Apple Offering Free Licensing of Mini DisplayPort Spec [Archive]

Cappy

Dec 1, 2008, 02:41 PM

Still strikes me as backwards. Why not work with other manufacturers first to develop a standard, instead of coming up with one and hoping it gets picked up? Maybe someone smarter than me can explain this way of thinking.

This is more about Apple wanting accessory manufacturers to provide adapters so there's not much need for a "standard" out of the gate. By going this route they add one more reason for customers to consider buying a new Macbook or Macbook Pro out of the gate. Apple is more interested in selling new laptops than monitors.

If you're thinking of this as a standard that someone like Dell, HP, Viewsonic, and Samsung could agree on, you have to understand that with Apple's focus on laptops and getting smaller that by doing this(provided any others are interested), they could give up any advantage of being first with it.

So, it's alot more than just hiding stuff. There are real strategies to this. On the whole I'd guess we'll see more than a few adapters and cables but not much in the way of other computer or monitor companies taking advantage of it. Of course any details in the license could sway that. If I had the time, I'd check it out.

Very surprised by this. I can't believe Apple is actually giving something away for free.

Their customers need adapters.

I think doing this would cost them money in the long run. They'd have to co-ordinate the manufacturers, engage in debates, discussions, meetings, etc. As it is, they have a solid consumer base that is growing and they have the ability to do in-house development on their own products at their own pace. By making their own product and then giving away the licensing freely they are accomplishing what they need to do without all the costs of collaboration.

I don't think Apple would care of the costs of collaboration, the time yes, but costs I doubt it.

They would also not be happy to have another company either then beat them to delivery with competing products using the same port or have any companies that might stall what they're trying to do. Jobs would rather have Apple be the ones only capable of shooting themselves in the foot and not another company doing it to them.

Like I said I think this is more about adapters and cables.

haunebu

Dec 1, 2008, 02:50 PM

Biolizard

Dec 1, 2008, 03:01 PM

Creating a standard before the product exists hasn't always proven successful. Look at the OSI protocol stack for example, compared with the success of TCP/IP. Ethernet was also developed before it became a standard (802.3).

motulist

Dec 1, 2008, 03:01 PM

Apple created the Mini DisplayPort spec, owns and controls it. But they're willing to let other people implement it on Apple's terms.

And what's even worse, afaik they're only offering the license free for now, if the port becomes widely adopted there's nothing stopping them from making the license have fees in the future.

danny_w

Dec 1, 2008, 03:10 PM

Because other manufacturers are more interested in making it as cheap to make as possible which is a fight Apple has no desire to be a part of.

Apple figures they'll come out with something that they're happy with, and others will either follow along or they won't.

In this particular case, I think Apple is safe. This will probably catch on.
I'm not sure about that. One of the physical advantages of Display Port over HDMI that many have touted is the physical latch built into the connector. Unfortunately this physical latch is missing on Apple's miniDP connector.

boer

Dec 1, 2008, 03:11 PM

For example, Apple currently doesn't offer the appropriate adapter to allow customers to connect older Macs to their new 24" Apple LED Cinema Display.
Sounds like you are assuming the LED display is build to accept VGA or DVI pass-through signals over DisplayPort. Those are in fact optional and making use of (mini) DisplayPort port does not imply anything about possibility of legacy signaling.

Joe The Dragon

Dec 1, 2008, 03:27 PM

dal20402

Dec 1, 2008, 03:39 PM

Glad to see this.

Those who are braying about how mini-DP is "proprietary" are missing the fact that it is merely DP with a different physical connector. Now that the license is available, lots of people should be able to build very simple and inexpensive mini-DP/DP and DP/mini-DP adapters and, better yet, cables.

Since full-sized DP will probably appear on all new midrange and high-end displays from this point forward, as well as most PCs, the connectivity issues people are experiencing right now with mini-DP MacBooks and the 24" LED Cinema should be gone within a few months.

darwinian

Dec 1, 2008, 03:41 PM

I'm also not so concerned with what the rest of the market will do in this case, actually -- I'm just banking on this being incentive enough for Mac peripheral manufacturers to fill the market space with more adapters and more attractive prices. If only they'd license out the freaking MagSafe port, we could have an affordable secondary power adapter. While I'm on the subject, they oughta sell the duck heads and power cables separately.

dongmin

Dec 1, 2008, 03:44 PM

I'm not sure about that. One of the physical advantages of Display Port over HDMI that many have touted is the physical latch built into the connector. Unfortunately this physical latch is missing on Apple's miniDP connector.

It doesn't need to become an industry-wide standard overnight. All it needs to do is be picked up by a few 3rd party developers, like Belkin or Kensington.

Apple did fine with their proprietary iPod connectors. As long as Apple is moving a lot of Macs, I don't see how this new standard is going to do worse.

Apple has much more invested in a "mini" standard like this than the rest of the industry. This mini-Displayport could eventually make its way into the next generation of Apple sub-notes, tablets, etc. No doubt, it would have taken A LOT LONGER for the whole industry to agree on a new standard, not to mention that Apple would be showing its hand.

djellison

Dec 1, 2008, 03:45 PM

I'll believe it when I see DL-DVI adaptors for <£70 from the likes of Belkin etc.

CHSE

Dec 1, 2008, 03:53 PM

drsmithy

Dec 1, 2008, 03:56 PM

Still strikes me as backwards. Why not work with other manufacturers first to develop a standard, instead of coming up with one and hoping it gets picked up? Maybe someone smarter than me can explain this way of thinking.

Firstly, because Apple is the poster-child of NIH-syndrome.

Secondly, because if they'd just used regular DisplayPort, they wouldn't have been able to charge outrageous amounts for adapters to solve a they needlessly created in the first place.

LethalWolfe

Dec 1, 2008, 03:59 PM

I agree - does no-one remember ADC?
I was just about to mention that guy.

Lethal

Michael CM1

Dec 1, 2008, 04:00 PM

"In related news, Sony announces it will cut Blu-ray licensing costs by 75 percent starting Jan. 1 ..."

OK, OK. Can't I dream?

itsbetteronamac

Dec 1, 2008, 04:04 PM

Was there ever a reason to develop mini-displayport in the first place. Wouldn't a regular displayport port fit on all of apples current machines?

goosnarrggh

Dec 1, 2008, 04:11 PM

Expensive is a relative term.

The IEEE 1394 Trade Association charges a $0.25 per end-user system fee split between all patent owners (including Sony and Apple).

This compared to Intel's $1500—2500 flat fee for USB 2.0.

Even today, Firewire is dubbed by most PC makers a "premium" port. For reference, Dell charges $30 for a Firewire card add-on on most of its BTO systems that don't already include the port. HP only includes it on its more expensive systems (those generally with recording capabilities).

Sony ships it on everything, but charges an overall premium for their systems. I'm not sure about Gateway.

Once you've paid that $2000ish to get a Vendor ID, you can implement it on as many units as you want. If you are a manufacturer whose product lines' combined sales add up to, say, 500,000 units, then you still pay the same single $2000 fee. (If you also want permission to use the USB 2.0 logo on your products, it looks as though you'd have to keep on paying a minimum of $2000ish every two years.)

On the other hand, if a particular vendor already has a Vendor ID, and they have a few spare Product ID codes that they want to sell out, you could probably get some products to market that way. For example, that's how FTDI's turnkey USB interface products work - they will issue a block of up to 8 Product IDs (each of which could be used to support a full product line) free of charge, provided you only ever use those product IDs in conjunction with FTDI's Vendor ID, which they maintain control of.

If you use firewire in your products instead, and move the same 500,000 units, then you'll be paying $125,000 in firewire license fees.

When you compare $125,000 versus $2000 (or free), firewire's status as a relatively more expensive technology is justified. Don't forget, because Apple doesn't own all of the patents on firewire, they are also required to pay the same $0.25 royalty as everybody else to put firewire ports on their products. Albeit, they, like Sony, will eventually get a percentage of those fees paid back to them.

tbrinkma

Dec 1, 2008, 04:13 PM

Was there ever a reason to develop mini-displayport in the first place. Wouldn't a regular displayport port fit on all of apples current machines?

Yes, the regular DisplayPort connector would fit on all of Apple's current machines. However, they'd have had to give up 2 or 3 more ports to do so.

drsmithy

Dec 1, 2008, 04:14 PM

Was there ever a reason to develop mini-displayport in the first place.

Not a technical reason, no.

Wouldn't a regular displayport port fit on all of apples current machines?

Yes.

Gasu E.

Dec 1, 2008, 04:15 PM

Still strikes me as backwards. Why not work with other manufacturers first to develop a standard, instead of coming up with one and hoping it gets picked up? Maybe someone smarter than me can explain this way of thinking.

This is the way it's done 90% of the time in the electronics/computing industry. Develop a technology, then put it forth as a potential standard and hope it gets picked up. The problem with trying to agree on a standard beforehand is that it take years for disparate companies to agree on something. Pretty much the only times standardization procedes productization is when the lack of multi-company cooperation is a showstopper.

PeterQVenkman

Dec 1, 2008, 04:15 PM

One of the reasons I just got a previous gen laptop. VGA, DVI, and s-video/composite capability on the cheap.

gnasher729

Dec 1, 2008, 04:18 PM

Maybe they learned a lesson from their attempts to make FW a standard. As I understand it, licensing it was expensive.

Yeah, 25 cents per connector.

danny_w

Dec 1, 2008, 04:19 PM

One of the reasons I just got a previous gen laptop. VGA, DVI, and s-video/composite capability on the cheap.
Not just on the cheap, but actually doable without an active converter box. there are no cables possible for this with the new MB/MBA/MBP.

Eidorian

Dec 1, 2008, 04:20 PM

So what do we really expect to see come from this? Third party video adapters? Yay....

drsmithy

Dec 1, 2008, 04:22 PM

Yes, the regular DisplayPort connector would fit on all of Apple's current machines. However, they'd have had to give up 2 or 3 more ports to do so.

Rubbish. A Displayport port is a touch larger than a USB port. As can be seen from the picture here (http://www.engadget.com/photos/glass-and-aluminum-macbook/1098416/), it could fit in place of the mini-DP just by placing the audio connectors slightly closer together.

nagromme

Dec 1, 2008, 04:32 PM

Let me get this straight...

Apple created the Mini DisplayPort spec, owns and controls it. But they're willing to let other people implement it on Apple's terms.

No thanks.

DisplayPort is great - it's an industry standard created by VESA. But Mini DisplayPort is just Apple's attempt at controlling yet another segment of the market.

DisplayPort is not great--it's too large for a MacBook Air, or any other equally thin device that will come along, from Apple or anyone else. Mini DisplayPort is better, and it's what DisplayPort should have been all along. It allows ANY company to make thinner computers, and it allows the MacBook Air to exist. How is that Apple "controlling a segment of the market"?

If companies don't WANT ultrathin computers to be possible, Apple's not forcing them to use the Mini port. But for the sake of better products and more options for all of us, let's hope many companies DO follow Apple's lead.

I wish they'd made the standard port smaller to begin with, but if they screwed up and didn't, I'm glad Apple came along to improve on it--and I'm glad Apple's not keeping the improvement to themselves.

Secondly, because if they'd just used regular DisplayPort, they wouldn't have been able to charge outrageous amounts for adapters to solve a they needlessly created in the first place.

As a standard, Apple won't be the only supplier of adapters. And as for a "needless problem," it's only needless if you think DVI is good enough forever, should never change, and you mourn the transition away from it. But it's NOT as good as DisplayPort. Other companies agree and used DisplayPort even before Apple did. And so we'll have a transition and you'll need adapters to make old and new products work together. That's how technology is--it's nothing new or terrible. Even if you DO pay $10 too much for an adapter (which nobody is forcing you to do). And if the problem that worries you is the loss of full-size DisplayPort... how many of us have legitimate reason to mourn that?

Rubbish. A Displayport port is a touch larger than a USB port. As can be seen from the picture here (http://www.engadget.com/photos/glass-and-aluminum-macbook/1098416/), it could fit in place of the mini-DP just by placing the audio connectors slightly closer together.

But that's not a MacBook Air.

Apple seemingly wants ONE connector for ALL their machines. Makes sense to me--and it makes sense for OTHER companies to do the same.

The industry almost got DisplayPort wrong. Apple has made it right--and they've done it very early on, giving consumers very little reason to complain. How many of us have an office full of full-size DisplayPort equipment that will now need "expensive" adapters? Not very many. Apple jumped in and offered the new standard early, and I'm glad they did.

drsmithy

Dec 1, 2008, 05:05 PM

But that's not a MacBook Air.

Judging by this (http://images.apple.com/macbookair/images/features_open_air20081014.png)picture, it could fit into a MBA with very, very minor adjustments (and certainly none that would make the machine thicker overall).

Basically, if it can fit a USB port, it can fit a DP port. Heck, DP even carries USB, so it's probably not entirely unthinkable that a combo DP/USB port could be created, much like new Dell Latitudes have a combo USB/eSATA port.

The industry almost got DisplayPort wrong. Apple has made it right--and they've done it very early on, giving consumers very little reason to complain. How many of us have an office full of full-size DisplayPort equipment that will now need "expensive" adapters? Not very many. Apple jumped in and offered the new standard early, and I'm glad they did.

The vast bulk of hardware will ship with regular Displayport. Mini-DP will be another ADC, that will rarely, if ever, be seen outside of Apple hardware or adapters to interface Apple hardware to standard hardware.

tuc

Dec 1, 2008, 05:06 PM

Let me get this straight...

Apple created the Mini DisplayPort spec, owns and controls it. But they're willing to let other people implement it on Apple's terms.

No thanks.

DisplayPort is great - it's an industry standard created by VESA. But Mini DisplayPort is just Apple's attempt at controlling yet another segment of the market.

And what's even worse, afaik they're only offering the license free for now, if the port becomes widely adopted there's nothing stopping them from making the license have fees in the future.

The rumor (http://bitguru.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/mini-displayport-a-month-later/) is that Apple has submitted mini-DisplayPort to VESA to be included in the next rev of the DisplayPort standard. Note that Apple's Mini DisplayPort Evaluation License terminates "upon publication by VESA of a standard complying with the Mini DisplayPort Connector Dimensions."

If that happens, then Apple will no longer control it. VESA will. That might ease the fears of any company who would otherwise think Apple plans to screw them on this. We'll see how it turns out.

Was there ever a reason to develop mini-displayport in the first place. Wouldn't a regular displayport port fit on all of apples current machines?

mini-DisplayPort is indeed smaller than regular DisplayPort, for what it's worth. The signals are the same, with the same 20 pins (but in a different order). Regular DisplayPort has optional latching connectors which mini-DisplayPort apparently lacks, which is too bad. I can see (maybe) why Apple wouldn't want locking connectors on its laptops, but it could have been handy for desktops.

It will be nice when a more-complete suite (DVI, VGA, HDMI, DisplayPort, Component?, S-Video? etc.) of (cheaper) adaptors are available on Monoprice ;)

Yes, we should expect these, I think. Also cable-length adapters (six-foot cable with miniDP connector on one end, DVI on the other, for example) which might be nice to have.

btw, I was the one who broke this story on Arstechnica's forums.

koobcamuk

Dec 1, 2008, 05:08 PM

I can see (maybe) why Apple wouldn't want locking connectors on its laptops, but it could have been handy for desktops.

Why?

danny_w

Dec 1, 2008, 05:10 PM

...The industry almost got DisplayPort wrong. Apple has made it right--and they've done it very early on, giving consumers very little reason to complain. How many of us have an office full of full-size DisplayPort equipment that will now need "expensive" adapters? Not very many. Apple jumped in and offered the new standard early, and I'm glad they did.
How is leaving out the latch on the miniDP "getting it right"? Yes it makes sense for notebooks, but please don't remove the latch on other devices. I don't want my cables falling out like it is far too easy for an HDMI cable to do. Leave Display Port (and VGA, and DVI, and any other locking connector) alone!

butterfly0fdoom

Dec 1, 2008, 05:16 PM

The vast bulk of hardware will ship with regular Displayport. Mini-DP will be another ADC, that will rarely, if ever, be seen outside of Apple hardware or adapters to interface Apple hardware to standard hardware.

If it's true that Apple submitted Mini DP to VESA for inclusion i the next DP revision, we could see Mini DP being adopted more widely on netbooks and other small-form laptops that mostly use VGA. I hardly think Mini DP is another ADC.

irun5k

Dec 1, 2008, 05:25 PM

It is a connector, after all. Nothing less and nothing more. And, where there is a connector, there will be adapters. Personally, I don't really care. Just like I don't care that my magsafe connector isn't interchangeable with my Dell I use at work. It just isn't a big deal to me. My Macbook won't plug directly into a monitor either without a dongle, but I have the dongle so no big deal.

It sounds like the free licensing is to encourage development of these adapters, but many of you think it is to force the standard on the industry in some way.

zaxxon72

Dec 1, 2008, 05:25 PM

>Also cable-length adapters (six-foot cable with miniDP connector on one end,
>DVI on the other, for example) which might be nice to have.
this is THE reason why I haven't bought a AluBook yet! (that, and the missing kensington lock so far)

Bring it on, please! Belkin go!

winterspan

Dec 1, 2008, 05:26 PM

Eriamjh1138@DAN

Dec 1, 2008, 05:28 PM

Maybe Apple wants out of the adapter business. They might charge a lot for theirs, but no sell many of them.

I think they want PC users to buy their new displays, but they can't until someone make adapters or starts putting MDPs on their PCs.

OllyW

Dec 1, 2008, 05:34 PM

this is THE reason why I haven't bought a AluBook yet! (that, and the missing kensington lock so far)

Missing Kensington lock? :confused:

drsmithy

Dec 1, 2008, 05:35 PM

If it's true that Apple submitted Mini DP to VESA for inclusion i the next DP revision, we could see Mini DP being adopted more widely on netbooks and other small-form laptops that mostly use VGA. I hardly think Mini DP is another ADC.

But why would they ? Using Mini-DP - even a VESA approved one - would immediately exclude easy connectivity to the majority of existing hardware already out there with regular DP.

Again, there's no appreciable size advantage. A regular DP port is slightly wider, and slightly shorter than a USB port. Compared to Mini-DP, it is about 50% wider but with essentially the same vertical dimension.

In short, there's no incentive for anyone (except Apple) to use Micro-DP instead of DP, and several disincentives for doing so.

zaxxon72

Dec 1, 2008, 05:39 PM

Missing Kensington lock? :confused:

I KNEW someone would get me for that one. Ok, kensington cable with connector that fits into the hole on the AluBook without an adapter.

Better? :cool:

Edit/Nitpick :
The quoted Apple Page mentions the Kensington Lock Hole. The thing that goes in is the... Kensington lock. Making my posting the correct one.
/Nitpick

Mal

Dec 1, 2008, 05:41 PM

But why would they ? Using Mini-DP - even a VESA approved one - would immediately exclude easy connectivity to the majority of existing hardware already out there with regular DP.

Again, there's no appreciable size advantage. A regular DP port is slightly wider, and slightly shorter than a USB port. Compared to Mini-DP, it is about 50% wider but with essentially the same vertical dimension.

In short, there's no incentive for anyone (except Apple) to use Micro-DP instead of DP, and several disincentives for doing so.

What existing hardware? DisplayPort is so rarely used these days it might as well not even have existed before Apple grabbed it up. I've never seen a piece of mainstream equipment of any type with DisplayPort on it (though I've heard rumors).

As an earlier poster mentioned, this is the perfect time, before there is a "majority of existing hardware already out there with regular DP." There isn't hardware already out there that's going to be an issue.

