(Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design
1–10 of 175 posts
Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design
#2I think the main takeaway is that yes, lightning is future proof and can adapt to any output you want it to.
I do wonder what's the reason for encode/decode cycle was in the first place though.
Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design
#3I think the main takeaway is that yes, lightning is future proof and can adapt to any output you want it to. I do wonder what's the reason for encode/decode cycle was in the first place though.
He doesn't say, but probably because they just don't have the bandwidth.
And thats where all this future proof talk goes deaf. New interfaces will only have more bandwidth, thats the whole point. Meanwhile, Lightning still has the same bandwidth and theres still a considerable penalty in serializing any other interface.
If they can't even do 1080p lossless right now, they are in much deeper trouble for the future.
Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design
#4Lightning 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.
Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design
#5Lightning 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.
You're thinking about Thunderbolt?
Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design
#6[deleted]
Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design
#7I think the main takeaway is that yes, lightning is future proof and can adapt to any output you want it to. I do wonder what's the reason for encode/decode cycle was in the first place though.
He doesn't say, but probably because they just don't have the bandwidth. And thats where all this future proof talk goes deaf. New interfaces will only have more bandwidth, thats the whole point. Meanwhile, Lightning still has the same bandwidth and theres still a considerable penalty in serializing any other interface. If they can't even do 1080p lossless right now, they are in much deeper trouble for the future.
> If they can't even do 1080p lossless right now, they are in much deeper trouble for the future.
Unencoded video is about the most bandwidth intensive thing I can imagine coming out of or going into a phone, and will remain so for a long time.
1080p30 @ 24bit is roughly 1.5 Gbit/sec before you talk about transport level ecoding (8b/10b) or audio.
Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
He doesn't say, but probably because they just don't have the bandwidth. And thats where all this future proof talk goes deaf. New interfaces will only have more bandwidth, thats the whole point. Meanwhile, Lightning still has the same bandwidth and theres still a considerable penalty in serializing any other interface. If they can't even do 1080p lossless right now, they are in much deeper trouble for the future.
> If they can't even do 1080p lossless right now, they are in much deeper trouble for the future. Unencoded video is about the most bandwidth intensive thing I can imagine coming out of or going into a phone, and will remain so for a long time. 1080p30 @ 24bit is roughly 1.5 Gbit/sec before you talk about transport level ecoding (8b/10b) or audio.
But then there's 4K, if we're talking about future proofing.
Well, say right now it cannot transmit 1080p60 raw. Could it with new hardware in device and adapter? Or put another way — does number of pins limit bandwidth in any way?
Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
He doesn't say, but probably because they just don't have the bandwidth. And thats where all this future proof talk goes deaf. New interfaces will only have more bandwidth, thats the whole point. Meanwhile, Lightning still has the same bandwidth and theres still a considerable penalty in serializing any other interface. If they can't even do 1080p lossless right now, they are in much deeper trouble for the future.
> If they can't even do 1080p lossless right now, they are in much deeper trouble for the future. Unencoded video is about the most bandwidth intensive thing I can imagine coming out of or going into a phone, and will remain so for a long time. 1080p30 @ 24bit is roughly 1.5 Gbit/sec before you talk about transport level ecoding (8b/10b) or audio.
And HDMI does it effortlessly. That's exactly what these interfaces were designed to do: raw massive data with low latency over short distances, suitable for processing in dedicated circuits, not SOCs.
Re: (Presumably) Apple engineer comment on Lightning AV adapter design
#10I think the main takeaway is that yes, lightning is future proof and can adapt to any output you want it to. I do wonder what's the reason for encode/decode cycle was in the first place though.
He doesn't say, but probably because they just don't have the bandwidth. And thats where all this future proof talk goes deaf. New interfaces will only have more bandwidth, thats the whole point. Meanwhile, Lightning still has the same bandwidth and theres still a considerable penalty in serializing any other interface. If they can't even do 1080p lossless right now, they are in much deeper trouble for the future.
I might be really confused but why is Apple going to be in deeper trouble ?
Surely the future will be H.265 content which will have better quality for the same bandwidth. And it's unlikely that people are going to be demanding a higher output resolution than 1080p from their mobile device for anytime soon.