Alex Deucher:
The HDMI Forum has rejected our proposal unfortunately. At this time an open source HDMI 2.1 implementation is not possible without running afoul of the HDMI Forum requirements.
Since we now have confirmation that an open implementation is legally impossible I would consider the HDMI forum to be a cartel and not a standarts comitee. Therefore it should be dismantled by anti-trust authorities asap.
But displayport exists, is widely used and is free?
DP is very much not free. VESA themselves is happy to tell you that DisplayPort is excluded from their list of free standards, and the leaked copies of old standards are stamped with a “distribution to non-members is prohibited” notice on every page.
I’m not sure where that misconception came from, but it really needs to stop at some point. The best thing to say about VESA is they’re slightly less bad than the HDMI Forum. But only by so little.
I had no idea, thanks for the info
DP also has the DRMs HDCP 2.2 and DisplayPort content protection 1.0
And MPEG LA claims they have patents that are needed to implement the DP standard.
Because DisplayPort is run by VESA, who better understand the appeal of an open standard.
DisplayPort is open in name only. The specifications are locked behind membership (and requisite fees of ~$5k/yr - just enough to keep most hobbyists and the like out while being less than a rounding error for big companies).
That’s not the point of my comment, the point is that whatever hdmi is, it’s got very healthy competition, so there’s no real reason for anti-trust stuff
No it doesn’t, because it’s generally monitor manufacturers that add display port, and people who want to run on large tvs are SoL
That’s on the tv manufacturers though, it’s their choice.
When most TV manufacturers are part of the HDMI “standards” committee, they obviously have a vested interest in not using other technologies, especially when they provide many of the accessories used with TVs. If they allowed competing standards on their TVs, why would consumers buy their products instead of the competitors?
A choice they are making in favor of a tech cartel instead of what is best for their customers, which is the problem we want addressed
Display Port has a standing in Computer Displays but is basically unheard of in Home Entertainment.
Doesn’t mean displayport can’t be used there.
If the tv maker wanted to not pay licensing fees, they could put a displayport on the thing. But they don’t. Their call.
So the HDMI founders are Philips, Panasonic, Sony and Toshiba Known for their Players and in part TVs. The HDMI Forums consists of the rest of the TV Manufacturers and the big names in component Making (Analog Devices, NXP, Realtek, Qualcomm, etc.). So they are all members of a cooperation dedicated to “encouraging and promoting the adoption and widespread utilization of its Final Specifications”. I hesitate to call their decisions on connectivity options unencumbered by interests.
oh btw: Anti-Trust does not require to there be no competing offer, just vast majority of market share.
Oh I know, but I do think anti-trust would require an erection of some sort of barrier. Say, if HDMI required that if HDMI is present, displayport cannot be.
Right now, tv makers are complete free to choose.
No, that’s not required. Microsoft was hit with antitrust despite users being able to install alternative browsers and even operating systems. The problem was that Microsoft was being anti-competitive by making competition more difficult, not that competition wasn’t allowed.
You can certainly get a DP-to-HDMI adapter if you want, but that doesn’t mean there’s no anti-trust happening. If a new TV manufacturer can’t reasonably enter the market due to the protocol being overly restrictive for most accessories, I can see that being grounds for an anti-trust case. If they want HDMI to be a standard, it needs to be open. If they don’t, they need to provide alternatives in their products.
Not entirely their call. I have little sympathy for the likes of Sony, Samsung et al but they’re also beholden to the entertainment industry which is very VERY pro-DRM (and the like). Open Source standards will make it much harder to lock down TVs and make it easier to pirate shit (or, you know, actually fully own your TV and do whatever the fuck you want with it). They won’t be dropping those ‘calls’ any time soon, not unless pissing off the entertainment industry worked out as more profit.
anti-trust authorities
The same anti-trust authorities who have been ignoring <gestures vaguely towards IT industry> completely?
The HDMI licensing BS makes it rather useless. At least most monitors and GPUs have DisplayPort now. It’s mostly just TVs that are still limited to HDMI.
And game consoles. And basically anything that’s not a PC and a monitor.
It’s not just limited to PC’s. USB C has a DisplayPort alternate mode and many phones and tablets support it now. I’m rather surprised manufacturers haven’t started putting USB C ports on TV’s for video input yet.
Ah, i forgot some phones support straight displayport over usb. Still, wired display out on a phone isn’t exactly a common use case.
So that means if we ever have an open source NVIDIA driver that matches the proprietary I won’t be able to connect my 4K screen @ 120hz via HDMI (as the only option) because made up rules by an HDMI faction of TV manufacturers say so?
yup, we need brands making TVs with DisplayPort.
Depends on how the cards implement HDMI. Intel cards notably have a DP->HDMI converter chip on-board requiring no software-side support for HDMI.
Why?
HDMI just needs to die. we have displayport anyway.
Hdmi is a proprietary format controlled by companies that sell hdmi equipment. They have no benefit to having an open standard. They pay $15k a year each to keep it closed.
DIsplayPort is also a proprietary format, just a bit less exclusive compared to HDMI. Ideally, we’d have an actual open standard. If DisplayPort wants to be that standard, they should be more open.
An other commenter here said that displayport is closed as well. Isn’t that true?
It is closed in the sense that all the ISO specs are closed - you have to pay a decent sum of money to see the specs, and you’re not allowed to just copy them and show them to people that haven’t bought access.
They are not closed like HDMI though - if you implement them, copy constants from the specs into the Linux kernel for example, that’s fine. Having actually open standards like Wayland would be a lot better though ofc…
The big reason for HDMI’s non-freeness is the use of on-protocol encryption. They learned from DeCSS, and the forum can’t let it happen again.
I’m sure similar requirements stop DisplayPort and DVI from going open source.
Would you mind elaborating? Honestly interested
There’s two I believe, HDCP which has been around since the DVI days and only now people bothered to implement, and another form of XOR-based on the actual cable itself done with a secret key, again, its DeCSS all over again but the HDMI Forum has never promoted the secret key.
XOR on the cable is completely fine for encryption, provided the input source sends the key to the chip on the cable. That really wouldn’t be hard to implement, though it would certainly negate the intended purpose here (stopping copyright violations) since it wouldn’t prevent recording boxes. However, it would provide encryption and prevent listeners on the wire from seeing the data in transit, which should be the point here.
Cables shouldn’t be where copyright protection is enforced, that should be done at the point of sale. If you don’t trust your customers, don’t sell to them. As Gabe Newell said, piracy is a service problem, if you provide a good service at a good price, you don’t need to enforce copyright protections since it’s easier and less risky to just use your service.
They’re referencing HDCP
Do they even make teevees with usbc or DP?
Disgusting… take note foss chads
FOSS when ever possible as much as possible.