I KNEW someone would get me for that one. Ok, kensington cable with connector that fits into the hole on the AluBook without an adapter.

Better? :cool:

Not really. Any lock cable that's made to the Kensington specifications will fit in the AluBooks without an adaptor or any modifications. What you're talking about is FUD that was spread by early misinformation. Read Kensington's own statements on the issue.

jW

Mal

Dec 1, 2008, 05:43 PM

tbrinkma

Dec 1, 2008, 05:43 PM

Rubbish. A Displayport port is a touch larger than a USB port. As can be seen from the picture here (http://www.engadget.com/photos/glass-and-aluminum-macbook/1098416/), it could fit in place of the mini-DP just by placing the audio connectors slightly closer together.

Oddly enough, that picture doesn't include all of the trace re-routing that would be required to fit a larger connector in that space, and "place the audio connectors slightly closer together".

Physical room on the *outside* does not necessarily indicate physical room on the *inside*.

OllyW

Dec 1, 2008, 05:47 PM

I KNEW someone would get me for that one. Ok, kensington cable with connector that fits into the hole on the AluBook without an adapter.

Better? :cool:

Edit/Nitpick :
The quoted Apple Page mentions the Kensington Lock Hole. The thing that goes in is the... Kensington lock. Making my posting the correct one.
/Nitpick

What, Apple have got a non-standard, standard lock hole on the new MacBooks?

Not really. Any lock cable that's made to the Kensington specifications will fit in the AluBooks without an adaptor or any modifications. What you're talking about is FUD that was spread by early misinformation. Read Kensington's own statements on the issue.

Oh, they haven't after all. :p

synth3tik

Dec 1, 2008, 05:47 PM

Still strikes me as backwards. Why not work with other manufacturers first to develop a standard, instead of coming up with one and hoping it gets picked up? Maybe someone smarter than me can explain this way of thinking.

I think this reason along with what happened with FW400 and now Sony's Blu Ray would be a big driving factor to get this std out.

Steve, "Oh crap, um, Is anyone else using this miniport?"

Nuvi

Dec 1, 2008, 05:52 PM

One thing that strikes me with DisplayPort is how small it is... and yes, I'm talking about DisplayPort and not just the Apple's mini version. Normal DisplayPort would easily fit into any new Mac laptop. Its starting to look like that Apple is trying to force the new LED display on new Mac laptop owners...

I understand that some future ultra small tablet Mac might need smaller port then the standard DisplayPort. However, currently there isn't one around so I don't see the point. As far as I can see standards based connector would benefit any laptop owner trying to connect their Mac to some random meeting room display/projector.

zaxxon72

Dec 1, 2008, 05:54 PM

able that's made to the Kensington specifications will fit in the AluBooks without an adaptor or any modifications. What you're talking about is FUD that was spread by early misinformation. Read Kensington's own statements on the issue.

jW

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1808238&tstart=0

What 'bout this? And I bought a standard kensington lock.. fitted it to my friend's new MBP, and lo' and behold : it doesn't fit! (do we have to acquit)

poundsmack

Dec 1, 2008, 05:54 PM

dukebound85

Dec 1, 2008, 05:57 PM

Steve is clearly out of touch witht he world. is the mini version really that much smaller to even justify it at all? why make a different interface for a standard that is jsut emerging and finding it's place in teh world? why not use the perfectly good and rather small existing on (onlinly slightly bigger than a USB slot)? what could they possibly want to accomplish with this?

the only reason for making a version like this is either vendor lock (which doesnt make sense due to them opening up the licencing), or because you believe you have something to gain by making the change. so I ask you, what was gained?

so uh you have a problem with them releasing the specs for free? i dont see how this is negative at all

or is your issue with the fact apple used mini display port on the new computers? well guess what, they did. i for one am glad apple did this and i really dont see how one could argue otherwise

tuc

Dec 1, 2008, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by tuc: I can see (maybe) why Apple wouldn't want locking connectors on its laptops, but it could have been handy for desktops.

Why?

Have you ever had problems with cables coming loose? I certainly have--especially so with Apple's stubby display adapters.

I would want locking connectors even on my laptops, but with Apple's investment in MagSafe I can understand an argument that they don't want locking connectors on their laptops, even if I disagree.

I guess the problem (from Apple's point of view) is that whether it latches or not is determined by the connector on the cable, not by the socket. If Apple had used vanilla DisplayPort on its macbooks, it better darn well would have had to accept a latching cable.

Nuvi

Dec 1, 2008, 06:03 PM

or is your issue with the fact apple used mini display port on the new computers? well guess what, they did. i for one am glad apple did this and i really dont see how one could argue otherwise

Easy... STANDARD DisplayPort would be much better. Standards mean better connectivity.

dukebound85

Dec 1, 2008, 06:05 PM

Easy... STANDARD DisplayPort would be much better. Standards mean better connectivity.

i agree they should have used the standard display port but that doesnt change the fact that apple used mini display port now doesnt it:rolleyes:

and because of that decision, how is it negative at all that they released the specs for free?

dead76

Dec 1, 2008, 06:07 PM

Funny, if I said something was "the new industry std"...why would I have to provide everyone else in the "industry" a license to use my port tech.? Or does Apple just mean their product industry? I guess that's why Steve said it, not me. :p

Nuvi

Dec 1, 2008, 06:16 PM

i agree they should have used the standard display port but that doesnt change the fact that apple used mini display port now doesnt it:rolleyes:

and because of that decision, how is it negative at all that they released the specs for free?

My concern is that releasing the specs for free just isn't enough. I'm not very confident that Mini DisplayPort will be accepted by other manufacturers. On desktops that wouldn't be huge issue but with laptops you don't want to be traveling with MB that connects only to one manufacturers displays.

dukebound85

Dec 1, 2008, 06:19 PM

My concern is that releasing the specs for free just isn't enough. I'm not very confident that Mini DisplayPort will be accepted by other manufacturers. On desktops that wouldn't be huge issue but with laptops you don't want to be traveling with MB that connects only to one manufacturers displays.

but you will still be able to connect to display port monitors with an adapter regardless

i read this move as allowing other companies to use this port on their computers OR other companies making display port adapters

drsmithy

Dec 1, 2008, 06:25 PM

Oddly enough, that picture doesn't include all of the trace re-routing that would be required to fit a larger connector in that space, and "place the audio connectors slightly closer together".

Physical room on the *outside* does not necessarily indicate physical room on the *inside*.

A headphone socket is a couple of wires and maybe a piece of fibre-optic cable. Just how much space do you think it needs ?

Mr Lizard

Dec 1, 2008, 06:26 PM

i for one am glad apple did this and i really dont see how one could argue otherwise

i agree they should have used the standard display port

:confused::confused:

dukebound85

Dec 1, 2008, 06:27 PM

:confused::confused:

my first quote refers to them licensing the spec for free

the second is me saying they shouldnt have used mini display port to begin with

next time, try to read my posts in context:rolleyes:

twoodcc

Dec 1, 2008, 06:28 PM

this is great news. so hopefully we'll see 3rd party connectors and stuff from this soon, so others can use the new display, and hopefully more new displays are coming at macworld

drsmithy

Dec 1, 2008, 06:28 PM

What existing hardware? DisplayPort is so rarely used these days it might as well not even have existed before Apple grabbed it up. I've never seen a piece of mainstream equipment of any type with DisplayPort on it (though I've heard rumors).

Most of the current "professional business" laptops from Dell (eg: Latitude E series), HP and IBM/Lenovo have Displayport, either built-in or on the docking station[0].

Dell have been selling Displayport-equipped monitors since the start of the year. Most of their high-end screens (24", 30") have it. Some other vendors (eg: Samsung) since last year.

The are several video cards already on the market with DisplayPort connectors.

As usual, Apple is late to the party but loudly trying to tell everyone they were really there first, just waiting around the back.

As an earlier poster mentioned, this is the perfect time, before there is a "majority of existing hardware already out there with regular DP." There isn't hardware already out there that's going to be an issue.

Of the hardware out there that already supports Displayport, the only models that have Mini-DP are three Apple laptops and a single high-end display. Ie: a minority.

Why would any screen vendor use Mini-DP when the only people who would potentially buy it are notoriously fickle Apple customers ?
Why would any video card vendor use Mini-DP when the only screens (sorry, the only screen)their card would be able to easily connect to is an expensive Apple one ? Similarly for laptop vendors.

Like I said. There are zero incentives for anyone except Apple to use Mini-DP and some quite tangible disincentives to doing so. This is true regardless of whether it's a VESA standard, or something Apple holds the rights to (the latter is just one more disincentive).

[0] Which brings up another gripe. Why the hell can't Apple make a docking station for their laptops like ever other serious vendor does ? Why do they bother with half-arsed, clumsy "solutions" like the octopus cable on the new LED 24" display ?

poundsmack

Dec 1, 2008, 06:32 PM

so uh you have a problem with them releasing the specs for free? i dont see how this is negative at all

or is your issue with the fact apple used mini display port on the new computers? well guess what, they did. i for one am glad apple did this and i really dont see how one could argue otherwise

i dont have a problem with them releasing it for free, i have a problem with them making it in the first place. Steve says he is scared to enter new unestablished market sectors, like having BlueRay in their machines, but they have no problem creating a modification to a standard that is still fresh out of the water, and hoping others addopt it? the lines of logic are flawed, thats where my issue lies.

dukebound85

Dec 1, 2008, 06:34 PM

i dont have a problem with them releasing it for free, i have a problem with them making it in the first place. Steve says he is scared to enter new unestablished market sectors, like having BlueRay in their machines, but they have no problem creating a modification to a standard that is still fresh out of the water, and hoping others addopt it? the lines of logic are flawed, thats where my issue lies.

i agree. they shouldnt have made mini dsiplay port to begin with

KingYaba

Dec 1, 2008, 06:37 PM

Apple has said that they will be integrating the Mini Display port into all future products.

Why can't we just stick with DVI? :(

poundsmack

Dec 1, 2008, 06:39 PM

i agree. they shouldnt have made mini dsiplay port to begin with

glad we are in agreeance *reaches out arm for a handshake* :)

poundsmack

Dec 1, 2008, 06:41 PM

Apple has said that they will be integrating the Mini Display port into all future products.

Why can't we just stick with DVI? :(

this would be due to many reasons. maininly display port has many new capabilities in it, as well as forward compatibility for the new generations of TV's, monitors, etc...

here http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=Benefits+of+DisplayPort

here is even more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

"Advantages over DVI
Based on micro-packet protocol.
Allows easy expansion of the standard
Allows multiple video streams over single physical connection (in a future version)
Designed to support internal chip-to-chip communication
Can drive display panels directly, eliminating control circuits and allowing for cheaper and slimmer displays
Aimed to replace internal LVDS links in notebook panels with a unified link interface
Supports both RGB and YCbCr encoding formats
Auxiliary channel can be used for touch-panel data, USB links, camera, microphone, etc.
Fewer lanes with embedded clock reduce RFI.
Slimmer cables and a much smaller connector that doesn't require thumbscrews. Connector pins don't run the risk of bending if improperly handled.
The DisplayPort connector is easier to connect when guided only by touch."

schneb

Dec 1, 2008, 06:43 PM

Krevnik

Dec 1, 2008, 07:01 PM

What is stopping technology from developing a video Toslink? Seems to me that digital is digital and the light wave has more than enough frequency to handle the bandwidth needed for full video, audio, and user input miscellaneii. And not just the red spectrum is available, you have blue and green as well that can go down the same fiber pipe if needed. :confused:

Because it requires extra circuitry, parts and a means to generate the light pulses (that can handle the frequency of pulses you need).

Generating a 2Ghz clock in light sounds reasonable... but it isn't guaranteed to be cheap, because you would need an LED that can switch at 2Ghz speeds. Or in the case of multiple frequencies, multiple LEDs that switch. Then you need the receivers that can read all this stuff from the remote end and generate 2Ghz electrical pulses accurately. And you need to shove it all into the same laptop.

It is easier to just run copper traces straight to the port from the chip.

billandy

Dec 1, 2008, 07:02 PM

Very surprised by this. I can't believe Apple is actually giving something away for free.

i think this has a bit more to do with the business model that apple adopts. the mac os x software is just a bit short of £60 compared to price tag such as £200+ for a "usable" version of windows vista. and let's not forget that no apple consumer products-mac os x, ilife, iwork- comes with any serial number whatsoever. apple only generates serial numbers for its pro-line products such as aperture, final cut and etc. i think what apple wants to do here is to constantly show off its leadership in terms of product design and specifications making in the industry. not a bad business motion, after all apple's not as desperate as microsoft to squeeze out every single penny out of your pocket and it believes in people's good nature and the fact that if the product's good enough, no one will refuse to pay. but still in the end apple probably takes more money from their consumers by making them happy and satisfied.

Mr Lizard

Dec 1, 2008, 07:07 PM

next time, try to read my posts in context:rolleyes:

Fair enough, I misunderstood your post (as opposed to not reading it in context)

so uh you have a problem with them releasing the specs for free? i dont see how this is negative at all

or is your issue with the fact apple used mini display port on the new computers? well guess what, they did. i for one am glad apple did this and i really dont see how one could argue otherwise

I read that as you being glad Apple used a mini displayport, as opposed to being glad that they released the spec for free, but nevermind!

:)

Jiten

Dec 1, 2008, 07:07 PM

If this plan works out, Apple will make a killing in adapters.

dukebound85

Dec 1, 2008, 07:08 PM

Fair enough, I misunderstood your post (as opposed to not reading it in context)

I read that as you being glad Apple used a mini displayport, as opposed to being glad that they released the spec for free, but nevermind!

:)

haha yea i can see how it could be read both ways. my apologies:)

walshlink

Dec 1, 2008, 07:10 PM

VoR

Dec 1, 2008, 07:17 PM

Were you thinking the same thing when you bought your hdmi equipped tv and devices? I was, along with a large list of other ridiculous issues that the clueless film and tech experts gave us.

poundsmack

Dec 1, 2008, 07:18 PM

I know HDMI has royalties associated with it, but why do "new" standards need to be created when there are currents standards available? I am a HUGE Apple fan...but I opine that Apple's decision to use DisplayPort over HDMI was a step sideways...now I must buy a DisplayPort-to-HDMI cable...wtf? C'mon Apple play nicely with everyone else...

your right! why reinvent the wheel. lets just convince all these companies ot simply stop charging royalties for tehir products. while were at it lets go to Adobe and ask them to open source Flash, or talk to MS about opening up DircetX, after all its way better than OpenGL in almost all respects ;) . the fact is, if you start from the ground up with an open philosophy with industry wide suport in teh R@D as well as implimentation its just plain better. open collaberation on something new that some company cant torpedo patent is teh best way (torpedo patenting is when a company knows they have a pattent, lets the other company impliment there stuff, waits till they make money from it, and sues the hell out of them). its a sad world we live in some times.... other times its great! thanks Coffee and Prozac! (i kid)

butterfly0fdoom

Dec 1, 2008, 07:22 PM

But why would they ? Using Mini-DP - even a VESA approved one - would immediately exclude easy connectivity to the majority of existing hardware already out there with regular DP.

Again, there's no appreciable size advantage. A regular DP port is slightly wider, and slightly shorter than a USB port. Compared to Mini-DP, it is about 50% wider but with essentially the same vertical dimension.

In short, there's no incentive for anyone (except Apple) to use Micro-DP instead of DP, and several disincentives for doing so.

DP has barely even gotten widespread adoption, the only computer I can think of off the top of my head that uses it is the new Dell Latitudes. The biggest advantage Mini DP has over DP is that whereas DP is larger than a USB port, Mini DP is almost half the size of a USB port. Yes, using Mini DP would result in a need for adapters, but so does connecting a VGA monitor/projector into a DVI port or connecting anything non-DP into a DP socket. Since DP has barely been implemented, Mini DP is a good alternative being offered at a good time for other manufacturers that were going to switch to DP.

A headphone socket is a couple of wires and maybe a piece of fibre-optic cable. Just how much space do you think it needs ?

Clearly, nearly as much space as the Mini DP socket: http://static1.ifixit.com/igi/AUZYBwBSf4DGQiru.large

Shiner

Dec 1, 2008, 07:26 PM

open spec or not, it was still entirely idiotic for Apple to create a new display(s) that don't have legacy connections... For god sakes, how hard is it to put a dual-link DVI port on it?? There are a ton of potential users, both Mac and PC, that would want to use the new display. Why would Apple want to limit the market to just new Mac laptop users???

Thank you for this statement!! I agree completely. I would love to hook up my macpro, old macbook pro and my PC to a lovely Mac screen. Oh well save the 500$ and buy a samsung I guess. Which is probably what the majority of us will do.

walshlink

Dec 1, 2008, 07:39 PM

open spec or not, it was still entirely idiotic for Apple to create a new display(s) that don't have legacy connections... For god sakes, how hard is it to put a dual-link DVI port on it?? There are a ton of potential users, both Mac and PC, that would want to use the new display. Why would Apple want to limit the market to just new Mac laptop users???

DVI needs to be replaced, whether it be DP or HDMI...there is better technology out there that is not as limiting (in several areas) as DVI...

matticus008

Dec 1, 2008, 07:46 PM

Apple created the Mini DisplayPort spec, owns and controls it. But they're willing to let other people implement it on Apple's terms.
The terms are "here, you can use this connector on your devices free of charge". How oppressive.
And what's even worse, afaik they're only offering the license free for now, if the port becomes widely adopted there's nothing stopping them from making the license have fees in the future.
Of course there is, not least of which is self-interest; the license sets forth clear terms for termination. They could at any point stop offering the license to new OEMs and ODMs, but so what? If it becomes part of the VESA standard, it's a moot point. If it doesn't, then Apple will still need to bring third parties on board. Worst case scenario, you need a mini-to-regular DP adapter.
Firstly, because Apple is the poster-child of NIH-syndrome.
Quite the opposite, in fact. Some of the biggest standards got their first major consumer breakthroughs with Apple.
If this plan works out, Apple will make a killing in adapters.
How?
open spec or not, it was still entirely idiotic for Apple to create a new display(s) that don't have legacy connections... [...] Why would Apple want to limit the market to just new Mac laptop users???
Because that's what they do. When Apple decides to kill something or to make it happen, it does exactly that without looking back. USB, Firewire, ADC, consumer DVD burning, SCSI...you name it. For better or worse, that's how they operate, and it's how they manage to set the curve more often than not. And Apple has decided to go DisplayPort.

funnyent

Dec 1, 2008, 08:07 PM

awesome news! hope fully the 3rd party people will offer cheaper converters! :rolleyes:

drsmithy

Dec 1, 2008, 08:28 PM

DP has barely even gotten widespread adoption, the only computer I can think of off the top of my head that uses it is the new Dell Latitudes.

There are several Lenovo models that also have it, along with displays from (at least) Dell, HP and Samsung and nVidia-based video cards.

The biggest advantage Mini DP has over DP is that whereas DP is larger than a USB port, Mini DP is almost half the size of a USB port.

That "advantage" being bugger all, given that basically no laptops are stretched for space in that direction, since it's essentially dictated by the size of the screen. Heck, even the Eee PC has room for a VGA port (probably twice the size of DP), and in the horizontal dimensions it makes even Apple's smallest laptop look like a hulking beast.

Yes, using Mini DP would result in a need for adapters, but so does connecting a VGA monitor/projector into a DVI port or connecting anything non-DP into a DP socket.

The difference is you won't need an adapter to connect two pieces of Displayport-bearing technology unless one of them is from Apple. Although given Apple's obsession with cluttering up people's desks with adapters, external drives, and cable spaghetti, most of their customers probably won't even notice.

