going to get a new faster/bigger protocol over it either.

Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design

#94

Post by glasshead969 »

batgaijin wrote: post #4

Lightning is an Intel feature that Apple is trying to support right? I mean I can't tell if they firmly support this or if since Intel is there only chip supplier they are kind of bound to supporting this.

No, lightning is a proprietary apple connector technology which looks like borrows same concept from thunderbolt which is intel's next generation connector.

Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design

#95

Post by ricardobeat »

esolyt wrote: post #87
nirvana wrote: post #67

Ideology has trumped engineering, and as hackers, you shouldn't tolerate it. Frankly, all of this has been obvious all along to any competent engineer, since the moment Apple introduced lightening. They described it as a serial bus and talked about how it gave more flexibility. If you think about it for 2 seconds its obviously better to run protocols over a serial bus than to run 30 lines of individual signals, with…

>Ideology has trumped engineering, and as hackers, you shouldn't tolerate it. Exactly. It turned out Apple's Lightning is actually inferior to a standard MicroUSB + MHL.

> The Samsung Galaxy S III and Galaxy Note II use a connector that is similar to the original 5-pin MHL-HDMI adapter/dongle, but it uses 11-pins in order to achieve a few functional improvements over the 5-pin design

standard, you say?

Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design

#96

Post by glasshead969 »

This takes a page from intel thunderbolt which uses active cables too. Initially thunderbolt cables were costly for this same reason but as chips become cheaper and smaller, cost would not be a issue while you still have advantage of a adaptive interface.

Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design

#97

Post by bilbo0s »

esolyt wrote: post #87
nirvana wrote: post #67

Ideology has trumped engineering, and as hackers, you shouldn't tolerate it. Frankly, all of this has been obvious all along to any competent engineer, since the moment Apple introduced lightening. They described it as a serial bus and talked about how it gave more flexibility. If you think about it for 2 seconds its obviously better to run protocols over a serial bus than to run 30 lines of individual signals, with…

>Ideology has trumped engineering, and as hackers, you shouldn't tolerate it. Exactly. It turned out Apple's Lightning is actually inferior to a standard MicroUSB + MHL.

In what way do you believe (Lightning) is inferior?

and in what way do you believe (MicroUSB + MHL) is 'standard'?

Serious questions.

Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design

#98

Post by ricardobeat »

XorNot wrote: post #90
coldtea wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is a problem entirely of our own making. Aren't all problems in computing this way? > The stereo beside me has components that span 30 years and uses the same cabling for all components. Yes. And it does just one thing. Output analog electrically encoded sound signals. Now, call me again when that stereo cabling has to also support: audio out, digital audio out, video out, different resolutions, MIDI out, conn…

The real issue here though is it's a solution to a non-existent problem. This was potentially a problem before HDMI was a standard. That's no longer true though. Modern HDMI does video, audio and has an ethernet bus standard right on the cable. All Apple is doing is proprietary lock-in here - it's not more flexible in anyway, where as HDMI is signal compatible with DVI and DisplayPort.

But you have to buy new HDMI cables every time the standard is upgraded. Right now the ethernet bus is only 100mbps, and it only supports 4k at 24fps; when these are improved = new cable. HDMI also can have latency issues, if you want to play something like RockSmith you need to use an analog output to circumvent it.

Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design

#99

Post by tnicks »

buro9 wrote: post #66
scott_karana wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I sympathize, this isn't just about A/V standards. This allows for absolutely ANYTHING, barring bandwidth concerns. Ubiquitous body computers with skin access ports? We can make an interface for that. "Quantum broadcast" antenna technology? We can make a dongle for that.

Which is precisely why I gave the example of cabling for telecommunications.

I find your example lacking in perspective. In telecom, even under TDM standards like SDH, SONET, etc., there were a plethora of incompatible connectors. You can have rj45, rj12, BNC (literally dozens of variations). In optics the same is true as well with SC, ST, LC, FC, etc. The last decades shift towards Ethernet everywhere is as a result of "mass" consumer desire (i.e. you guys on HN building things that use Ethernet. A protocol originally designed for a limited number of workstations in a small environment.) and that has put the RJ45 at the top for a lot of devices. Recall that 15 years ago AS400, ATM, FDDI, all had their own connectors and standards. All of this (and much more) just to send some bits over a physical connection. Just crack open a Grays catalog and go to town.

For the record each of these has a purpose and reason. Some were a function of the materials present at the time others due to specific environmental concerns. I would not class any in the realm of "lock-in". Due to the capital intensive nature of the industry they each were good business decisions at the time. It wasn't as easy as buying a $40 plug.

Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design

#100

Post by glasshead969 »

XorNot wrote: post #93
fredsted wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but did you read the comment?

It still doesn't make any sense. "Here's a world standard which is being built into literally every display on the planet, and is signal compatible with many others" (i.e. HDMI/Displayport/DVI). And for some reason they're worried about some new standard being incompatible and not being able to upconvert? The exact same logic would apply if the devices had native display connectors, and then eventually needed some ne…

This isn't just about video, the design helps to keep pin smaller and removes the need to having dedicated combination of pins to support a certain standard which may not be used anymore. For example, old 30 pin connected had support for FireWire which is no longer user anymore but connecter still needed to have those pins.

I think they know the issue of video quality and are working to fix that. The beauty of this design is they can improve the hardware/software to push data efficiently because it just needs to output data stream it's upto the cable to handle it. As Moore's law kicks in, cables would need smaller chips.

They no longer have to keep changing pin configuration to add support to newer connectors. The Cables will handle that in the software.

Post reply on HN