Live data from Hacker News

HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

arstechnica.com

81–90 of 170 posts

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#81
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a battle for the control of the device. The ideal setup for the big corpos is that we do not own our devices, but we rent them, and they can then charge arbitrarily for different uses of them. This was what AT&T did with phones back in the day.

To expand on that, AT&T had a regulated monopoly. You were not allowed to attach non AT&T devices to their network, and they had the only network (and no one else could set one up by law). You did not own a phone, but leased it on a monthly basis. When the telephone answering machine was invented (not by AT&T) you could not legally attach it. The plus of this arrangement was that AT&T made devices that would last for…

> costs were not surprising

Costs were mind boggling and surprising. I got in huge trouble when I was in elementary school because I called my best friend who lived 1 mile away. It could cost more to call someone who lived in a different LATA (in my case, the other LATA was one mile away) than it did to call a different time zone. As I recall a call 1 mile away was billed at 23¢ per minute and a call to Portland, Oregon, three time zones away was 12¢ per minute (and this was in 1977 money, which where one dollar was worth six hamburgers). Another: the cost to rent a handset was $3 per month. By 1988 (and $1 was worth four hamburgers), you could buy a touch tone phone for $3 at Target.

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#82
On a somewhat related note, it's very surprising how hard it is to get DisplayPort out of a USB-C connection. Although DP is natively there all the cheap adapters tend to be HDMI even though that requires extra hardware to create the complex HDMI signalling out of the DP native output. So although monitors tend to have DP inputs and now everything has DP outputs in the form of USB-C it's actually hard to connect the two.

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AMD obviously needs to license the logo for their GPU boxes This poses an interesting question, maybe some of the hobby-lawyers on HN like to chime in and post heir theories :o) Let's assume they print that Logo on their box, call it HDMI in their Windows drivers, but don't do so in their Linux drivers, while it's still a spec-compliant implementation. Would that pose a potential legal problem, and if so why? If it…

> Too bad the HDMI forum doesn't feature an email address on their home page, I'd have loved to tell them what I think of them. They actually do at the bottom of [1]. [1] https://hdmiforum.org/about/

Thanks, I emailed them: # Solutions for the growing open source user base "Hello, I am an AMD user, who uses Linux, and I currently use a small HDMI screen but I am looking to upgrade to a larger screen and I am concerned about the forum's decision to deny AMD's open source HDMI implementation. This decision has led to criticism of the entire HDMI enterprise as rent-seeking, and encourages non-trademarked implementations that weaken the HDMI brand. Linux is only growing in popularity, as people are tired of the advertising baked into Windows, and don't always want a Mac either, I highly suggest a re-think that looks at the rising popularity of open source with Linux, Android, Chrome and so on, to protect the HDMI brand.

Sincerely, Luke Stanley"

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#85

> you can't make an open source HDMI 2.1 driver because some people said so I don't understand. Fuck whatever committee said whatever crap. Open source is open source. Just make the damn driver and give the suits 2 middle fingers.

As a Member of HDMI-Forum AMD would surely break its Forum Membership contract by open-sourcing their implementation of a specification restricted to Members. Also, "HDMI" itself is a trademark with usage only allowed to its Members (like "Wi-Fi"), so even if a non-Member would do an open-source HDMI-implementation against the will of the HDMI-Forum, he would likely not be allowed to call it "HDMI" (like "WLAN" is us…

That is a small hurdle. Just come up with a name. HD driver? If that is too close then something else. End of the day call it bollocks and since you are using hardware detection anyway who cares.

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#87
post #82

On a somewhat related note, it's very surprising how hard it is to get DisplayPort out of a USB-C connection. Although DP is natively there all the cheap adapters tend to be HDMI even though that requires extra hardware to create the complex HDMI signalling out of the DP native output. So although monitors tend to have DP inputs and now everything has DP outputs in the form of USB-C it's actually hard to connect the…

Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like Amazon even creates their own off-brand USB-C to DisplayPort cable, so it doesn't seem like it's that hard.

https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Aluminum-USB-C-DisplayPo...

They also have an adapter: https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Aluminium-DisplayPort-Ad...

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, that someone without contracts would probably need to call it different than "HDMI", because the term itself is trademarked and only licensed to Members (like "Wi-Fi" and "Bluetooth"). So a different term would be needed (like "WLAN" or "BT" is used by non-members)

Call it IDMH, I don't mind, honestly.

Or IWCH ;-)

Re: HDMI Forum does not allow an open source implementation of the HDMI 2.1 spec

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> proprietary formats and specifications such as ... DisplayPort DisplayPort is not proprietary; it is a VESA standard. > Lightning If you owned any iPhone between 2012 and the present, you had to use Lightning, without choice. And for some inexplicable reason, Americans love iPhones.

People keep iphones for a long time. My unfair internal impression is that android phones still have micro-usb and allow any app to change your lockscreen to porn ads without identifying _which_ app made the change, because when I switched to iOS that was true, and I’ve only had two iphones so it can’t have been that long. (In reality it’s been eight years)

People keep all phones for a really long time. I've never had a phone that I didn't use for 5 years, nor one that ever cost more than $350.
Post reply on HN