Since DP has barely been implemented, Mini DP is a good alternative being offered at a good time for other manufacturers that were going to switch to DP.

Except, as noted, there's no real incentive to use Mini-DP over regular DP. The only real advantage Mini-DP has - size - is basically irrelevant.

Mini-DP is going to go the same way as ADC, for basically the same reasons. No-one wants, needs or cares about it except for Apple customers.

Clearly, nearly as much space as the Mini DP socket: http://static1.ifixit.com/igi/AUZYBwBSf4DGQiru.large

There is easily enough room on that board to move the audio adapters (or combine them into a single PCB-mounted unit), move the screwhole elsewhere, and replace the Mini-DP with DP.

137489

Dec 1, 2008, 08:28 PM

Well, lets home the converters get created. I would really like one of these displays, so I can clean the clutter of some cables. But since I just build my solution - I may wait a while. plugging in 3 cables instead of 5, and having my display power/charge my White macbook. Sounds sweet.

Hopefully these displays start flying off the shelf, so Apple can lower their pricing. :o Of course this is :apple::rolleyes:

dornoforpyros

Dec 1, 2008, 08:30 PM

I agree - does no-one remember ADC?

I certainly do, I sold off my original easel style cinema display a few months back because I wasn't willing to drop $100+ for the adapter to hook up my macbook pro.

I still honestly don't know why apple would ditch the standard DVI port for a new port when they've gone through this song & dance once before.

drsmithy

Dec 1, 2008, 08:30 PM

Quite the opposite, in fact. Some of the biggest standards got their first major consumer breakthroughs with Apple.

Like what ?

Because that's what they do. When Apple decides to kill something or to make it happen, it does exactly that without looking back. USB, Firewire, ADC, consumer DVD burning, SCSI...you name it. For better or worse, that's how they operate, and it's how they manage to set the curve more often than not. And Apple has decided to go DisplayPort.

Yes, indeed. Apple's contempt for its existing customers when it comes to transitioning technology is well-known.

drsmithy

Dec 1, 2008, 08:32 PM

I still honestly don't know why apple would ditch the standard DVI port for a new port when they've gone through this song & dance once before.

There _are_ justifications for ditching DVI for DP. There just aren't any for inventing some proprietry connector just to try and annoy your customers into buying your expensive hardware.

alphaod

Dec 1, 2008, 08:39 PM

Tom Sawyer

Dec 1, 2008, 08:45 PM

Very surprised by this. I can't believe Apple is actually giving something away for free.

Rather strange, eh?

<rant>
If you step back for a moment, it's actually quite an arrogant move. Lets see, the industry has come up with a standard, a new way of transmitting tons of video data digitally in a nice compact connector and they call it "Display Port". Apple comes along and says, "Oh my, that's not good enough for our products" and 'tweaks' the interface ever so slightly so as to render it proprietary. Then they come back a couple months later and "give away the spec". So why after the industry has decided upon a standard, this venerable Display Port connector, would they say "Oh yes Apple, your design is oh so superior to our design, we'll adopt it straight away". This after Dell and HP and other panel manufacturers have signed on to using Display Port as their new standard, the replacement for DVI.

I'm thinking that approximately 0 vendors will offer panels with a (hoopty doo) Mini Display Port connector. Furthermore, the thought of having to use yet another 30 dollar adapter to... wait here it comes... adapt my MINI display port to Display Port... um... wtf... just seems ludicrous. Really...

I will tell you one thing though... that MINI Display Port connector is truly MUCH sexier than a regular old display port connector. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure why this irritates me so... but it does.
</rant>

displaced

Dec 1, 2008, 09:28 PM

On the subject of adapters...

I'm sat in my 'den' at the moment. Looking around, my gaming PC has its optical audio output running through a TOSLINK-to-Headphone Optical adapter... My Mac Mini's DVI output goes through a DVI-to-HDMI adapter before it gets to my TV. The iMac G5 has a mini-DVI adapter (did people complain about that? I can't remember) running to another DVI-to-HDMI adapter... Just a bit of context :)

DVI seems to have certainly reached its limits. The fact that we need dual-link DVI (essentially two ports logically gaffer-taped together) to run reasonably high-res screens underscores that fact.

DisplayPort is the VESA standard. I reckon there's a more-than-good chance of it becoming standard on displays over the next few years, just like DVI and VGA before it.

Now, for whatever reason, Apple devised a mini variant of DisplayPort. Whilst we can all hypothesise on whether standard DP would've been adequate, I can't help but think that there was a good engineering reason for the mini's creation. Connector design isn't easy -- especially at that size. A whole lot of time and money had to have been spent to thoroughly test the design to ensure that it was fully compatible with the DP specs – ensuring it could pass the same signals within the same tolerances and parameters as the DP standard. That's a lot of hard work.

Apple then make the fruits of that work available to all for free. And so they should: it's just a physical re-design of an existing design and protocol. Also, we should note that this is not ADC all over again. It might look that way, but it isn't. ADC was proprietary not only in physical construction, but also in what signals it carried and how it carried them. Expensive adapters were required to combine USB, power, video and audio into the ADC format. This is not the case for the mini DisplayPort, which is nothing more than a physical redesign of an existing VESA standard.

We'll certainly go through a rough patch until DisplayPort becomes more widespread. But we've been there before. I remember having parallel- and serial-to-USB adapters hanging off my gumdrop iMac G3 for a while. Not to mention those hours spent hunting for a decent USB keyboard to replace the Apple Pro keyboard of the era which I absolutely hated.

So, skipping forward a year or two... I can see DisplayPort monitors coming bundled with two leads - a DP-to-DP and a DP-to-miniDP -- very much how every firewire drive I've bought has come with both 6-to-6 and 6-to-4 pin leads (bless you, Sony and your iLink firewire-without-the-power malarkey).

But what about non-DP screens? Well, the DP spec seems to allow for analog and DVI streams... so surely that's just an adapter in the same manner as the DVI-to-VGA one which came with my Mac Mini... and I have one of which dropped in my laptop bag just in case. Surely I'll just bin the DVI-to-VGA adapter and drop in a miniDP-to-VGA one instead? Net gain/loss: 0.

Of course, this all depends on DisplayPort adoption. I suppose we'll see... but the industry's tended to gravitate towards simpler standards (PS/2, RS232, Centronics etc. all being absorbed by USB). With VESA defining the technical implementation of DisplayPort, its openness is ensured. Apple have contributed an additional connector form-factor (without breaking compatibility with the protocol/capabilities of DP) and made it available freely.

I'll say it again: This isn't *ADC: The Revenge.*

rijiMacDij

Dec 1, 2008, 09:38 PM

I agree it sucks that at the moment your brand new mac laptop will connect to hardly anything as far as external displays go.

The difference in size between the DP and Mini-DP connectors may be insignificant on today's product line-up but not having Mini-DP available would hinder Apple and other hardware manufacturers contemplating further reduction in size of portable products capable of connection to external displays.

I would rather have an Apple Inc that is willing to push boundaries and upset a few individuals occasionally in their quest for total world domination, (whoops, I meant in their desire to build superior total solutions), than a "yes Sir, anything you say, Sir" Apple Inc that would bow to the whims of mis-informed cretins and the rest of the computer building world.

I can't see any problem making a cable with a DP connector on one end and a Mini-DP connector on the other.

I think it's great that my display cable won't be screwed to my laptop, but I wish they would make a mag-safe connection for every port.

I can see an octopus cable with Mini-DP at one end and every other compatible display connection art the other.

I think Apple had no choice but to develop this connection alone. Can you imagine how long it would take for a couple dozen or so competing corporations to agree on anything, without trying to lock the standard up for themselves?

Just a bit of a half-asleep ramble, I think i will make my first coffee of the day now and start making sense....

jaw04005

Dec 1, 2008, 09:39 PM

I know HDMI has royalties associated with it, but why do "new" standards need to be created when there are currents standards available? I am a HUGE Apple fan...but I opine that Apple's decision to use DisplayPort over HDMI was a step sideways...now I must buy a DisplayPort-to-HDMI cable...wtf? C'mon Apple play nicely with everyone else...

HDMI has a "Deep Color" resolution limitation of 1920x1200 and a "Truecolor" resolution limitation of 2560x1600. Apple wants to build displays with higher resolution screens than the current 30" display. Therefore, they chose DisplayPort which has no resolution limit (theoretically).

DisplayPort is also an open standard and does not have licensing fees attached to it like HDMI.

I believe Steve Jobs mentioned the resolution limitation in an after-keynote question and answer session.

With that said, I do think Apple should ship mini-DisplayPort to full-size DisplayPort, DVI and VGA adapters with their professional notebooks and include the full DisplayPort on their next Mac Pro.

Additionally, a mini-DisplayPort to DVI adapter and mini-DisplayPort to DisplayPort adapter should come with the new 24" Cinema Display. Especially considering the premium price that comes with an Apple Display.

By the way, a lot of the same comments were made when Apple adopted DVI and mini-DVI.

matticus008

Dec 1, 2008, 09:55 PM

That "advantage" being bugger all, given that basically no laptops are stretched for space in that direction, since it's essentially dictated by the size of the screen.
Your several post rant stream notwithstanding, this is simply not true. Most notebooks are indeed tight on space because the mainboard is less than half the depth of the notebook. The eee avoids this by removing the hard drive and optical drive, and switching the battery to a piggyback unit. Its mainboard is a typical size for a notebook.
Except, as noted, there's no real incentive to use Mini-DP over regular DP. The only real advantage Mini-DP has - size - is basically irrelevant.
It is not. By the same token, mini USB is "irrelevant" because it too is only about half the size of an already small connector. Yet, as we all know, it has allowed for USB implementation on a wide variety of compact consumer devices. If there is ever going to be an iPhone or iPod that features HD output, it will be over a connector like mDP. The size differential you cast aside is equally shortsighted. It is not as simple as squeezing ports closer together to free up space on the PCB.

Certainly for most applications the regular connector would suffice, but there are definitely applications where it would not, and it includes many things Apple does. Having a single connector throughout the model line therefore makes the choice obvious. The displays themselves would benefit from a standard connector as well for non-Mac users, but that is obviously not a major concern for Apple displays.
There is easily enough room on that board to move the audio adapters (or combine them into a single PCB-mounted unit), move the screwhole elsewhere, and replace the Mini-DP with DP.
[QUOTE=drsmithy;6696428]Like what ?
SCSI. USB. Abandoning legacy ports. Firewire. Wireless networking. DVD writers. To name a few.

lgoodlove

Dec 1, 2008, 10:29 PM

it's a baby step but its still a step

haunebu

Dec 1, 2008, 10:48 PM

If this plan works out, Apple will make a killing in adapters.

You, sir, are absolutely correct.

Apple has decided that Mac customers need to buy Apple displays. If Mac customers choose to buy displays from other manufacturers, Apple still wants a cut of the action by selling Mini DisplayPort -> Everything Else adapters.

By licensing the spec out, other companies might start making adapters, but Apple will always sell a ton (most?) of them.

If rumors of Apple handing the spec over to VESA are true, awesome. But from the consumer's perspective, they still shouldn't have made it. Fragmentation, adapters and other sloppiness will be the only result (besides more revenue for Apple). DisplayPort is just fine.

840quadra

Dec 1, 2008, 11:27 PM

Glad to see this finally put forward by Apple. This backs up what I had been debating on these forums with countless people, there was absolutely no proof that Mini Display Port was proprietary (by definition).

http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=47064&dateline=1165206282&type=profile

Michael CM1

Dec 1, 2008, 11:58 PM

I know HDMI has royalties associated with it, but why do "new" standards need to be created when there are currents standards available? I am a HUGE Apple fan...but I opine that Apple's decision to use DisplayPort over HDMI was a step sideways...now I must buy a DisplayPort-to-HDMI cable...wtf? C'mon Apple play nicely with everyone else...

Because they had to make something new for all 100 people on the planet that use the massive monitors that need higher bandwidth than present HDMI can offer. HDMI would've worked fine for 1920x1200 monitors, but we MUST have something that appeals to that 100-person segment. Heaven knows Apple couldn't put some port on a computer that nearly every HDTV owner could make use of.

All that hope of ports for computers and home entertainment finally converging into HDMI all went poop with Apple's poo party. Couldn't have worked with the HDMI creators to make some sort of HDMI 2.0 cable, could we? Noooooo.

By the way, I still don't get moving all the ports to the left and the optical drive to the right. The entire front of the new MacBook is mostly empty. Keep the optical drive there and you could at least have more USB ports and keep the firewire (or add ExpressCard to the low-end MacBooks). Sometimes Apple just seems to take "Think Different" to a new extreme.

ATimson

Dec 2, 2008, 12:22 AM

And I bought a standard kensington lock.. fitted it to my friend's new MBP, and lo' and behold : it doesn't fit! (do we have to acquit)
I can't speak for what the Apple site says. But as the owner of an aluMacBook using a Kensington lock, I suspect you're doing it wrong. ;)

AidenShaw

Dec 2, 2008, 12:31 AM

Like what ?

SCSI. USB. Abandoning legacy ports. Firewire. Wireless networking. DVD writers. To name a few.

Sony sold 1394 before Apple, 802.11b was around before Apple used it, Compaq announced the Pioneer DVD burners before Apple, millions of PCs had USB before Apple, not clear that SCSI was a big deal - it never really left Apple for consumer use ...

But, I guess a lawyer can define a term like "consumer breakthrough" to mean whatever she wants.

Glad to see this finally put forward by Apple. This backs up what I had been debating on these forums with countless people, there was absolutely no proof that Mini Display Port was proprietary (by definition).

Are you kidding? The very basis of this story is that the Mini Display Port is proprietary, and Apple owns the design rights.

The news that Apple will license its proprietary connector absolutely proves that it is proprietary. If it weren't proprietary, how could Apple license it?

BenRoethig

Dec 2, 2008, 12:59 AM

Still strikes me as backwards. Why not work with other manufacturers first to develop a standard, instead of coming up with one and hoping it gets picked up? Maybe someone smarter than me can explain this way of thinking.

One of two reasons.

First, Apple is using mini-DP as a form of control. Standard displayport is not much larger than the Mini-VGA/DVI ports.

Second, its creation was a solution to a problem caused by Ive's design. Mini-DP is the size of Micro-DVI. From the internal configuration, using a full sized display port or a Mini-DVI port may have required the removal of not just the FW400 port, but one of the two USB2 ports as well.

cyberakuma

Dec 2, 2008, 01:10 AM

All that hope of ports for computers and home entertainment finally converging into HDMI all went poop with Apple's poo party. Couldn't have worked with the HDMI creators to make some sort of HDMI 2.0 cable, could we? Noooooo.

There was never a chance in hell of convergence on HDMI. HDMI's only single benefit over DisplayPort is that it came first and thus has adoption.

DisplayPort not only is a better designed protocol, it has higher bandwidth, is cheaper to implement, results in less components (aka smaller devices), has a higher quality connector, and does not require royalties for use of the port/protocol (although HDCP still requires licensing for both ports).

There still is a small sliver of chance of convergence on DisplayPort, but thats years and years away. Eventually displays themselves will internally be built around DisplayPort, and HDMI will just be extra components and cost.

Ibjr

Dec 2, 2008, 01:10 AM

With ADC, miniVGA, and miniDVI Apple didn't pretend that they were giving the world a new standard... This is worse.

matticus008

Dec 2, 2008, 01:32 AM

Sony sold 1394 before Apple, 802.11b was around before Apple used it, Compaq announced the Pioneer DVD burners before Apple, millions of PCs had USB before Apple, not clear that SCSI was a big deal - it never really left Apple for consumer use
I quite clearly said major consumer breakthroughs, not first to market. Apple funded and initiated 1394 development. 802.11b was finalized in June 1999; Apple's Airport base station was launched in July at quite a high profile. The first push to prolific USB peripherals came from the Mac market--for a specific example, one need look no further than flatbed scanners introducing USB models for Macs, which then slowly replaced LPT PC models. Apple also was first to market with a complete consumer solution involving both the software and hardware necessary to create DVDs.

You can quibble on the details if you like, but none of it distracts from the essential point that Apple's adoption of standards and third-party technologies handily outweighs the alleged "NIH syndrome".
But, I guess a lawyer can define a term like "consumer breakthrough" to mean whatever she wants.
And I guess AidenShaw can read whatever she wants into words that are quite plain.
If it weren't proprietary, how could Apple license it?
You mean like DVI is licensed? How about USB licenses? If being licensed is your metric, then all of the standards this could be competing against are "proprietary", too.

dernhelm

Dec 2, 2008, 02:12 AM

A friend recent bought a MacBook, and loves it except for the fact that the MDP => DVI connector is a DVI-D not DVI-I. (Something that Apple did it's best not to tell him when he bought it - but he also didn't think to ask). It's bad enough that the MacBook didn't ship with an adapter, but now he has to buy two, one MDP=>DVI-D and one MDP=>VGA for any presentations he would have to give, because it is impossible to adapt DVI-D to VGA (he already had several DVI-I to VGA adapters lying around).

I don't care how you cut it, it is hard to cast this as anything other than Apple trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of an unsuspecting user base. These MDP=>DVI-D and MDP=>VGA adapters are not cheap, especially on top of an already premium priced computer.

Anyway, I hope someone else uses this opportunity to produce a quality MDP=>DVI-I connector. Only a fool would choose apple's cables over a that.

mdriftmeyer

Dec 2, 2008, 02:13 AM

Sony sold 1394 before Apple, 802.11b was around before Apple used it, Compaq announced the Pioneer DVD burners before Apple, millions of PCs had USB before Apple, not clear that SCSI was a big deal - it never really left Apple for consumer use ...

But, I guess a lawyer can define a term like "consumer breakthrough" to mean whatever she wants.

Are you kidding? The very basis of this story is that the Mini Display Port is proprietary, and Apple owns the design rights.

The news that Apple will license its proprietary connector absolutely proves that it is proprietary. If it weren't proprietary, how could Apple license it?

Millions of computers had a broken implementation of USB 1.1 and then Apple released the iMac with USB1.1 that wasn't broken, along-side Firewire thus demonstrating [Intel observing] that they know Serial Bus transports like no body's business.

ff_will

Dec 2, 2008, 02:17 AM

If only they'd license out the freaking MagSafe port, we could have an affordable secondary power adapter.

My words! I don't care buying the power supply from Apple, but I really would like to have a car adaptor.... and I don't mean converting 12V DC to 110/220V AC only to be able to convert it back to 7.5V (?) DC again! MagSafe is great, but the lack of free licensing sucks :(

Eidorian

Dec 2, 2008, 02:18 AM

Millions of computers had a broken implementation of USB 1.1 and then Apple released the iMac with USB1.1 that wasn't broken, along-side Firewire thus demonstrating [Intel observing] that they know Serial Bus transports like no body's business.Can you prove that?

tuc

Dec 2, 2008, 02:41 AM

Connector design isn't easy -- especially at that size. A whole lot of time and money had to have been spent to thoroughly test the design to ensure that it was fully compatible with the DP specs – ensuring it could pass the same signals within the same tolerances and parameters as the DP standard. That's a lot of hard work.

It is indeed hard work. Standard DisplayPort is pretty clever in how
it isolates the signals. The p/n/ground signals for each lane form a
triangle, with the p/n pairs surrounded by three ground pins--nice.

Apple's miniDP isn't quite as elegant. Lane 3's p/n/ground pins lie
directly under Lane 1's p/n/ground pins, for example. Also the way
the conductors cross (http://bitguru.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/displayport_pinout11a.gif) with standard DisplayPort is easy to describe
(pins 15-19 straight through, 1-to-12, 2-to-11, 3-to-10, etc.) while
it's less obvious with mini-DisplayPort (pins 2/14/16/18/19 straight
through, 1-to-8, 3-to-10, 5-to-12, 7-to-13, 9-to-15, 11-to-17).

