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

HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 185 posts

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#61

Post by atoav »

obirunda wrote: post #46
trilbyglens wrote: post #27

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…

Getting rich is easy. You just need rich parents.

Two things can be true at the same time.

The truth is, if you are in the position to make the step towards becoming a monopolist especially in a new market it is not impossible to do so (and by the rules it should be).

Getting to that position isn't easy tho.

But from a consumer standpoint the only thing that matters is if you have monopolists or not — we don't care how hard it was for them to become one other than it might change the number of monopolists that force their crop down our throats.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#62

Post by account42 »

gnabgib wrote: post #6

Discussions (290 points, 6 months ago, 164 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39559318 (394 points, 6 months ago, 237 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39543291

And the source for all these articles: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/1417

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#63

Post by Rinzler89 »

atoav wrote: post #57
somat wrote: post #35

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…

As a media tech guy (running the media tech department of a university, which includes a DCI conform cinema): absolutely everybody hates HDMI. It is unreliable as hell, both physically and as a protocol. It tries to be too much to too many people and most devices, including expensive "pro" gear includes unchangeable random weirdness like ignoring EDIDs or forcing them onto you, that is documented nowhere and you can…

Isn't this why VGA is still widely used everywhere? It always just works no matter what even when connector or pins are damaged since there's no digital handshake or error correction just a basic analog pipeline.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#64

Post by account42 »

kelnos wrote: post #11
broodbucket wrote: post #4

>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…

> Most people don't have hardware that requires HDMI 2.1 in order to get full use out of them.

Most people maybe not but a simple 4K TV that can do > 60 FPS fits that criteria. Those aren't that rare anymore.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#65

Post by arghwhat »

kelnos wrote: post #11
broodbucket wrote: post #4

>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…

> At any rate, for some reason DisplayPort has just not caught on all that much.

DisplayPort won everything, except not becoming the physical connector for home cinema. Heck, even within those HDMI-exposing devices, DP won.

The vast majority of display drivers speak eDP. Few things actually implement HDMI, and instead rely on DisplayPort to HDMI converters - that's true whether you're looking at a Nintendo Switch or your laptop. Heck, there is no support for HDMI over USB-C - every USB-C to HDMI cable/adapter embeds a HDMI converter chip, as HDMI altmode was abandoned early on.

The only devices I know of with "native" HDMI are the specialized TV and AV receiver SoCs. The rest is DP because no one cares about HDMI.

However, seeing that home cinema is pretty much purely an enthusiast thing these days (the casual user won't plug anything into their smart TV), I wonder if there's a chance of salvation here. The only real thing holding onto DisplayPort is eARC and some minor CEC features for AV receiver/soundbar use. Introducing some dedicated audio port would not only be a huge upgrade (some successor to toslink with more bandwidth and remote control support), but would also remove the pressure to use HDMI.

With that out of the way, the strongest market force there is - profitability - would automatically drive DisplayPort adoption in home cinema, as manufacturers could save not only converter chips, but HDMI royalties too.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#66

Post by account42 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #52
godzillabrennus wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most people will use the path of least resistance. Many people/organizations still use VGA and ketchup-mustard-onion cables to this day if they still do the job, let alone HDMI.

Shouldn't it be mayo if you are going with a condiment theme?

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#67

Post by pjc50 »

arghwhat wrote: post #65
kelnos wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> At any rate, for some reason DisplayPort has just not caught on all that much. DisplayPort won everything, except not becoming the physical connector for home cinema. Heck, even within those HDMI-exposing devices, DP won. The vast majority of display drivers speak eDP. Few things actually implement HDMI, and instead rely on DisplayPort to HDMI converters - that's true whether you're looking at a Nintendo Switch or…

> Introducing some dedicated audio port would not only be a huge upgrade

I'm not sure about that - suddenly there's a cost in board space and BOM, and they're not automatically linked together. Or do you just mean for audio output from TV to soundbar? I feel like USB would suffice for that if anyone could be bothered. Personally I use regular TOSLINK to a stereo amplifier and accept having another remote.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#69

Post by atoav »

Rodeoclash wrote: post #56
obirunda wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If only the free market was even more free, all our problems would be solved!

The invisible hand of the free market will come and fix all the things! /s

If you talk to people who still subscribe to that notion, it quickly becomes clear that they value their miniscule chance to win the capitalist lottery more than the wellbeing of the many — the idea that markets balance everything to the advantage of everybody then seems to be just an excuse to be egoistic and without any care for others.

Don't get me wrong, nobody has to care for others and I am not going to be the person to force you, but if you don't care about others please stop pretending you are doing it for the greater good.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#70

Post by account42 »

trilbyglens wrote: post #27
Rinzler89 wrote: post #19

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…

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.

Actually these monopolies are enforced by the state via IP laws. Without IP laws any upstart could reverse engineer the protocols and provide an implementation with less limitations. But of course free market enthusiasts like to ignore that part and only rant against the government when it protects consumers from companies.
Post reply on HN