51–60 of 185 posts
>On the one hand, this move ensures the quality and consistency of HDMI experience. Does it though? Does it really? I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.
> They're handing a win to DisplayPort. And that would be bad how? DP is an excellent standard and royalty free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, and note that I think of the hdmi foundation as the bad guys. hdmi was not an alternative to display port, display port did not exist yet. it was an alternative to dvi, really hdmi is dvi with a sound channel and drm. And as much as I dislike the hdmi foundation I can see the benefit here. as to hdmi vs display port... I have no idea why you don't see more display port, VESA has a proven track record as t…
I think interface change fatigue is real. DisplayPort has been around but there wasn’t a compelling reason to use it when displays had hdmi ports. People are also looking to USB-C as the next iteration in display connectivity because it does “all of the things” from a consumers perspective.
Many people/organizations still use VGA and ketchup-mustard-onion cables to this day if they still do the job, let alone HDMI.
Feels like it's time for governments to get involved. It's not reasonable for a ubiquitous format like HDMI to be restricted like this.
That's not to say the government shouldn't get involved. I think the bigger thing here is that if an industry group is specifically setting things up so that Linux is shut out of having high-end video support, then it looks an awful lot like cartel behavior -- industry incumbents are working together to lock out a competitor. Maybe it could be the basis of an anti-trust lawsuit?
Presumably Apple and Microsoft would have the most to gain. Microsoft is a member of the forum. Apple doesn't appear to be, but an Apple guy is on their board of directors.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how such a lawsuit would work. Who represents Linux in this case, since it's not owned by any one company. Linus Torvalds? AMD? And would all the companies involved in the HDMI forum be liable for the behavior of the forum (which would include AMD)? Does intentionality matter? I.e. if Linux was excluded accidentally rather than deliberately?
https://hdmiforum.org/about/hdmi-forum-board-directors/ https://hdmiforum.org/members/
Feels like it's time for governments to get involved. It's not reasonable for a ubiquitous format like HDMI to be restricted like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Works exactly as a free market is designed to. The strong and coercive win. That's what market dynamics are really about. Monopolies form easily and naturally unless regulation stops them.
Monopolies form easily? That's funny, you should try and start one, seems quite profitable. Seriously though, this is an oft repeated fallacy, and frankly irrelevant to the discussion. IP laws are the actual culprit in facilitating the apparatus of the state for the creation of monopolies. Most people seem to embrace this double-think that IP laws are good while monopolies are bad. You simply don't get monopolies wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Of course not. It's just protectionism and rent-seeking. Don't know why you're being downvoted but it's true. Especially when you see that the HDMI standard was developed by the cartel of TV manufacturers and major movie studios[1] when DVI and Display Port already existed but those didn't generate royalties or have DRM. Despicable standard. There wasn't even a standards "war" like in VHS vs Betamax, or SD vs Memory…
To be fair, and note that I think of the hdmi foundation as the bad guys. hdmi was not an alternative to display port, display port did not exist yet. it was an alternative to dvi, really hdmi is dvi with a sound channel and drm. And as much as I dislike the hdmi foundation I can see the benefit here. as to hdmi vs display port... I have no idea why you don't see more display port, VESA has a proven track record as t…
Add to that the fact that consumers/users can break the picture/sound in 100 different ways on their devices and you get a veritable support nightmare.
I wish it was just DVI+ but it does so much more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could argue that at least this specific tactic would not be possible without the state granting a monopoly on "intellectual property". Without that, nothing would hinder AMD from just shipping their already existing implementation.
The irreducible state role in a free market is to enforce property rights. Almost all free market fans I have seen think that this should extend to some notion of intellectual property.
Feels like it's time for governments to get involved. It's not reasonable for a ubiquitous format like HDMI to be restricted like this.
I agree. It should be illegal to restrict people from making open source implementations of industry standards like this. I don't expect that to ever happen, of course. But I can dream...
The solution is to not buy proprietary standards[0], in this case, I'm looking for DisplayPort when I buy... and a big + to AMD for trying.
Hey Intel! Come back!
[0] Pile of comments here pretending it's sooo difficult.
>On the one hand, this move ensures the quality and consistency of HDMI experience. Does it though? Does it really? I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.
> Does it though? Does it really? Of course not. It's just protectionism and rent-seeking. > I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort. I don't think so, at least at this point. Most people don't have hardware that requires HDMI 2.1 in order to get full use out of them, and of those who do, not all of them use Linux and/or care about open source drivers. Sure, that situation m…
Maybe that's still a tiny amount, but it's likely the most common 'need'.