It's not a big deal, of course. At least Apple could use the same trick
of having some pins longer than others to control the contact order.

tuc

Dec 2, 2008, 02:55 AM

Additionally, a mini-DisplayPort to DVI adapter and mini-DisplayPort to DisplayPort adapter should come with the new 24" Cinema Display. Especially considering the premium price that comes with an Apple Display.

I'm with you on the miniDP-to-DP adapter, but a miniDP-to-DVI adapter
would be pointless. Or rather, the new 24" LED-backlit Cinema Display
doesn't understand DVI signals, so either circuitry would have to be added
to the display or else it would have to be a very expensive "active" adapter.

DVI needs to be replaced, whether it be DP or HDMI...there is better technology out there that is not as limiting (in several areas) as DVI...

Huh? HDMI is DVI, except it is limited to single-link. Yeah, there's
audio in there too, but HDMI is too limiting to standardize on unless
it's ok to max out at 1920x1200. (Granted, I'm talking HDMI 1.2.)

tuc

Dec 2, 2008, 03:02 AM

A friend recent bought a MacBook, and loves it except for the fact that the MDP => DVI connector is a DVI-D not DVI-I. (Something that Apple did it's best not to tell him when he bought it - but he also didn't think to ask). It's bad enough that the MacBook didn't ship with an adapter, but now he has to buy two, one MDP=>DVI-D and one MDP=>VGA for any presentations he would have to give, because it is impossible to adapt DVI-D to VGA (he already had several DVI-I to VGA adapters lying around).

I don't care how you cut it, it is hard to cast this as anything other than Apple trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of an unsuspecting user base.

This is nonintuitive, I agree, but it's been the same way (http://bitguru.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/mini-dvi-to-dvi-adapters-and-anagolg-signals/) with mini-DVI
and micro-DVI.

You make it sound like Apple could make DVI-I adapters if they wanted
to, but they can't. (Well, I guess they could make one that had a little
switch on it or something--might be something for a third-party to try.)
When the DVI adapter is attached, there are no analog VGA-style signals
to convey. Similarly, when the VGA adapter is attached, there are no
digital DVI/HMDI-style signals to convey. At least it seems like this is
the case. Details are scarce.

Phil A.

Dec 2, 2008, 03:29 AM

I can fully understand the move to DisplayPort on the new Macs, and can even understand the move to try and create a mini DisplayPort standard (I see it as similar to the Mini USB options).

However, what I don't understand is why they were so keen to drop the 23" ACD when they have no viable alternative for the vast majority of their customers (although it is reminiscent of their move from ADC to DVI!).

I don't think there will ever be a simple cable adapter for DVI to the 24" LCD monitor because it seems to be a DirectDrive monitor, which simply cannot understand DVI signaling, so it'll be an expensive active adapter or nothing.

Yuppi

Dec 2, 2008, 03:36 AM

The very obvious reason for Apple to not include a full display port is that they (or therewith the stores selling macbooks) can make money by selling the adapter. Those accessories make good money for stores that earn close to nothing by selling Notebooks.
It is the same reason why some printers are no longer sold with USB cable even though it would be insanely cheap to include this cable. For the same reason the apple remote is no longer shipped, yet another accessory to be sold.

For anyone having troubles to believe that it would be difficult on the MacBook to include a full size DisplayPort, just look at the x-Ray pictures of the MacBook. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasondv/3025109312/
Anyone else, just look at the picture too, it is really nice :D

matticus008

Dec 2, 2008, 03:51 AM

However, what I don't understand is why they were so keen to drop the 23" ACD
Supply. 23" panels have been hard to come by for a while now, as manufacturers moved to 22" (TN, MVA) and 24" (TN, MVA, IPS) sizes.

For anyone having troubles to believe that it would be difficult on the MacBook to include a full size DisplayPort, just look at the x-Ray pictures of the MacBook.
Picture shows a crowded bank. Full-size DisplayPort is about 25% wider than a USB port. The USB ports as it is are squeezed a hair closer together than they probably should be.

It's not inconceivable that they could have tweaked some things to make it work, but there is a cost to everything, and again, Apple wants to use one connector for their whole line, and if they want to put one on anything smaller than a MacBook, the half-size connector is the way to go, especially since they've managed to get full bandwidth and compatibility, unlike some older mini connectors.

Yuppi

Dec 2, 2008, 05:00 AM

Picture shows a crowded bank. Full-size DisplayPort is about 25% wider than a USB port. The USB ports as it is are squeezed a hair closer together than they probably should be.

It's not inconceivable that they could have tweaked some things to make it work, but there is a cost to everything, and again, Apple wants to use one connector for their whole line, and if they want to put one on anything smaller than a MacBook, the half-size connector is the way to go, especially since they've managed to get full bandwidth and compatibility, unlike some older mini connectors.

I agree to the line-up thing. And I don't totally hate the new connector. But in this case I think they really did not have many choices. The white dot between the MDP and the audio things is probably a screw and it is totally necessary to have it on this position. Also the USB and MDP are so close to each other that there is less than 1 mm between my USB-Stick (which is the most average you can imagine) and the MDP Adapter cable, which itself has a 1 mm plastic around the connector.

drsmithy

Dec 2, 2008, 05:18 AM

i think this has a bit more to do with the business model that apple adopts. the mac os x software is just a bit short of £60 compared to price tag such as £200+ for a "usable" version of windows vista.

OS X Upgrade RRP: £83
Vista Home Premium Upgrade RRP: £79.99

Nuvi

Dec 2, 2008, 05:27 AM

If you compare the old ports and new full size DP you see how small it is. Anyway, Apple has habit of making great computers but only mediocre displays that tend stay in production far longer then they should. I guess some one thought they had a perfect solution aka MINI DisplayPort. Anyway, if you take look at VESA statements regarding the compatibility I don't think Apple has that much hope of getting their port accepted as VESA standard. This is just a prediction but IMHO mini DP will be just Apple Display Port. Do you remember ADC?

EDIT: Regarding the possibility of engineering standard DP on new MB's; Apple managed to fit full size 6-pin FireWire on original iPod's but now they really need to shrink the standard DP into their own "Apple" Display Port in order to fit it. You honestly believe that? You guys don't think its not a method of trying to control consumer behavior. History keeps repeating itself.

ErikCLDR

Dec 2, 2008, 06:22 AM

I agree - does no-one remember ADC?

Those were the days.

I don't care what they say, the display port is still proprietary BS until every monitor company picks it up. How many companies are really going to adapt this when I guess only the macpro and mac mini would be the two computers that need a monitor- all the others have a built in LCD. Given that apple has a pretty low market share relatively speaking, no other companies have the mini display port, and for the sake of saving money I don't see why they'd invest in it. They'd probably just rather have you go out and buy the overpriced $30 video adapter. Hopefully someone will come out with a reasonable $5.00 one.

drsmithy

Dec 2, 2008, 06:22 AM

Your several post rant stream notwithstanding, this is simply not true. Most notebooks are indeed tight on space because the mainboard is less than half the depth of the notebook. The eee avoids this by removing the hard drive and optical drive, and switching the battery to a piggyback unit. Its mainboard is a typical size for a notebook.

Pictures (and measurements) of numerous laptops, including ones smaller than the 13" MacBook, trivially demonstrate that you are wrong.

The Latitude E4300 is smaller than the MB in width and depth, yet manages to squeeze in VGA, Ethernet, power, two USB (one combo USB/eSATA), headphone, microphone, mini-firewire and SDHC. There's also 3/4 ExpressCard and a smartcard slot, but I won't count them since they could be considered as benefitting from the slightly greater thickness.

The Latitude E4200, which is only slightly thicker than a MBA, and noticably smaller in every other dimension, still manages to fit in mini-firewire, VGA, Ethernet, two USB, headphone, microphone and Smartcard.

It is not. By the same token, mini USB is "irrelevant" because it too is only about half the size of an already small connector.

No, that is not "by the same token" at all. On devices that are smaller than laptops (say, cameras or phones), mini-USB makes sense because regular USB wouldn't fit.

Yet, as we all know, it has allowed for USB implementation on a wide variety of compact consumer devices. If there is ever going to be an iPhone or iPod that features HD output, it will be over a connector like mDP.

No, it will be via dongle or dock. Mini-DP is too large for a Nano or Touch, and the iPod Classic could conceivably fit either.

The size differential you cast aside is equally shortsighted. It is not as simple as squeezing ports closer together to free up space on the PCB.

Then perhaps you could elaborate.

Certainly for most applications the regular connector would suffice, but there are definitely applications where it would not, and it includes many things Apple does.

For example ?

Like what ?
SCSI. USB. Abandoning legacy ports. Firewire. Wireless networking. DVD writers. To name a few.

Neither SCSI nor Firewire were ever "consumer breakthroughs". Being generous and counting the latter, it was on PCs before Macs.

USB was available on PCs before Macs, as were DVD writers.

Wireless networking was available on both platforms at the same time.

"Abandoning legacy ports" is not something to be proud of. Transitioning from legacy ports, on the other hand - allowing your customers a period of time when they can get new hardware and still easily interface with their old hardware - is. Apple is a practiced hand at the former, having done it several times (and in the process of doing it again), but seems completely allergic to the latter. However, shennanigans like that don't work in the PC world, where customers are more demanding and less accepting of being so blatantly shafted.

ccuk

Dec 2, 2008, 06:26 AM

Supply. 23" panels have been hard to come by for a while now, as manufacturers moved to 22" (TN, MVA) and 24" (TN, MVA, IPS) sizes.

Picture shows a crowded bank. Full-size DisplayPort is about 25% wider than a USB port. The USB ports as it is are squeezed a hair closer together than they probably should be.

It's not inconceivable that they could have tweaked some things to make it work, but there is a cost to everything, and again, Apple wants to use one connector for their whole line, and if they want to put one on anything smaller than a MacBook, the half-size connector is the way to go, especially since they've managed to get full bandwidth and compatibility, unlike some older mini connectors.

I just see you posting a lot of excuses for what was a greedy move on Apples part. Apple design pretty much everything that goes into these laptops and could have easily used a full size DisplayPort. If they stopped with this need to make everything thinner (did we really need to gain 0.05") and didn't go down this more rounded route for their design, then I am pretty much certain there would have been plenty of room.

This irks me more so on their Pro line, designed to be for the creative professionals who work to industry standards. DisplayPort is making its way out there already, Mini-DisplayPort is not. You really are in trouble if you forget your adapter for that projector which takes DVI.

djellison

Dec 2, 2008, 07:01 AM

By licensing the spec out, other companies might start making adapters, but Apple will always sell a ton (most?) of them.

Really? Apple want £70 for the DL-DVI adaptor at the moment. IF, and I do mean IF (because I don't believe it's going to happen) Belkin or whoever start making them now the specs are 'free' - it'll be a damn sight cheaper than the utter rip-off of £70. More like £20 or £30 - the other adaptors will be more like £10.

Why would people continue to buy the rip-off Apple flavour if cheaper parts were made available that did EXACTLY the same thing.

diamond.g

Dec 2, 2008, 07:07 AM

Because they had to make something new for all 100 people on the planet that use the massive monitors that need higher bandwidth than present HDMI can offer. HDMI would've worked fine for 1920x1200 monitors, but we MUST have something that appeals to that 100-person segment. Heaven knows Apple couldn't put some port on a computer that nearly every HDTV owner could make use of.

All that hope of ports for computers and home entertainment finally converging into HDMI all went poop with Apple's poo party. Couldn't have worked with the HDMI creators to make some sort of HDMI 2.0 cable, could we? Noooooo.

By the way, I still don't get moving all the ports to the left and the optical drive to the right. The entire front of the new MacBook is mostly empty. Keep the optical drive there and you could at least have more USB ports and keep the firewire (or add ExpressCard to the low-end MacBooks). Sometimes Apple just seems to take "Think Different" to a new extreme.
Um, HDMI technically provides for more bandwidth than Display Port (10Gbit/s vs 8.64 Gbit/s).

I'm with you on the miniDP-to-DP adapter, but a miniDP-to-DVI adapter
would be pointless. Or rather, the new 24" LED-backlit Cinema Display
doesn't understand DVI signals, so either circuitry would have to be added
to the display or else it would have to be a very expensive "active" adapter.

Huh? HDMI is DVI, except it is limited to single-link. Yeah, there's
audio in there too, but HDMI is too limiting to standardize on unless
it's ok to max out at 1920x1200. (Granted, I'm talking HDMI 1.2.)

HDMI Type B connector has double the bandwidth and is electrically compatible with Dual Link DVI. Allowing HDMI to support the same sized screens as Display Port (again technically).

Miharu

Dec 2, 2008, 08:05 AM

What exactly was wrong with DVI that made Apple make their own display port?

ATimson

Dec 2, 2008, 08:16 AM

What exactly was wrong with DVI that made Apple make their own display port?
The upper limit on the resolution, even with the dual-link kludge.

Nuvi

Dec 2, 2008, 08:25 AM

Those were the days.
They'd probably just rather have you go out and buy the overpriced $30 video adapter. Hopefully someone will come out with a reasonable $5.00 one.

$30? That would be cheap... DVI dual link to Apple's Mini Display Port is $99 if I remember it correctly. The problem with Mini port is that since it won't be used by other then Apple all the adapters will be expansive. With standard DP you get the mass markets and low prices.

Nuvi

Dec 2, 2008, 08:48 AM

What exactly was wrong with DVI that made Apple make their own display port?

DVI is a older standard port. When DVI was introduced Apple decided to modify it and introduced ADC (Apple Display Connector). However consumers weren't that happy since you couldn't use other displays except the ones manufactured by Apple without adapters. Finally Apple ditched ADC and went with DVI and since then we have had opportunity to use any modern display.

DisplayPort is a standard port supported by VESA. All the new displays (computer) will be using it. However, again Apple went and modified the standard port and created their own port which they call Mini DisplayPort. Unfortunately they can call it Apple Display Port since after reading VESA white papers regarding the DP standard there is no way VESA will let it pass. The whole point of STANDARDS is to make sure that ALL the DisplayPort monitors have exactly the same connectors and functions so any DP equipped display works with any computer with DP. Even if we get supper lucky and it passes as VESA standard will it change anything? Highly unlikely since other manufacturers have been working with DP standard from the start so their plans rely on it and not on Apple Display Port. What would we then get? A standard VESA port used by one manufacturer that works great with laptops but is not robust enough for desktops (locking connector anyone...)

840quadra

Dec 2, 2008, 09:00 AM

Are you kidding? The very basis of this story is that the Mini Display Port is proprietary, and Apple owns the design rights.

The news that Apple will license its proprietary connector absolutely proves that it is proprietary. If it weren't proprietary, how could Apple license it?
Yes I understand what proprietary means.

I agree that the device is proprietary, however, there was no clarification on this prior to the article posted up on Apples site. It was all speculative, and now (as I said before) I am glad to see this finally put forward by Apple, meaning the information on this device, and licensing.

In short, the people who guessed on the connector being proprietary were correct, however neither Apple, VESA, nor Display Port, had any documentation posted up on this subject.

http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=47064&dateline=1165207334&type=profile

matticus008

Dec 2, 2008, 09:11 AM

Pictures (and measurements) of numerous laptops, including ones smaller than the 13" MacBook, trivially demonstrate that you are wrong.
Afraid not. Case dimensions are not the issue. Refer yourself to the mainboard.
The Latitude E4300
Distributed along three sides.
No, that is not "by the same token" at all. On devices that are smaller than laptops (say, cameras or phones), mini-USB makes sense because regular USB wouldn't fit.
Unless those cameras or phones are the size of thumb drives, a regular size port would fit using your arbitrary and inconsistent case measurement approach.

I've never seen a USB device that could not be redesigned in the manner suggested by you people to support the full-size port. Everything could be made a little thicker or squeezed a little tighter, if we're to believe what you say. It's a dumb argument.
Mini-DP is too large for a Nano or Touch
Amazingly, both have a Dock connector, which is larger than mDP.
Then perhaps you could elaborate.
There's no need. It's already been discussed. For one, the empty space you seem to see is a chassis mount point, meaning no traces can go there. Even if that were not the case, that location is also where the frame crossbar attaches, leaving no vertical clearance for a port. The port spacing is already problematic for many peripheral cables.
For example ?
Read. You've even mentioned them in your posts.
Neither SCSI nor Firewire were ever "consumer breakthroughs".
It's amazing how difficult you make parsing a sentence. You're missing a few words there. SCSI and Firewire never made it into consumer products? Big box stores around the world over the past 20 years beg to differ.

Again, you make inconsistent arguments simply for the sake of argument. You're ignoring the purpose of the statement: the unequivocal refutation of your "NIH syndrome" claim. All of those technologies were either totally or in large part created by someone not Apple. NIH syndrome, indeed.
I just see you posting a lot of excuses for what was a greedy move on Apples part.
And I see you looking for a scapegoat for what is at worst a trivial issue because you can't articulate a rational basis for the complaint. Please identify this supposed cash cow that you're being scammed with. A $5 adapter that some minority of customers might need and buy from a third party, for which Apple collects no royalties whatsoever? Heavens. They won't even need to sell Macs anymore!

You can completely ignore the whole thing with a simple A-B cable packed in your bag. Nonsense problem solved.
You really are in trouble if you forget your adapter for that projector which takes DVI.
You're really in trouble if you forget a DVI cable, too.

Apple wanted a smaller connector to save space on their mainboards and to be accessible to thinner and smaller products, so they could use the same cables and connectors for everything. The connector is available for anyone to use. You talk about standards and consistency, so why saddle smaller products with a different connector when you can just use the same one across your entire product line and, gosh, be consistent?

BenRoethig

Dec 2, 2008, 09:16 AM

DVI is a older standard port. When DVI was introduced Apple decided to modify it and introduced ADC (Apple Display Connector). However consumers weren't that happy since you couldn't use other displays except the ones manufactured by Apple without adapters. Finally Apple ditched ADC and went with DVI and since then we have had opportunity to use any modern display.

DisplayPort is a standard port supported by VESA. All the new displays (computer) will be using it. However, again Apple went and modified the standard port and created their own port which they call Mini DisplayPort. Unfortunately they can call it Apple Display Port since after reading VESA white papers regarding the DP standard there is no way VESA will let it pass. The whole point of this STANDARD is to make sure that ALL the DisplayPort monitors have exactly the same connectors and functions so any DP equipped display works with any computer with DP.

In addition, I'm no so sure Apple picked the wrong horse. I don't think they would be all that said, if their customers had limited display options though. It's superior to HDMI, but when it comes to implementation, even displayport stalwarts such as Dell, HP, and Lenovo are picking HDMI in all but a few high end business machines. DP hasn't quite caught on like it was supposed to. I think the lure of one connection standard for both computers and consumer electronics may be too strong. Still, I wouldn't put the fork in quite yet unless the 29-pin dual link type-B HDMI starts to get some traction in the high end desktop/ workstation market. If Type-B starts becoming standard issue, then displayport is finished.

hayesk

Dec 2, 2008, 09:26 AM

Um, HDMI technically provides for more bandwidth than Display Port (10Gbit/s vs 8.64 Gbit/s).

According to VESA, DisplayPort 1.0 supports 10.8Gbit/s and is scalable to higher bandwidth.
http://www.vesa.org/press/displayportaug.htm

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.

sangosimo

Dec 2, 2008, 09:27 AM

we have to see how the market reacts. I do hope that nothing sinister is going on, and mini display port becomes a standard with cheap accessories.

hayesk

Dec 2, 2008, 09:28 AM

The vast bulk of hardware will ship with regular Displayport. Mini-DP will be another ADC, that will rarely, if ever, be seen outside of Apple hardware or adapters to interface Apple hardware to standard hardware.

So what? Nobody's in an uproar over mini-dvi, so why would they be over mini-DP? We're talking a $30 adapter. It's peanuts compared to the price of the MacBook in the first place.

BenRoethig

Dec 2, 2008, 09:39 AM

So what? Nobody's in an uproar over mini-dvi, so why would they be over mini-DP? We're talking a $30 adapter. It's peanuts compared to the price of the MacBook in the first place.

That's if Apple bothered to make the adapter. There are no video out options either RCA/S-Video or HDMI nor is there a way to connect a standard display port to a mini display port. This might really come into play if the next Mac Pro uses mini-DP as well. Neither the old apple monitor connector, ADC, or the previous mini-ports were this restrictive.

Nuvi

Dec 2, 2008, 09:50 AM

This might really come into play if the next Mac Pro uses mini-DP as well. Neither the old apple monitor connector, ADC, or the previous mini-ports were this restrictive.

If Apple really wants to use mini DP on Pro we can expect serious lack of cards. I hope mini DP is just for MB, MBP 15" and the rest will have standard DP.

AidenShaw

Dec 2, 2008, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Millions of computers had a broken implementation of USB 1.1 and then Apple released the iMac with USB1.1 that wasn't broken, along-side Firewire thus demonstrating [Intel observing] that they know Serial Bus transports like no body's business.

Can you prove that?

There was nothing wrong with those millions of computers, except that native OS support for USB didn't arrive until Windows 98.

Windows 95 had some add-on drivers that mostly worked for most devices.

drsmithy

Dec 2, 2008, 10:28 AM

Afraid not. Case dimensions are not the issue. Refer yourself to the mainboard.

Referred. Nothing there that can't be changed.

Distributed along three sides.

Which Apple could do just as easily. Hell, they could fit them all in along two sides if they really wanted to.

Unless those cameras or phones are the size of thumb drives, a regular size port would fit using your arbitrary and inconsistent case measurement approach.

No, they wouldn't, because my approach is neither arbitrary, nor inconsistent.

I've never seen a USB device that could not be redesigned in the manner suggested by you people to support the full-size port. Everything could be made a little thicker or squeezed a little tighter, if we're to believe what you say. It's a dumb argument.

No, not everything could be just rearranged. Further, it's a perfectly valid argument.

Amazingly, both have a Dock connector, which is larger than mDP.

The Docking port on my iPod Nano is 4mm across. The MiniDP connector is (according to Apple) 5.4mm across.

There's no need. It's already been discussed. For one, the empty space you seem to see is a chassis mount point, meaning no traces can go there. Even if that were not the case, that location is also where the frame crossbar attaches, leaving no vertical clearance for a port. The port spacing is already problematic for many peripheral cables.

And, of course, nothing could possibly be moved to another location on the chassis, because that would be doing something different to the perfection that Apple has already created.

Sorry, my mistake.

Read. You've even mentioned them in your posts.

The only devices Apple make which couldn't fit a regular DP are the iPhone and iPods. None of which will fit a mini-DP either (well, you might just shoehorn one into an iPod Classic, but it's highly questionable.

It's amazing how difficult you make parsing a sentence. You're missing a few words there.

Sorry, I can't help it if you can't read.

SCSI and Firewire never made it into consumer products? Big box stores around the world over the past 20 years beg to differ.

No, I said SCSI and Firewire were never "consumer breakthroughs". Stop changing your arguments.

Again, you make inconsistent arguments simply for the sake of argument. You're ignoring the purpose of the statement: the unequivocal refutation of your "NIH syndrome" claim. All of those technologies were either totally or in large part created by someone not Apple. NIH syndrome, indeed.

Tossing out the odd bone every now and then, in no way refutes my statement about Apple being a poster child for NIH syndrome. Apple have a long and glorious history of needlessly inventing with their own connectors, slightly modifying some existing standard, or just picking one that's either so pointless, or so obscure, that no hardware except theirs will ever feature it. Then, just to add insult to injury, they typically stop using without any warning or transition period for the poor suckers who have an existing hardware investment.

dernhelm

Dec 2, 2008, 10:29 AM

This is nonintuitive, I agree, but it's been the same way (http://bitguru.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/mini-dvi-to-dvi-adapters-and-anagolg-signals/) with mini-DVI
and micro-DVI.

You make it sound like Apple could make DVI-I adapters if they wanted
to, but they can't. (Well, I guess they could make one that had a little
switch on it or something--might be something for a third-party to try.)
When the DVI adapter is attached, there are no analog VGA-style signals
to convey. Similarly, when the VGA adapter is attached, there are no
digital DVI/HMDI-style signals to convey. At least it seems like this is
the case. Details are scarce.

The MDP obviously has the capability of putting out both analog and digital signals, since they can produce an adapter for each. I've seen the adapters, there are no logic chips in them. DVI-I is nothing more than the combination of both analog and digital signal on one cable. DVI-I can support both, MDP can support both, there must be a trivial way to convert from MDP to DVI-I.

If you can show me why I am wrong, I would love to be instructed accordingly. This just seems stupid on Apple's part, I would love for there to be a technical reason why it cannot be done.

JabbaII

Dec 2, 2008, 10:33 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

I understand DisplayPort is already royalty free?

Apple did not invent Displayport:confused:
May be the first to implement the "mini" version.

The IBM W series also has Displayport.

Other vendors also plans to support as well.

http://www.lenovo.com/news/us/en/2006/05/displayport.html

drsmithy

Dec 2, 2008, 10:33 AM

So what? Nobody's in an uproar over mini-dvi, so why would they be over mini-DP? We're talking a $30 adapter. It's peanuts compared to the price of the MacBook in the first place.

Actually, I'm pretty sure everyone who has ever had to deal with the pointlessness of Mini-DVI has cursed under their breath about yet another damn dongle. Particularly if they don't realise until they're about to plug their laptop into the projector for a big presentation that they've forgotten (or lost) the bloody thing.

AidenShaw

Dec 2, 2008, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by matticus008

Again, you make inconsistent arguments simply for the sake of argument. You're ignoring the purpose of the statement: the unequivocal refutation of your "NIH syndrome" claim. All of those technologies were either totally or in large part created by someone not Apple. NIH syndrome, indeed.

Apple have a long and glorious history of needlessly inventing with their own connectors, slightly modifying some existing standard, or just picking one that's either so pointless, or so obscure, that no hardware except theirs will ever feature it. Then, just to add insult to injury, they typically stop using without any warning or transition period for the poor suckers who have an existing hardware investment.

Case closed, your honor.

http://www.connectworld.net/cables_adapters/cat2/images/items/M372252.jpg http://www.connectworld.net/cables_adapters/cat2/images/items/M372050.jpg

Product: SCSI Adapter Apple Power Book HDI30 Male with Docking Switch to DM50 Female
Category: Cables SCSI Apple External Adapters Mac DM50 HDI30

Product: SCSI Adapter CN50 Female to DB25 Male
Category: Cables SCSI Apple External Adapters Mac SCSI CN50 DB25

Joe The Dragon

Dec 2, 2008, 10:57 AM

If Apple really wants to use mini DP on Pro we can expect serious lack of cards. I hope mini DP is just for MB, MBP 15" and the rest will have standard DP.
Some new video card have DP and DVI so how about a card with a DP to mini DP and a DP to DVI adapter shipped with the system.

And the new mini will be a even bigger joke with it where mini dp only with no shipping adapter with it that will just add $30 to $100 to the price of a likey some what over priced desktop.

diamond.g

Dec 2, 2008, 10:59 AM

According to VESA, DisplayPort 1.0 supports 10.8Gbit/s and is scalable to higher bandwidth.
http://www.vesa.org/press/displayportaug.htm

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.

Interesting. There is no dual link version? HDMI Type B allows for up to 20.4 Gbits of bandwidth.

BenRoethig

Dec 2, 2008, 11:13 AM

If Apple really wants to use mini DP on Pro we can expect serious lack of cards. I hope mini DP is just for MB, MBP 15" and the rest will have standard DP.

With the lack of an adapter to stand DP, I doubt it.

ATimson

Dec 2, 2008, 11:30 AM

Interesting. There is no dual link version? HDMI Type B allows for up to 20.4 Gbits of bandwidth.
DisplayPort 1.2 will allow for double the bandwidth, and should do so without requiring new connectors like HDMI Type B/dual-link DVI does.

diamond.g

Dec 2, 2008, 11:35 AM

DisplayPort 1.2 will allow for double the bandwidth, and should do so without requiring new connectors like HDMI Type B/dual-link DVI does.

Awesome. Well then... You know Display port would take over HDMI if it also supported things like Deep Color and DTSMA/DDTHD.

Nuvi

Dec 2, 2008, 11:42 AM

With the lack of an adapter to stand DP, I doubt it.

Having a desktop with mini DP would be nothing but a bad joke :confused: IMHO, Apple's track record of producing and updating their monitors isn't that spectacular...

Cole Slaw

Dec 2, 2008, 12:00 PM

Why does Apple seem to like to "ghettoize" their customers by using non-standard or proprietary connectors?
I'm surprised they don't have OS/X only work with a new "Super mini-slim printer port", of their own design, just so customers can't take advantage of the huge selection of usb ported printers.
Then again, they just might do that some day if they decide to make the new Apple iPrinter.
It'll kill our freedom to choose, but hey, it'll look cool, right?

Nuvi

Dec 2, 2008, 12:07 PM

If you think about all the Apple port modifications, has there ever been a port that became popular and is/was used by the rest of the industry? It seems that Apple likes to introduce new ports derived from some industry standard and after few revs. they back out and introduce the industry standard one. I can see SJ on a keynote introducing the new and magnificent 40" Studio Display and just because he doesn't want the PC users to suffer with their horrible Dell displays the new Studio Display has standard DP... and just by a pure coincidence all the new macs will also have standard size DP... and the owners of the original "bricks" can use the new display with that nice adapter hanging from they tiny mini DP.

ATimson

Dec 2, 2008, 12:09 PM

Why does Apple seem to like to "ghettoize" their customers by using non-standard or proprietary connectors?
I'm surprised they don't have OS/X only work with a new "Super mini-slim printer port", of their own design, just so customers can't take advantage of the huge selection of usb ported printers.
You mean like they did with USB back with the first iMac so that customers couldn't take advantage of the huge selection of parallel-port or Mac serial port printers? :)

ATimson

Dec 2, 2008, 12:11 PM

If you think about all the Apple port modifications, has there ever been a port that became popular and is/was used by the rest of the industry?
They didn't develop them, but they were responsible for popularizing Firewire and USB.

I can see SJ on a keynote introducing the new and magnificent 40" Studio Display and just because he doesn't want the PC users to suffer with their horrible Dell displays the new Studio Display has standard DP... and just by a pure coincidence all the new macs will also have standard size DP... and the owners of the original "bricks" can use the new display with that nice adapter hanging from they tiny mini DP.
Now, now. Since the two ports are electrically compatible, they can buy an in-line cord that goes from one to the other instead. ;)

Nuvi

Dec 2, 2008, 12:13 PM

Nuvi

Dec 2, 2008, 12:24 PM

They didn't develop them, but they were responsible for popularizing Firewire and USB.

I know but these are actual industry standard ports that serve us well. I'm talking about these strange modifications that they did on SCSI, PlainTalk mic port, Mini-DVI, ADC etc. What was the purpose of these engineering marvels?

EDIT: You are right with electric compatibility. Therefore, its bound the happen ;)

BenRoethig

Dec 2, 2008, 12:30 PM

Don't go there:eek::eek::eek:

There were times when you needed Apple printer and nothing else worked.

EDIT: They didn't look cool...

Or work very well. My stylewriter II used to always jam.

Cole Slaw

Dec 2, 2008, 12:37 PM

Don't go there:eek::eek::eek:

There were times when you needed Apple printer and nothing else worked.

EDIT: They didn't look cool...

Haha, I didn't know that, Nuvi. :o
I figured the printer thing was my own invention, which I made up to kind of illustrate my point.

tbrinkma

Dec 2, 2008, 01:45 PM

A headphone socket is a couple of wires and maybe a piece of fibre-optic cable. Just how much space do you think it needs ?

You're missing my point. The mainboard of the MacBook (and MacBook Pros) are *incredibly* densely packed with chips and traces. Just because the side of the case allows for shifting a component slightly doesn't mean that it can be done without *drastically* impacting the board it's attached to. Shifting 1 component means shifting several traces, which, in turn, require shifting dozens of other traces and chips.

Unless of course you're suggesting moving the headphone socket, without moving it's connection on the mainboard. :rolleyes:

ccuk

Dec 2, 2008, 01:46 PM

<SNIP>

And I see you looking for a scapegoat for what is at worst a trivial issue because you can't articulate a rational basis for the complaint. Please identify this supposed cash cow that you're being scammed with. A $5 adapter that some minority of customers might need and buy from a third party, for which Apple collects no royalties whatsoever? Heavens. They won't even need to sell Macs anymore!

You can completely ignore the whole thing with a simple A-B cable packed in your bag. Nonsense problem solved.

You're really in trouble if you forget a DVI cable, too.

Apple wanted a smaller connector to save space on their mainboards and to be accessible to thinner and smaller products, so they could use the same cables and connectors for everything. The connector is available for anyone to use. You talk about standards and consistency, so why saddle smaller products with a different connector when you can just use the same one across your entire product line and, gosh, be consistent?

Waltzing straight passed my comment and ignoring it to fuel your own narrow mindedness. Everywhere I go with my laptop, I know there will be a DVI cable for me to use, the same cannot be said of some ridiculous Mini DisplayPort to DVI cable. The DVI port is a standard... DisplayPort is slowly becoming one since its set to replace VGA, but Mini DisplayPort is nothing more than a home brew effort by Apple. Whichever way you cut it, they wanted to create a proprietary connector which they have full control over, and they might be allowing manufacturers to license it for free for now, but there is no telling what Apple will chose to do in the future.

You can argue till the cows come home, but the point remains that they could have used the existing DisplayPort connector on the new MacBooks, but as Apple does, shafted the consumer and made its own without consulting anyone.

I have to stick to standards every day... the Mini DisplayPort is not a standard, and certainly wont be for some time, unlike its grown up brother DisplayPort and most certainly unlike DVI. I for one hope no one adopts it other than Apple and it dies an early death.

tbrinkma

Dec 2, 2008, 01:56 PM

There is easily enough room on that board to move the audio adapters (or combine them into a single PCB-mounted unit), move the screwhole elsewhere, and replace the Mini-DP with DP.

Ok. Show us where you propose the screw hole can be moved. Don't forget to properly layout the board, including moving all of the impacted chips and traces such that you don't run into any signal problems due to traces of too different a length, or cross-talk between traces.

Go ahead. You said it's easy.

Cole Slaw

Dec 2, 2008, 02:23 PM

When you think about it, would it have killed Apple to also have say a DVI connector on their new 24" monitor?
Lots of monitors out there with both DVI and VGA, for example.
I mean, have the mini DisplayPort for the new MB, MBA and MBPs, and the rest of us with other Macs ( not to mention a possible broader PC market) could use the DVI, if we chose to get that display.
Can't really see why you would make a monitor that can only works with 3 laptops ( and only the newest models of those, to boot).
I wonder if the updated 20 and 30 inch displays will also be mini DisplayPort when they come out. I would guess that might mean the next MacPro would be using the new proprietary format, which would really limit video card choices.

drsmithy

Dec 2, 2008, 02:51 PM

You're missing my point. The mainboard of the MacBook (and MacBook Pros) are *incredibly* densely packed with chips and traces. Just because the side of the case allows for shifting a component slightly doesn't mean that it can be done without *drastically* impacting the board it's attached to. Shifting 1 component means shifting several traces, which, in turn, require shifting dozens of other traces and chips.

No, I'm not missing the point at all. I've seen more than enough laptop internals, and design documents, to know that components are tightly packed.

The point I'm trying to make, which is being studiously ignored time and time again, is that other laptop manufacturers have managed to fit ports as big as, if not bigger than, Displayport into their laptops that are the same size as, if not smaller than, any of Apples along with at least as many other ports, if not more.

Clearly, the form factor of the MacBook (or MacBook Air) itself, is no justification for either a) not using DP, or b) inventing a proprietry Mini-DP to use in it's stead.

Or, to put it even more bluntly, there isn't a technical reason for Mini-DP to exist. Which means it's yet another example of NIH.

Unless of course you're suggesting moving the headphone socket, without moving it's connection on the mainboard. :rolleyes:

No. I am merely suggesting that Apple is not god, not everything they design is perfect, and maybe they could do a better job of serving their customers rather than making them buy new hardware for no good reason.

drsmithy

Dec 2, 2008, 02:53 PM

Ok. Show us where you propose the screw hole can be moved. Don't forget to properly layout the board, including moving all of the impacted chips and traces such that you don't run into any signal problems due to traces of too different a length, or cross-talk between traces.

Go ahead. You said it's easy.

No problems. Just get me a copy of the design schematics and a suitable fabricating facility.

haunebu

Dec 2, 2008, 02:58 PM

Now, now. Since the two ports are electrically compatible, they can buy an in-line cord that goes from one to the other instead. ;)

A $30 cord. From Apple. That's the point, and the problem.

AidenShaw

Dec 2, 2008, 03:02 PM

When you think about it, would it have killed Apple to also have a say a DVI connector on their new 24" monitor?
Lots of monitors out there with both DVI and VGA, for example.

Or even more connectors, like the Dell 3008:

CONNECTIVITY
High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI)
Digital Visual Interface - Digital (DVI-D) with High Definition Content Protection (HDCP)
DisplayPort
Video Graphics Array (VGA)
Component Video
Separate Video (S-Video)
Composite Video

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=223-4890

Maybe it will make sense after MWSF'09 when the rest of the monitors get updated.

It certainly doesn't make sense today.

3247

Dec 2, 2008, 04:55 PM

Judging by this (http://images.apple.com/macbookair/images/features_open_air20081014.png)picture, it could fit into a MBA with very, very minor adjustments (and certainly none that would make the machine thicker overall).If you do this, you would not be able to use neighbouring ports at the same time.

Due to overmold, the plugs are a bit larger than the hole in the side of the MacBook (Pro), so they need the space between the ports. That's especially true for audio jack plugs, which can be quite bulky.

That "advantage" being bugger all, given that basically no laptops are stretched for space in that direction, since it's essentially dictated by the size of the screen. Heck, even the Eee PC has room for a VGA port (probably twice the size of DP), and in the horizontal dimensions it makes even Apple's smallest laptop look like a hulking beast.Apple's notebooks have much less space for ports than other vendors' notebooks. Other vendors usually put ports at three sides, Apple has designed the display hinge in a way that does not allow to use the back for ports - and now, the unibody models even remove the ability to use both left and right hand sides.

The difference is you won't need an adapter to connect two pieces of Displayport-bearing technology unless one of them is from Apple.You'll still need a cable. It does not matter whether the cable has DP on both ends or MDP on one and DP on the other.

It's even possible that the industry settles on MDP for sources and standard DP for sinks. That would even have the added benefit that one can easily determine whether an adapter for leagacy signals (VGA, DVI, HDMI) is an adapter for a source (e.g. (M)DP->HDMI) or for a sink (HDMI->DP). Source-adapters would have MDP connectors whereas sink-adapters would have DP connectors.

The MDP obviously has the capability of putting out both analog and digital signals, since they can produce an adapter for each. I've seen the adapters, there are no logic chips in them. DVI-I is nothing more than the combination of both analog and digital signal on one cable. DVI-I can support both, MDP can support both, there must be a trivial way to convert from MDP to DVI-I.Actually, that would be quite difficult (if not impossible). DVI-I has different wires for analogue and digital signals. DisplayPort does not.

An DP->DVI-I adapter would have to detect the type of signal and switch the connections accordingly. That would probably get so complex and expensive that it's much easier to make a set of two adapters. Futher, carrying a DP->DVI-I adapter and a DVI-I->VGA adapter has no benefit over carrying a DP->DVI-D adapter and a DP->VGA adapter.

mdriftmeyer

Dec 2, 2008, 08:52 PM

Waltzing straight passed my comment and ignoring it to fuel your own narrow mindedness. Everywhere I go with my laptop, I know there will be a DVI cable for me to use, the same cannot be said of some ridiculous Mini DisplayPort to DVI cable. The DVI port is a standard... DisplayPort is slowly becoming one since its set to replace VGA, but Mini DisplayPort is nothing more than a home brew effort by Apple. Whichever way you cut it, they wanted to create a proprietary connector which they have full control over, and they might be allowing manufacturers to license it for free for now, but there is no telling what Apple will chose to do in the future.

You can argue till the cows come home, but the point remains that they could have used the existing DisplayPort connector on the new MacBooks, but as Apple does, shafted the consumer and made its own without consulting anyone.

I have to stick to standards every day... the Mini DisplayPort is not a standard, and certainly wont be for some time, unlike its grown up brother DisplayPort and most certainly unlike DVI. I for one hope no one adopts it other than Apple and it dies an early death.

DVI became an accepted standard because it gained the mindshare of the OEM manufacturers and through agreed upon licensing was placed on all video card vendors and LCD displays. If those didn't happen it wouldn't be the standard anymore than any other video out port interface.

In fact, the Digital Visual Interface Working Group consists of:

The Digital Display Working Group (DDWG) was organized by Intel Corporation, Silicon Image, Inc., Compaq Computer Corp., Fujitsu Limited, Hewlett-Packard Company, International Business Machines Corp., and NEC Corporation.

I would wager that if it weren't for then Compaq, IBM and HP with Intel this never would have become a reality. As one may note, nVidia and ATi aren't even in the group and they are the vendors providing the GPUs.

It's amazing how strong-arming becomes a standard.

Apple providing a Royalty Free Interface will only accelerate it to becoming a standard.

tuc

Dec 2, 2008, 08:58 PM

Really? Apple want £70 for the DL-DVI adaptor at the moment. IF, and I do mean IF (because I don't believe it's going to happen) Belkin or whoever start making them now the specs are 'free' - it'll be a damn sight cheaper than the utter rip-off of £70. More like £20 or £30 - the other adaptors will be more like £10.

Why would people continue to buy the rip-off Apple flavour if cheaper parts were made available that did EXACTLY the same thing.

I don't think you'll see any DisplayPort (or mini-DP) to dual-link-DVI adapters for as little as £20. The electronics are nontrivial and there won't be enough volume (because cheaper single-link-DVI adapters are good enough for most folks).

BenRoethig

Dec 2, 2008, 10:43 PM

Or even more connectors, like the Dell 3008:

CONNECTIVITY
High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI)
Digital Visual Interface - Digital (DVI-D) with High Definition Content Protection (HDCP)
DisplayPort
Video Graphics Array (VGA)
Component Video
Separate Video (S-Video)
Composite Video

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=223-4890

Maybe it will make sense after MWSF'09 when the rest of the monitors get updated.

It certainly doesn't make sense today.

It does make sense if you look at it one of two ways.

1) this is special model designed as more or less a laptop dock.

2) Apple is trying to lock users in to their displays. This would explain the lack of standard displayport and HDMI adapters.

matticus008

Dec 2, 2008, 10:45 PM

Referred. Nothing there that can't be changed.
Because you've demonstrated such a clear grasp of PCB design and have determined that other design tradeoffs could have been made, without any factual basis for doing so or anything resembling a recognition of other consequences. You propose a change, are presented with its impossibility in the remaining design, and then simply dismiss the new problems as "they can redesign the whole thing to fix those problems, and then the problems created by fixing the first set of fixes, ad nauseum". There's a reason things go through multiple design revisions before the prototype stage.
Which Apple could do just as easily. Hell, they could fit them all in along two sides if they really wanted to.
There was a purposeful move to place all ports on one side, in part to facilitate cable management, which you also complain about. You can't have it both ways.
No, they wouldn't, because my approach is neither arbitrary, nor inconsistent.
Oh really? A 3" expanse of plastic on a cell phone or digital camera is "too small" for a regular USB connector, but 8mm on a mainboard is "plenty of room". Right.
The Docking port on my iPod Nano is 4mm across. The MiniDP connector is (according to Apple) 5.4mm across.
Once again. Apple can redesign their entire mainboard to accommodate a larger port, but shockingly the laws of drsmithy physics prevent applying that same logic to an iPod.
None of which will fit a mini-DP either
Both of which would fit a mini DP connector, and you forget the MacBook Air as well, not to mention future products.
Sorry, I can't help it if you can't read.
Ironically enough, the sentence in question you couldn't parse was my own. If you were trying for a jab, the correct line would have been "...can't write."
No, I said SCSI and Firewire were never "consumer breakthroughs". Stop changing your arguments.
Nothing changed. I never said SCSI and Firewire were consumer breakthroughs, and the entire t
Tossing out the odd bone every now and then, in no way refutes my statement about Apple being a poster child for NIH syndrome.
Just as tossing out the odd example utterly fails to prove it. Failing to meet your burden, the argument fails.
The point I'm trying to make, which is being studiously ignored time and time again, is that other laptop manufacturers have managed to fit ports as big as, if not bigger than, Displayport into their laptops that are the same size as, if not smaller than, any of Apples along with at least as many other ports, if not more.
It's not being ignored. What you're failing to recognize in making that argument is that every design change comes with a tradeoff. Everything is placed and designed for a reason. If Apple wants to save space or use a particular arrangement in order to create room elsewhere, it's an absurd argument to say that someone else, designing some other product, with some other set of design priorities, could find the room. Of course they could, but it would have other consequences for the design.
They didn't develop them, but they were responsible for popularizing Firewire and USB.
Shh. They never adopt, design, or assist in any way technologies they didn't invent. How dare you!
Everywhere I go with my laptop, I know there will be a DVI cable for me to use
Why?
the same cannot be said of some ridiculous Mini DisplayPort to DVI cable.
Why?
I have to stick to standards every day... the Mini DisplayPort is not a standard, and certainly wont be for some time, unlike its grown up brother DisplayPort and most certainly unlike DVI.
Oh, you mean DVI, with its four different standards-compliant connectors?
I for one hope no one adopts it other than Apple and it dies an early death.
Why? What if it were to replace the normal connector, allowing high-bandwidth video on a wider range of devices? What if it were integrated into the standard as a B connector? DisplayPort is hardly an established technology.

You all seem to be bitching about nothing. There is no peripheral standard that doesn't have more than one connector type. From serial ports to VGA, and including DVI, HDMI, USB, and Firewire, all of these involved multiple connectors proposed by some subset of the party and later adopted by the standards body. What is the harm? Or are people just looking for something to whine about this week?

tuc

Dec 2, 2008, 11:24 PM

If you think about all the Apple port modifications, has there ever been a port that became popular and is/was used by the rest of the industry?

The DB-25 SCSI connector (introduced with the MacPlus in January, 1986)
caught on fairly well. For example, Adaptec and other manufacturers used
it on their cards for PCs.

I would say that Apple has been hit-or-miss with its connectors. Some
have been decent, for example the DA-15 monitor port. Apple pretty
much had to invent this because there was no decent standard to adopt,
and having the three sense pins to determine monitor type was clever.
Eventually the PC world created DDC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_Data_Channel) to handle this, and eventually Apple
supported DDC.

Some have been pretty bad, including the aforementioned ADC, which
fortunately I was wise enough to avoid at the time. The HDI-45 "AudioVision"
connector was also pretty bad.

Others I place in the middle, such as the 14-pin flat video connector
used by the early powerbooks.

I'm talking about these strange modifications that they did on SCSI, PlainTalk mic port, [...]

SCSI: Not sure what you're talking about. Using the DB-25 connector
was Apple's idea, but this was very very early. (Connectors aside, the
MacPlus's SCSI implementation wasn't even completely compliant
because it was so early.)

PlainTalk microphone port: This was actually very clever on Apple's part.
For some reason they wanted to use an external microphone that required
power, so they make an extra-deep socket that provides power at the
bottom. If you insert a standard-length plug it works just fine--absolutely
backward compatible. If you insert the special Apple-only extra-long plug
it gets the power it needs. I don't see how anyone can complain unless
you're trying to use one of these Apple microphones with the extra-long
plug on a PC or older mac, and even then I'm not sure it makes sense to
complain it doesn't fit because even if it did, it would be unpowered and
therefore useless. (Apple did essentially the same trick with the "GeoPort"
serial ports, btw.)

tuc

Dec 2, 2008, 11:41 PM

When you think about it, would it have killed Apple to also have say a DVI connector on their new 24" monitor?

This is what every other manufacturer of DisplayPort-capable displays
has done, but I actually see the method in Apple's madness here. For
one, DisplayPort signals are "closer to the hardware" than DVI/HDMI
or VGA signals. (We're talking flat panels here, not CRTs.) Not having
to decode DVI/HDMI or VGA means a cheaper, thinner, more power-
efficient piece of hardware--at least in theory. There's a reason that
pretty much all internal cabling (think laptops and iMacs) is migrating
over to DisplayPort.

The Apple madness I do not understand is discontinuing the DVI-based
23" Cinema Display before they have transitioned the MacPros, MacMinis,
and iMacs over to (mini-)DisplayPort. I just don't understand it unless it's
due to something like parts shortages.

tuc

Dec 3, 2008, 12:03 AM

The MDP obviously has the capability of putting out both analog and digital signals, since they can produce an adapter for each. I've seen the adapters, there are no logic chips in them.

I'm right with you. In fact, about a year ago I blogged (http://bitguru.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/mini-dvi-to-dvi-adapters-and-anagolg-signals/) on this exact
same topic except in a mini-DVI context, not mini-DisplayPort. In
particular, note the link back to this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=362518) here on MacRumors forums.

In the mini-DisplayPort realm, there is the added complication that the
port only has 20 pins. That's not enough to carry both a DVI/HDMI-style
digital signal and a VGA-style analog signal. Even though the adapters
apparently have no logic chips in them, it nevertheless appears that the
macbook can tell which adapter is being used. It's puzzling.

ccuk

Dec 3, 2008, 07:14 AM

Because you've demonstrated such a clear grasp of PCB design and have determined that other design tradeoffs could have been made, without any factual basis for doing so or anything resembling a recognition of other consequences. You propose a change, are presented with its impossibility in the remaining design, and then simply dismiss the new problems as "they can redesign the whole thing to fix those problems, and then the problems created by fixing the first set of fixes, ad nauseum". There's a reason things go through multiple design revisions before the prototype stage.

There was a purposeful move to place all ports on one side, in part to facilitate cable management, which you also complain about. You can't have it both ways.

Oh really? A 3" expanse of plastic on a cell phone or digital camera is "too small" for a regular USB connector, but 8mm on a mainboard is "plenty of room". Right.

Once again. Apple can redesign their entire mainboard to accommodate a larger port, but shockingly the laws of drsmithy physics prevent applying that same logic to an iPod.

Both of which would fit a mini DP connector, and you forget the MacBook Air as well, not to mention future products.

Ironically enough, the sentence in question you couldn't parse was my own. If you were trying for a jab, the correct line would have been "...can't write."

Nothing changed. I never said SCSI and Firewire were consumer breakthroughs, and the entire t

Just as tossing out the odd example utterly fails to prove it. Failing to meet your burden, the argument fails.

It's not being ignored. What you're failing to recognize in making that argument is that every design change comes with a tradeoff. Everything is placed and designed for a reason. If Apple wants to save space or use a particular arrangement in order to create room elsewhere, it's an absurd argument to say that someone else, designing some other product, with some other set of design priorities, could find the room. Of course they could, but it would have other consequences for the design.

Shh. They never adopt, design, or assist in any way technologies they didn't invent. How dare you!

Why?

Why?

Oh, you mean DVI, with its four different standards-compliant connectors?

Why? What if it were to replace the normal connector, allowing high-bandwidth video on a wider range of devices? What if it were integrated into the standard as a B connector? DisplayPort is hardly an established technology.

You all seem to be bitching about nothing. There is no peripheral standard that doesn't have more than one connector type. From serial ports to VGA, and including DVI, HDMI, USB, and Firewire, all of these involved multiple connectors proposed by some subset of the party and later adopted by the standards body. What is the harm? Or are people just looking for something to whine about this week?

DisplayPort is more established than Mini DisplayPort. My point is that on a pro line series of laptops which are generally going to be used by industry professionals, one would expect the laptop to conform and allow connection to said industry standard connections without the need for a plethora of adapters. As far as I am concerned being able to connect my laptop to another device with ease is more important than the laptop being so thin non standard connectors have to be made for it. The old macbook pro was fine at the size it was, and it is through this incessant need of Apple to make computers so thin, we have landed at the page where the Mini DisplayPort was created. I don't mind it being there, but not at the cost of losing essential widely accepted connectivity in the guise of FW400 and DVI. It would have been better to transition across... not dump.

My wish for the connector to die, is more out of principal than anything else. If Apple had worked with other manufacturers to create it and keep it as an open standard rather than go off on their own and hold a license for it... I wouldn't have minded quite so much.

drsmithy

Dec 3, 2008, 07:28 AM

Because you've demonstrated such a clear grasp of PCB design and have determined that other design tradeoffs could have been made, without any factual basis for doing so or anything resembling a recognition of other consequences.

Much like you've demonstrated such a clear grasp of PCB design with an argument amounting to nothing more than 'Apple did it this way, therefore that must have been the only way' ?

You propose a change, are presented with its impossibility in the remaining design, and then simply dismiss the new problems as "they can redesign the whole thing to fix those problems, and then the problems created by fixing the first set of fixes, ad nauseum".

Actually, no-one has "presented the impossibility" of anything. They've speculated, as I have done.

The difference is most of the people disagreeing have an argument that amounts to little more than 'because Apple did it this way', occasionally with a bit of 'you couldn't fit DP into a laptop that small', whereas I have highlighted the relative size of DP does not exclude it from being included, and provided examples of other laptops as small, if not smaller, than Apple's which also use DP (or some larger equivalent).

There was a purposeful move to place all ports on one side, in part to facilitate cable management, which you also complain about. You can't have it both ways.

If Apple were genuinely interested in "cable management" (rather than the passive-aggressive attitude they have now), they'd address it the professional and elegant way, with a docking station, like everyone else does.

I obviously, and most certainly can, "have it both ways", because other manufacturers have demonstrated that it is possible to put DP (or larger equivalents) into similarly sized, or smaller, laptops.

Oh really? A 3" expanse of plastic on a cell phone or digital camera is "too small" for a regular USB connector, but 8mm on a mainboard is "plenty of room". Right.

I don't know what kind of ancient and huge mobile phones and digicams you're using, but none of the 3 or 4 I own have anything close to 3 inches of empty plastic on them (not even the DSLR), to say nothing of what's behind that plastic.

Once again. Apple can redesign their entire mainboard to accommodate a larger port, but shockingly the laws of drsmithy physics prevent applying that same logic to an iPod.

It is primarily the external dimensions that limit the iPods. Although the much higher premium on internal space in an iPod is probably equally as important.

If Apple are going to integrate DP-esque functionality into an iPod, the logical way to do it would be via a new iPod Dock - which could easily be made to have enough room for a proper DP port (the existing ones already do, and they're basically just empty space, so it would be an easy fit).

Of course, why they would use DP for this when most people wanting video are going to be hooking their iPods up to a TV and/or stereo, is an exercise left to the reader. It seems HDMI would be the much more sensible choice for that scenario.

Both of which would fit a mini DP connector, and you forget the MacBook Air as well, not to mention future products.

The MBA fits a USB port, and would therefore fit a DP port (since the limiting factor in the MBA is "thinness", and USB and DP are essentially the same height). The only adjustment that might be necessary is to slightly enlarge the silly little flip-down door, but without access to dimensioned engineering documents, it's impossible to tell.

The iPods (except maybe the iPod Classic), will not fit a Mini-DP port, it is too tall. Neither will the iPhone Touch, for the same reason - and that's not even considering the internal space requirements for both the mounting and the supporting circuitry.

I'm not quite sure what "future products" you're envisaging, either. Apple's industrial design is obsessed with "thinness", not overall size, and a Mini-DP port is no shorter than a regular DP port, just narrower.

Nothing changed. I never said SCSI and Firewire were consumer breakthroughs, and the entire t

Yes, you did.

Quite the opposite, in fact. Some of the biggest standards got their first major consumer breakthroughs with Apple.
Like what ?
SCSI. USB. Abandoning legacy ports. Firewire. Wireless networking. DVD writers. To name a few.

Just as tossing out the odd example utterly fails to prove it. Failing to meet your burden, the argument fails.

Actually, at best the argument is stalemated. Fortunately, since a) I never said Apple refused to use standards at all (therefore making your examples of standards usage irrelevant) and b) other people have "tossed out the odd example" as well, I'm pretty sure my point is carrying the weight.

NIH-syndrome is using non-standard, or uncommon, solutions when standard ones will do just as well, not a refusal to use standard solutions at all. ADC is another prime example of Apple's NIH-syndrome, as are the mini-VGA and mini-DVI connectors found on numerous other Apple laptops (are we seeing a pattern here ?).

It's not being ignored. What you're failing to recognize in making that argument is that every design change comes with a tradeoff. Everything is placed and designed for a reason. If Apple wants to save space or use a particular arrangement in order to create room elsewhere, it's an absurd argument to say that someone else, designing some other product, with some other set of design priorities, could find the room. Of course they could, but it would have other consequences for the design.

Actually, I recognise it quite well, because I have a fair amount of engineering experience. The issue you seem to have trouble grasping, is that these "tradeoffs" have not been made for any technical reason, but for marketing, lock-in and egotistical ones. It is a hallmark of the underlying attitude at Apple, which is basically that they have little to no interest in interoperation with anyone else except when it is absolutely necessary. Hence, they only make the bare minimum effort to make their hardware (and software) interoperable with other vendor's products. Mostly, they do this passively, but occasionally they do it aggressively. Mini-DP is an example of the latter.

ATimson

Dec 3, 2008, 08:32 AM

In the mini-DisplayPort realm, there is the added complication that the
port only has 20 pins. That's not enough to carry both a DVI/HDMI-style
digital signal and a VGA-style analog signal. Even though the adapters
apparently have no logic chips in them, it nevertheless appears that the
macbook can tell which adapter is being used. It's puzzling.
Since VGA only has 15 pins, I assume that the source (aka the laptop) is detecting that five of the mDP pins aren't connected in the same manner as to a DVI port. (Whether they go to nothing, to ground, or to loopback, I couldn't say--I'm a software engineer, not an electrical engineer, I just plug the damn things in and they work. ;))

ATimson

Dec 3, 2008, 08:37 AM

NIH-syndrome is using non-standard, or uncommon, solutions when standard ones will do just as well, not a refusal to use standard solutions at all. ADC is another prime example of Apple's NIH-syndrome, as are the mini-VGA and mini-DVI connectors found on numerous other Apple laptops (are we seeing a pattern here ?).
Mini-VGA/mini-DVI, as well as the Apple Display Connector, both addressed needs that the normal display connectors didn't; the former used a port size more appropriate for a laptop than a full-size VGA or DVI port, while the latter integrated video, power, and USB into one cable.

Are there any other examples of miniaturized video ports that Apple could have used? Or one-cable solutions for monitor connectivity?

You may not like Apple's design goals, but--at least pre-mini-DisplayPort--they weren't exactly swimming in alternate ways to implement them.

matticus008

Dec 3, 2008, 10:16 AM

Much like you've demonstrated such a clear grasp of PCB design with an argument amounting to nothing more than 'Apple did it this way, therefore that must have been the only way' ?
This is absurd. I never foreclosed the possibility that it could have been done dozens of other ways. I've been pressing you to identify why this way is a problem, or how you would address all the problems and design changes that come from your "simple" solution. The armchair speculation that they "could" have used a different design without consequences is unconvincing. I'll trust the professional PCB designers and the multiple design and prototype stages to have produced the best product given available resources, unless you can put your money where your mouth is and produce a working design.
occasionally with a bit of 'you couldn't fit DP into a laptop that small'
You must be reading a different thread. I haven't seen anyone make that argument. I've seen people suggest that the MacBook mainboard, as it exists, does not have enough room for a full size DP connector. That is true. It was designed that way for a reason, and the mini connector allowed for other advantages elsewhere in the design.
I obviously, and most certainly can, "have it both ways", because other manufacturers have demonstrated that it is possible to put DP (or larger equivalents) into similarly sized, or smaller, laptops.
And once again, fitting a full size USB connector on a digital camera, you say, is impossible.
I don't know what kind of ancient and huge mobile phones and digicams you're using
The bottom edge of just about every phone is pretty close to 3". Coincidentally, most digital cameras are at least 3" tall. I'm not understanding why you don't question the design choices of what's behind these devices, but suddenly when it comes to a MacBook, it's time to start making sweeping accusations.
Of course, why they would use DP for this when most people wanting video are going to be hooking their iPods up to a TV and/or stereo, is an exercise left to the reader. It seems HDMI would be the much more sensible choice for that scenario.
Because DisplayPort is HDMI's primary competitor and its intended replacement by a large segment of the industry...that's the whole point. To unify home theater and consumer electronics display interfaces with a single communication standard.
Yes, you did.
No, I did not. For the nth time, a product having a consumer breakthrough does not make the product itself a consumer breakthrough. For example, hardware RAID's big consumer breakthrough was when Abit and a few other manufacturers started including it in their consumer mainboards. RAID to this day is not itself a consumer breakthrough.
Actually, at best the argument is stalemated.
You know, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative. It's your job to demonstrate that Apple invents its own connectors for no apparent reason, rather than being motivated by a particular purpose and then having the industry move in a different direction. You can't really do that, because there are only isolated examples of completely arbitrary connectors, which can be matched by isolated (and in some cases, habitual) actions at other manufacturers as well. ADC is a perfect example. A single-cable connector providing power, signal, and USB to a monitor is a great idea. Just look at HDMI.

Any manufacturer of a new connector has no way of knowing in advance whether it will be successful or not, or whether the industry will take it or not. Just look at HD-DVD. Was Toshiba stupid and evil to try?
The issue you seem to have trouble grasping, is that these "tradeoffs" have not been made for any technical reason, but for marketing, lock-in and egotistical ones.
Says you, with nothing resembling evidentiary support, when the technical reason is staring you down: there's no room as designed in some of their products, and they want to use the same connector for all applications. Given that, the choice is obvious: use the small one. There is no lock in to speak of, since anyone can make the connector. I don't see a marketing advantage or disadvantage to a display connector, and I don't think anyone is investing any egoistic capital on a port, except for those of you convinced that the fairly normal workings of the industry are some sort of satanic uprising.
As far as I am concerned being able to connect my laptop to another device with ease is more important than the laptop being so thin non standard connectors have to be made for it.
It's not thickness of laptops motivating this. Since the machines have to be at least thick enough to accommodate a USB port, vertical constraint is a non-issue. I am also failing to see any particular complexity to a mini DP port. You can presumably handle two different USB port sizes. How is this different?
My wish for the connector to die, is more out of principal than anything else. If Apple had worked with other manufacturers to create it and keep it as an open standard rather than go off on their own and hold a license for it... I wouldn't have minded quite so much.
You're hoping to kill it exactly while that is happening. DVI and USB are licensed, too, so I think you misunderstand the mechanics of the industry.

ccuk

Dec 3, 2008, 12:58 PM

It's not thickness of laptops motivating this. Since the machines have to be at least thick enough to accommodate a USB port, vertical constraint is a non-issue. I am also failing to see any particular complexity to a mini DP port. You can presumably handle two different USB port sizes. How is this different?

You're hoping to kill it exactly while that is happening. DVI and USB are licensed, too, so I think you misunderstand the mechanics of the industry.

It's different because you just fail to grasp that some people need an easily and readily available external display connector on their laptops. Mini DisplayPort isn't a standard yet... so there should be an external display connector on the laptop which supports todays standards to transition over. Is that really such a hard concept to grasp? Please don't attempt to condescend to me with your flippant USB remark. USB is a standard... and the laptops haven't magically sprouted B type ports have they? No, they are using the A type which means I can plug any USB connected item straight into my MacBook Pro with no fuss. The same can be said of most monitors... That is unless of course you have a new MBP or Macbook... Then you need an adapter, and the chances of coming across one of those in the places I work... are next to zero.

You are coming up with opinions about the benefits of the connector, which may been seen in the future I might add. I am telling you why it is impractical right now, for me and most likely many others. Apple should and could have utilized both the standard DisplayPort and DVI on the MacBook Pro. They chose not to... That is just pure NIH syndrome.

drsmithy

Dec 3, 2008, 01:26 PM

Mini-VGA/mini-DVI, as well as the Apple Display Connector, both addressed needs that the normal display connectors didn't; the former used a port size more appropriate for a laptop than a full-size VGA or DVI port, while the latter integrated video, power, and USB into one cable.

Except full-size VGA and DVI ports would have fitted on those machines perfectly fine, just like they fit on hundreds of other laptops (both the same size, and smaller) fine.

Are there any other examples of miniaturized video ports that Apple could have used? Or one-cable solutions for monitor connectivity?

This is called begging the question.

matticus008

Dec 3, 2008, 01:30 PM

It's different because you just fail to grasp that some people need an easily and readily available external display connector on their laptops.
Well DisplayPort of any kind fails to satisfy "easily and readily available" at the moment. There are just a handful of monitors on the market, and few to none in any office.
No, they are using the A type which means I can plug any USB connected item straight into my MacBook Pro with no fuss.
If you have both an A-A and an A-B cable, sure.
Then you need an adapter, and the chances of coming across one of those in the places I work... are next to zero.
Right up there with the chances of coming across a DisplayPort monitor.
Apple should and could have utilized both the standard DisplayPort and DVI on the MacBook Pro. They chose not to... That is just pure NIH syndrome.
Oh give it up already. Apple uses DVI, and they're not boycotting the regular connector because they didn't invent it. Do you have some need to feel victimized by Apple? They're proposing something that better fits their needs and desires for a nascent standard that most people haven't even heard of yet. Furthermore, with or without adapters, Apple moving its line to DisplayPort is likely the biggest install base for the flippin' thing in the first place. If they had developed some sort of psychosis for their failure to invent DP, they wouldn't have adopted it at all.

If you want to complain about something, how about creating another ridiculous display standard in the first place?

ATimson

Dec 3, 2008, 01:58 PM

Except full-size VGA and DVI ports would have fitted on those machines perfectly fine, just like they fit on hundreds of other laptops (both the same size, and smaller) fine.
Maybe on a MacBook it could have fit on the right-hand side, towards the user. I just hope you never need to use your CD drive while it's hooked up to a monitor.

This is called begging the question.
Not in the slightest. Showing that there aren't pre-existing ports that fit their designs does not require assuming that there are no such ports.

butterfly0fdoom

Dec 3, 2008, 02:07 PM

Except full-size VGA and DVI ports would have fitted on those machines perfectly fine, just like they fit on hundreds of other laptops (both the same size, and smaller) fine.

No, actually, they wouldn't have. Because of the way Apple places the internal parts and designs the display hinge, the only room for ports is the part of the left side of the computer that the hard drive doesn't occupy. Apple placed the battery and the hard drive along the front of the computer, the optical drive along the right edge, taking up nearly that entire side. The display hinge design prohibits any ports in the back.

Why do other manufacturers have more space for ports? They place the battery right under the display hinge and the hard drive in the center area of the computer, designing the motherboard to wrap around those internals and the optical drive. But none of those computers are very sturdy. But the way Apple designs their computers from an aesthetic standpoint determines the interior layout. Apple places the vents behind the display hinge, other manufacturers have vents all over the place. Apple has the motherboard in one piece in one location, other manufacturers have the parts on the motherboard scattered around haphazardly.

Because of Apple's design considerations, there is no space for a full-size VGA, DVI, or DP port on the new MacBook and MacBook Pro. Yes, it's possible to have designed the MacBook in a way to facilitate those ports. But then the MacBooks would look like any other computer.

danny_w

Dec 3, 2008, 02:20 PM

No, actually, they wouldn't have. Because of the way Apple places the internal parts and designs the display hinge, the only room for ports is the part of the left side of the computer that the hard drive doesn't occupy. Apple placed the battery and the hard drive along the front of the computer, the optical drive along the right edge, taking up nearly that entire side. The display hinge design prohibits any ports in the back.

Why do other manufacturers have more space for ports? They place the battery right under the display hinge and the hard drive in the center area of the computer, designing the motherboard to wrap around those internals and the optical drive. But none of those computers are very sturdy. But the way Apple designs their computers from an aesthetic standpoint determines the interior layout. Apple places the vents behind the display hinge, other manufacturers have vents all over the place. Apple has the motherboard in one piece in one location, other manufacturers have the parts on the motherboard scattered around haphazardly.

Because of Apple's design considerations, there is no space for a full-size VGA, DVI, or DP port on the new MacBook and MacBook Pro. Yes, it's possible to have designed the MacBook in a way to facilitate those ports. But then the MacBooks would look like any other computer.
You have just described an excellent example of form over function. Bravo! (I know that is not what you meant, but it is what you accomplished).

ATimson

Dec 3, 2008, 02:54 PM

You have just described an excellent example of form over function.
Well, yes and no. Apple's form also includes improved structural stability; whether or not that's a function is in the eye of the beholder. ;)

butterfly0fdoom

Dec 3, 2008, 05:08 PM

You have just described an excellent example of form over function. Bravo! (I know that is not what you meant, but it is what you accomplished).

It's not what I meant, but I know that I did describe that. That's one thing about Apple, though, form often takes precedence over function. But at the same time the form does have function in the MacBook's case. The main point of the unibody MacBook's design is structural rigidity and the reduction of separate panels and parts. If the MacBook used a design similar to that of typical laptops, either we would have a single bottom panel like the MBA requiring the removal of a couple of screws just to change the battery, or a battery with its own built-in casing panel with either multiple loose panels or a less solid panel that would still require a couple of screws to remove unless the battery spanned the entire width of the computer. Either way, we would see air vents in random parts of the computer like the iBook. And then we'd get complaints that the computers lack form. No matter what, people will complain. But by using mDP, there's form that adheres to Apple's design language with function, albeit function that requires workarounds.

tonyl

Dec 3, 2008, 05:19 PM

Those adaptor will be expensive, like the old ADC to DVI.

drsmithy

Dec 4, 2008, 06:27 AM

Not in the slightest. Showing that there aren't pre-existing ports that fit their designs does not require assuming that there are no such ports.

The assumption is that there was any compelling need for "mini" ports in the first place.

drsmithy

Dec 4, 2008, 07:35 AM

This is absurd. I never foreclosed the possibility that it could have been done dozens of other ways. I've been pressing you to identify why this way is a problem, or how you would address all the problems and design changes that come from your "simple" solution.

Well, I'm not sure how else to interpret your implicit insistence that it was the only way Apple could have designed it.

I have already explained my concerns. It's a non-standard port, it will remain a non-standard (or, at best, very uncommon) port, it adds no value while causing difficulties to end users, and there is no reason to believe there would have been any meaningful design changes or problems to implement the standard DP port.

The armchair speculation that they "could" have used a different design without consequences is unconvincing.

Not nearly as unconvincing as the armchair speculation that it's the only solution that could have been engineered, given the plethora of alternative implementations and Apple's penchant for this sort of thing.

I'll trust the professional PCB designers and the multiple design and prototype stages to have produced the best product given available resources, unless you can put your money where your mouth is and produce a working design.

I'm sure they did, I'm just quite confident that one of those constraints was not "use regular DP", when it should have been. Apple are also, after all, a poster child for 'form over function'.

You must be reading a different thread. I haven't seen anyone make that argument. I've seen people suggest that the MacBook mainboard, as it exists, does not have enough room for a full size DP connector. That is true. It was designed that way for a reason, and the mini connector allowed for other advantages elsewhere in the design.

What advantages ? The MB offers no additional hardware features to make up for it, and lacks some that are standard on physically similar machines.

And once again, fitting a full size USB connector on a digital camera, you say, is impossible.

Almost certainly. The space premium is far, far higher.

The bottom edge of just about every phone is pretty close to 3".

What ? Even the iPhone, which is relatively large width-wise, is less than 2.5 inches across. Further, just a casual glance at the pictures - without even bothering to check dimensions - of the average mobile phone make it obvious there's no room for even a full-size USB A port (let alone a USB B port, which is what it would need to be), without even starting to consider the internal space requirements.

Coincidentally, most digital cameras are at least 3" tall.

No, they're not. Even something like a Canon Powershot Gx-series device - which is huge by non-DSLR digicam standards - is less than 3 inches tall.

It's pretty obvious that you have a poor sense of visual scale.

I'm not understanding why you don't question the design choices of what's behind these devices, but suddenly when it comes to a MacBook, it's time to start making sweeping accusations.

Firstly, because the size ratio of a full-size USB port to the average phone or mobile is substantially greater than the ratio of a DP port to the average (or even [much] smaller than average) laptop. Hence, the former is obviously going to be harder to squeeze in. Your assumption that putting a full-size USB port into a phone or camera is the same thing as putting a full-size DP port into a laptop is simply wrong, and will remain so no matter how many times you repeat it.

Secondly, and more significantly, because the vast majority (probably all) of cameras and phones on the market don't have full-size USB-B ports, whereas the vast majority of laptops on the market do have full-size DP, DVI and/or VGA ports on them. When things divert from the norm - especially with a negative result - questions should be asked as to why.

Because DisplayPort is HDMI's primary competitor and its intended replacement by a large segment of the industry...that's the whole point. To unify home theater and consumer electronics display interfaces with a single communication standard.

DP isn't going to replace HDMI any time soon (by which I mean at least a decade), and I sincerely doubt even a tiny segment of "the industry" (let alone a "large" one) has any illusions that it will.

Arguably, they're not even "competitors" in any meaningful sense. DP is mainly targeted at replacing DVI (and will find little application outside of that), whereas HDMI is targeted at replacing Component+SPDIF and imposing DRM (and has had little success outside of that). Certainly, there will likely be some crossover (HDMI on media-centre-oriented computers, a DP input on TVs to allow easier connectivity to computers), but ultimately there's not a lot of direct competition.

No, I did not. For the nth time, a product having a consumer breakthrough does not make the product itself a consumer breakthrough.

Where n=1 ? Because you haven't explained to me yet what you meant by "consumer breakthrough", and reasonable interpretations on my part don't seem to be hitting home.

For example, hardware RAID's big consumer breakthrough was when Abit and a few other manufacturers started including it in their consumer mainboards. RAID to this day is not itself a consumer breakthrough.

OK, so apparently "consumer breakthrough" means appearing on consumer-level equipment. In which case, I refer you back to my original reply, which remains essentially unchanged.

You know, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative. It's your job to demonstrate that Apple invents its own connectors for no apparent reason, rather than being motivated by a particular purpose and then having the industry move in a different direction.

No, I just need examples of where Apple has invented its own connectors (or other solutions) where there was no real engineering-driven reason to do so, which I have done.

You can't really do that, because there are only isolated examples of completely arbitrary connectors, which can be matched by isolated (and in some cases, habitual) actions at other manufacturers as well. ADC is a perfect example. A single-cable connector providing power, signal, and USB to a monitor is a great idea. Just look at HDMI.

HDMI provides video and data, and a significant reason for its invention was the lack of any already existing standard for transmitting digital (and, particularly, DRM-encumbered) high-def video and audio data in the home theatre world.

Which is, to be blunt, a completely different situation to ADC - ultimately nothing more than a proprietary, overengineered cable snake primarily meant to "encourage" people buying Apple computers or screens, to also buy one of their screens or computers as well. Much like Mini-DP, in fact.

Any manufacturer of a new connector has no way of knowing in advance whether it will be successful or not, or whether the industry will take it or not. Just look at HD-DVD. Was Toshiba stupid and evil to try?

Talk about an apples to oranges comparison.

Your overall argument is wrong, firstly because it is based on the false assumption that there wasn't already some form of suitable connector and, therefore, that a strong engineering requirement existed for one to be created. Secondly, because it is based on the assumption that individual manufacturers designing and releasing their own port designs is in any way a common occurrence.

Says you, with nothing resembling evidentiary support, when the technical reason is staring you down: there's no room as designed in some of their products, and they want to use the same connector for all applications.

Actually I have a great deal of 'evidentiary support':

DP is not significant thicker than Mini-DP.
It is wider, but width is not a significant constraint in laptop designs.
Mini-DP is not a standard, has not been implemented by anyone except Apple and is unlikely to be implemented [on hardware devices] by anyone except Apple
Regular DP has already been implemented in several products on the market - laptops, converters, screens - and is supported by a range of manufacturers.

You, OTOH, haven't come up for a single line of non-circular reasoning for Mini-DP to exist.

Further, you still haven't identified any of these products you keep talking about. As I've already said (and which even a cursory glance at the photos and dimensions will confirm), all the iPods (with the possible exception of the iPod Classic) will not fit a Mini-DP port, and neither will the iPhone. Either due to a simple, brute-force factor of overall dimensions, the aesthetics (tapering on the edges), or the internal space that would be necessary.

In fact, HDMI would be a logical port to have directly on an iPod. Not only because of how it would likely be used, but also because it is noticably thinner.

That is, of course, unless Apple makes them thicker. Which is, to say the least, highly unlikely.

Given that, the choice is obvious: use the small one. There is no lock in to speak of, since anyone can make the connector.

The "lock-in" comes from there not being anyone else making devices that use the connector. "Product tying" is an alternative way of looking at it.

I don't see a marketing advantage or disadvantage to a display connector, [...]

The advantage is you sell more monitors, because the only way your customers can connect their shiny new computer to an external screen is to buy one of yours (and vice versa - someone who wants your screen is more likely to buy a new computer from you as well to connect to it).

(The disadvantage to a standard port should be fairly obvious.)

[...] and I don't think anyone is investing any egoistic capital on a port, except for those of you convinced that the fairly normal workings of the industry are some sort of satanic uprising.

The ego part is the 'we are Apple, we sell you what we think you need, why would you want to buy anyone else's equivalent, you ungrateful sod' attitude.

I'm not sure what "fairly normal workings of the industry" you're thinking of, either. New, non-standard ports are not "common" in the computer industry and neither are immediate cutovers of physical interfaces without transition periods (at least, outside of Apple),

[0] Which reminds me, using a Mini-DVI port on the iMac is a perfect example of the attitude I'm talking about. There is certainly no way a 'lack of space' argument applies. Heck, it would have been more justifiable to have ADC on the iMac rather than Mini-DVI.

bergmef

Dec 4, 2008, 07:43 AM

All I know is ... my neighbor has the new macbook and wants to hook it to the tv. She has HDMI S-video and composite video. How does she do it?

drsmithy

Dec 4, 2008, 08:03 AM

Apple placed the battery and the hard drive along the front of the computer, the optical drive along the right edge, taking up nearly that entire side. The display hinge design prohibits any ports in the back.

I'm aware of the current overall design of Apple's laptops. My point (which is apparently too subtle) is that's not the only way to build a laptop, nor do the typical somewhat-engineering-related arguments as to why (eg: "cable management") carry a great deal of weight.

Why do other manufacturers have more space for ports? They place the battery right under the display hinge and the hard drive in the center area of the computer, designing the motherboard to wrap around those internals and the optical drive. But none of those computers are very sturdy.

I don't think "sturdiness" is a decent reason. The plastic MB and the MBP creak and flex noticably. Heck, there's enough play in my wife's MBP that too much pressure over the DVD drive (or picking it up the wrong way, making the whole case flex) will result in nasty sounds if there's a DVD being used.

The new "unibody" machines are better, but non-standard ports on Apple's laptops go back a lot further than that. Further, the Latitude E4300 on my desk (along with the D400, D410 and D430 next to it) is extremely "sturdy", with basically zero flex at all. It's been a while since I held a Thinkpad, but I remember them being similarly strong.

But the way Apple designs their computers from an aesthetic standpoint determines the interior layout. Apple places the vents behind the display hinge, other manufacturers have vents all over the place. Apple has the motherboard in one piece in one location, other manufacturers have the parts on the motherboard scattered around haphazardly.

Just have to love the inherent bias in your words.

There are actually some concrete reasons (at least on some models) why Apple's vent location is poor - you can't run the machine with the lid closed.

Because of Apple's design considerations, there is no space for a full-size VGA, DVI, or DP port on the new MacBook and MacBook Pro. Yes, it's possible to have designed the MacBook in a way to facilitate those ports. But then the MacBooks would look like any other computer.

The aesthetics argument is weak. They already "look like any other computer" (with the exception of the MBA). It would not be hard for Apple to keep the overall MB and MBP "look" while putting ports on both sides (or possibly even the front :eek::rolleyes:). I also see that someone else has brought up the 'form over function' point.

ATimson

Dec 4, 2008, 08:38 AM

The assumption is that there was any compelling need for "mini" ports in the first place.
That's not begging the question, though.

matticus008

Dec 4, 2008, 08:44 AM

Well, I'm not sure how else to interpret your implicit insistence that it was the only way Apple could have designed it.
Which simply falls apart when you realize that I have explicitly stated no fewer than three times now that this is not the case. They certainly could have done it other ways, but with other consequences.
I have already explained my concerns. It's a non-standard port, it will remain a non-standard (or, at best, very uncommon) port, it adds no value while causing difficulties to end users
The same could be said about DisplayPort in general, apart from its VESA approval, which remains an open question as to the mini connector.
there is no reason to believe there would have been any meaningful design changes or problems to implement the standard DP port.
There is not room on the MacBook mainboard. The entire thing would have to be reconfigured.
What advantages ? The MB offers no additional hardware features to make up for it, and lacks some that are standard on physically similar machines.
You're just completely walking past it over and over again. The size, shape, and configuration, along with all other details of the design, are facilitated by the use of the mini connector. Anything else would require a complete redesign and a chain reaction of consequences which you just continue to ignore in post after post.
of the average mobile phone make it obvious there's no room for even a full-size USB A port
No. This ends here. A USB connector is 13.2x6mm. Unless you find me a phone smaller than that, it will fit using your "there's enough space" rule. What's good for the goose...
No, they're not. Even something like a Canon Powershot Gx-series device - which is huge by non-DSLR digicam standards - is less than 3 inches tall.
Again, a Canon SD1000, a fairly typical, small format camera, is 3.5x2.5 inches, give or take. And again, a USB port is 13.2x6mm, or about half an inch by a quarter inch.
Firstly, because the size ratio of a full-size USB port to the average phone or mobile is substantially greater than the ratio of a DP port to the average (or even [much] smaller than average) laptop.
An irrelevant consideration. Both products contain PCBs designed at the same densities and overall constraints. Either both can fit larger connectors and the whole thing is a scam, or both should be free to be their own judges of how to make use of space in their products.
Arguably, they're ot even "competitors" in any meaningful sense. DP is mainly targeted at replacing DVI (and will find little application outside of that), whereas HDMI is targeted at replacing Component+SPDIF
I suggest you read up. DP is supposed to replace both DVI and HDMI, and most people are wondering why HDMI doesn't just replace DVI and get it over with, because ten years from now, DP will be obsolete as well.
Because you haven't explained to me yet what you meant by "consumer breakthrough"
Consumer=retail market for personal, home, and small business use. Breakthrough=signficant advance, achievement, or increase.
Consumer breakthrough is exactly what it says: a successful introduction into a consumer space. You could also refer to the blatantly clear example already provided.
and reasonable interpretations on my part
Only if "had their" = "is a".
No, I just need examples of where Apple has invented its own connectors (or other solutions) where there was no real engineering-driven reason to do so, which I have done.
No. NIH syndrome requires animus toward the work of others and the replication of effort for the sake of being different. Quite clearly, "NIH syndrome" would be a refusal to adopt DisplayPort (there's no rush, after all), or the design of a connector providing no benefit. You can poo-poo the obvious all you want, but the fact is that a smaller connector does have clear and practical benefits now and in the future, especially when the major goal of DisplayPort is to unify all consumer electronics connections, and its connector leaves out devices smaller than a notebook PC.
Actually I have a great deal of 'evidentiary support'
Missing the boat, once again. Your evidence is circular--proclamations by you do not constitute evidence.
DP is not significant thicker than Mini-DP.
Largely irrelevant.
It is wider, but width is not a significant constraint in laptop designs.
Patently untrue, and begs the question by restricting the scope to full-size notebooks.
Mini-DP is not a standard, has not been implemented by anyone except Apple and is unlikely to be implemented [on hardware devices] by anyone except Apple
Entirely speculative.
Regular DP has already been implemented in several products on the market - laptops, converters, screens - and is supported by a range of manufacturers.
Overbroad. Three manufacturers have put out displays, and adoption is so low that anything can happen. Remember that HDMI was originally released with a DVI connector.
will not fit a Mini-DP port
Your standard, which is based on nothing more than visual distance and the assumption that a bigger case makes more room on the PCB, does not make sense. If you can look at a MacBook and summarily declare that a regular connector could go there, then any other product physically large enough to accommodate a connector could be redesigned to fit it.
The "lock-in" comes from there not being anyone else making devices that use the connector.
Did you completely lose sight of the free licenses to do so? Lock-in requires a closed gate.
The advantage is you sell more monitors, because the only way your customers can connect their shiny new computer to an external screen is to buy one of yours
Untrue. Any DisplayPort monitor is compatible. There is no technical barrier to operation.

What you're doing is complaining that the game library for a brand new console sucks because a console that's been out for a year has more. It's asinine. The entire ecosystem is so new that any of your summary decrees are baseless.
New, non-standard ports are not "common" in the computer industry and neither are immediate cutovers of physical interfaces without transition periods
You must be new to video interfaces. That's exactly what happens, for five decades and with hundreds of companies, both individually and grouped together under some working group.

BenRoethig

Dec 4, 2008, 08:53 AM

All I know is ... my neighbor has the new macbook and wants to hook it to the tv. She has HDMI S-video and composite video. How does she do it?

Wait and pray. Apple does not offer mini-DP adapters for video out (like they do for DVI, Mini-DVI, Micro DVI, or Mini-VGA) or HDMI.

BenRoethig

Dec 4, 2008, 09:03 AM

The assumption is that there was any compelling need for "mini" ports in the first place.

With VGA and DVI, I can see the need for such ports. The full size ports are large and bulky. With displayport, its already the size of the mini-ports. The reason for Mini-DP comes down to either it being an engineering workaround to make up for a flawed design from Ive or a deliberate attempt by Apple to create a proprietary connection while still being able to make the case that they're part of a standard.

Which simply falls apart when you realize that I have explicitly stated no fewer than three times now that this is not the case. They certainly could have done it other ways, but with other consequences.

And by consequences you mean the machines remaining over an inch thick instead of 0.95.

The same could be said about DisplayPort in general, apart from its VESA approval, which remains an open question as to the mini connector.
At least its a standard used more than one company. I can go out and buy a adapter cable for regular display port to just about anything including DVI. Mini-DP is the first of Apple Mini/Micro ports to offer neither adapters to the full standard nor video out.

There is not room on the MacBook mainboard. The entire thing would have to be reconfigured

You're just completely walking past it over and over again. The size, shape, and configuration, along with all other details of the design, are facilitated by the use of the mini connector. Anything else would require a complete redesign and a chain reaction of consequences which you just continue to ignore in post after post.

Its predecessor offered easy access to the hard drive as well as Mini-DVI and a firewire port in a package that was 1.08 inches in thickness. Losing the firewire and moving to the Micro DVI-sized mini-DP steams from a flaw in the design philosophy which vales aesthetics and gimmicks above functionality. What you don't seem to get is that Apple's redesign caused the problems.

Did you completely lose sight of the free licenses to do so? Lock-in requires a closed gate.

Just because its a free license doesn't mean other companies will use Mini-DP or find it profitable to create adapters for. Despite all the advantages of Mini-DVI I've seen accessories from exactly on other company than Apple.

Untrue. Any DisplayPort monitor is compatible. There is no technical barrier to operation.

But there is a physical one, no such adapter exists. If Apple really wanted for Mini-DP to be part of the Displayport, why did they not release an adapter out of the gate? Maybe they're taking these steps because they know that there is nobody else who is going to use Mini-DP and they have people like yourself who don't bother to check past the company press releases to back them up no matter what you do. Best way to implement a proprietary system is make it not look like a proprietary system. As long as there can be a connection in theory, you're not really locked in.

AidenShaw

Dec 4, 2008, 09:51 AM

If Apple really wanted for Mini-DP to be part of the Displayport, why did they not release an adapter out of the gate?

Dell 2408WFP $689 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=biz&cs=555&sku=320-6272)

ATimson

Dec 4, 2008, 10:25 AM

Wait and pray. Apple does not offer mini-DP adapters for video out (like they do for DVI, Mini-DVI, Micro DVI, or Mini-VGA) or HDMI.
However, there exist DVI-D -> HDMI adapters (as the two are electrically compatible) which should serve quite nicely on the other end of a mini-DP -> DVI-D adapter. :)

matticus008

Dec 4, 2008, 10:35 AM

And by consequences you mean the machines remaining over an inch thick instead of 0.95.
Thickness isn't the issue.
Mini-DP is the first of Apple Mini/Micro ports to offer neither adapters to the full standard nor video out.
DP marks the end of combined video out, and the presence of an adapter is undoubtedly an issue that will be resolved. Since no one is clamoring for DP monitors yet, it doesn't really matter.
moving to the Micro DVI-sized mini-DP steams from a flaw in the design philosophy
Put the horse before the cart a little more. The only "problem" is that they used DisplayPort at all.
Just because its a free license doesn't mean other companies will use Mini-DP or find it profitable to create adapters for.
Lock-in still requires a closed gate...you know, a lock. If the option is out there, it's not locked in to anything.
But there is a physical one, no such adapter exists. If Apple really wanted for Mini-DP to be part of the Displayport, why did they not release an adapter out of the gate?
Because they don't care, since there's no rush? People aren't rushing out to buy DP monitors, and nobody that has one has a DP-only monitor or a specific need for DP compatibility. What difference does it make which order it comes out, unless you're weaving a conspiracy theory?
Maybe they're taking these steps because they know that there is nobody else who is going to use Mini-DP and they have people like yourself who don't bother to check past the company press releases to back them up no matter what you do.
What?
As long as there can be a connection in theory, you're not really locked in.
No, as long as there is no roadblock to getting a connection, you're not locked in.

drsmithy

Dec 4, 2008, 04:41 PM

Which simply falls apart when you realize that I have explicitly stated no fewer than three times now that this is not the case.

Which simply falls apart as soon as you realise that all your arguments are circular reasoning, insisting it couldn't have been done any other way, because that's the way Apple did it.

They certainly could have done it other ways, but with other consequences.

None of which you have managed to elaborate on, other than assertions it would be impossible to design any other way.

The same could be said about DisplayPort in general, apart from its VESA approval, which remains an open question as to the mini connector.

And apart from announced support from dozens of vendors.
And apart from several monitors in the market already using DP.
And apart from several laptops in the market already using DP.
And apart from several video cards in the market already using DP.
And apart from the fact you can already buy adapters to convert between DP and just about anything else.

In fact, about the only ways Mini-DP and regular DP could be said to be similar, is the fact they both have 'Displayport' in ther name.

There is not room on the MacBook mainboard. The entire thing would have to be reconfigured.

No, the "entire thing" (more likely, a small portion) would have to have been configured in the first place. These machines are the first ones to have Mini-DP. There is no 're-'.

You're just completely walking past it over and over again. The size, shape, and configuration, along with all other details of the design, are facilitated by the use of the mini connector.

Talk about hyperbole. Are you seriously suggesting the MB, MBP and MBA are designed around the Mini-DP port and without it they couldn't exist ?

Anything else would require a complete redesign and a chain reaction of consequences which you just continue to ignore in post after post.

No, I do not. And, again, there is no redesign here. There is only design.

See, this is where we get back to the circular reasoning. You are insisting it could not have been designed any other way, because that is the way it has been designed.

No. This ends here. A USB connector is 13.2x6mm. Unless you find me a phone smaller than that, it will fit using your "there's enough space" rule. What's good for the goose...

I just wanted to requote this so the unbridled idiocy of that statement could be reinforced.

Again, a Canon SD1000, a fairly typical, small format camera, is 3.5x2.5 inches, give or take.

So, 3.5 inches wide by 2.5 inches high ?

Perhaps you could point out the "3 inches of bare plastic" that might be used to place a USB B port ? Try not to pick a spot that is already filled by the battery, memory card, or lens.

An irrelevant consideration. Both products contain PCBs designed at the same densities and overall constraints. Either both can fit larger connectors and the whole thing is a scam, or both should be free to be their own judges of how to make use of space in their products.

Another one that needs to be quoted again.

I suggest you read up. DP is supposed to replace both DVI and HDMI, and most people are wondering why HDMI doesn't just replace DVI and get it over with, because ten years from now, DP will be obsolete as well.

Apparently your concept of "most people" is about as realistic as your ability to judge scale.

By the way, displayport.org says:

"DisplayPort is the next generationdigital display interface standard design to replace DVI, LVDS, and eventually VGA."

Consumer=retail market for personal, home, and small business use. Breakthrough=signficant advance, achievement, or increase.
Consumer breakthrough is exactly what it says: a successful introduction into a consumer space. You could also refer to the blatantly clear example already provided.

You mean the example you only just provided ?

Of course, you still don't have a point. SCSI and Firewire (along with DVD writers and wireless) appeared on other machines before, or at the same time as, Apple's. Abondoning legacy ports is a consumer insult, not a consumer breakthrough

Attributing the success of standards to a single vendor who is at the low end of single-digit marketshare just because they happened to use it, seems a little bit.... idealistic.

No. NIH syndrome requires animus toward the work of others and the replication of effort for the sake of being different. Quite clearly, "NIH syndrome" would be a refusal to adopt DisplayPort (there's no rush, after all), or the design of a connector providing no benefit. You can poo-poo the obvious all you want, but the fact is that a smaller connector does have clear and practical benefits now and in the future, especially when the major goal of DisplayPort is to unify all consumer electronics connections, and its connector leaves out devices smaller than a notebook PC.

I'm still waiting to hear about one of these devices where DP won't fit, but Mini-DP will.

Missing the boat, once again. Your evidence is circular--proclamations by you do not constitute evidence.

Please detail how any of the following are circular:

DP is not significant thicker than Mini-DP.
It is wider, but width is not a significant constraint in laptop designs.
Mini-DP is not a standard, has not been implemented by anyone except Apple and is unlikely to be implemented [on hardware devices] by anyone except Apple
Regular DP has already been implemented in several products on the market - laptops, converters, screens - and is supported by a range of manufacturers.

Patently untrue, and begs the question by restricting the scope to full-size notebooks.

If it were "patently untrue" then the greater port counts and varieties on non-Apple laptops would be engineering marvels, rather than expected features. Further, no question is "begged" because the "scope" is not restricted to full-size laptops. As I've noted several times, laptops smaller than anything Apple makes have higher port counts, of physically larger ports.

Entirely speculative.

No, an educated and reasonable conclusion based on the current state of Mini-DP and DP in the industry, and its historical movements.

Overbroad. Three manufacturers have put out displays, and adoption is so low that anything can happen. Remember that HDMI was originally released with a DVI connector.

Given HDMI inherently includes audio, which DVI cannot, that's somewhat impossible.

Anything can happen ? Well, I suppose that's true in an academic sense, but when the three largest computer manufacturers in the world are all on the DP bandwagon, it's a reasonably safe bet as to what is likely to happen.

Your standard, which is based on nothing more than visual distance and the assumption that a bigger case makes more room on the PCB, does not make sense.

That's not my "standard", no matter how many times you try to assert that it is.

Did you completely lose sight of the free licenses to do so? Lock-in requires a closed gate.

Lock-in requires a lack of options.

Untrue. Any DisplayPort monitor is compatible. There is no technical barrier to operation.

I'd call a lack of any connecting device to be something of a "technical barrier".

What you're doing is complaining that the game library for a brand new console sucks because a console that's been out for a year has more. It's asinine. The entire ecosystem is so new that any of your summary decrees are baseless.

A more accurate analogy is that I'm complaining that the game library for a brand new console sucks because the consoles that make up the other 99% of the market can all run each others games, but the new one requires a special hardware dongle to do so.

You must be new to video interfaces. That's exactly what happens, for five decades and with hundreds of companies, both individually and grouped together under some working group.

An expected attempt to move the goalposts again, but let's try and keep this somewhat relevant. Which non-standard computer to display interfaces over, say, the last two decades have been introduced - in the face of an already agreed and established standard - by a single vendor constituting a tiny minority of marketshare, and gone on the be successful ?

drsmithy

Dec 4, 2008, 04:52 PM

With VGA and DVI, I can see the need for such ports. The full size ports are large and bulky.

While this is true in some sense, there was plenty of room on the laptops they appeared on to just use standard ports (I give the MBA a half-pass because standard-sized ports could not have been fitted in).

And by consequences you mean the machines remaining over an inch thick instead of 0.95.

He cannot even argue that, as he has already noted that DP and USB are basically the same height (and Mini-DP is slightly taller, from memory).

matticus008

Dec 4, 2008, 05:10 PM

Which simply falls apart as soon as you realise that all your arguments are circular reasoning, insisting it couldn't have been done any other way, because that's the way Apple did it.
No. For at least the fifth time now, it could have been done any number of other ways. Because you can't even grasp that basic fact without lies and outright distortion, there's little point continuing with your fabrications.
None of which you have managed to elaborate on, other than assertions it would be impossible to design any other way.
Clearly you were asleep when you learned the rules of debate. The burden of proof lies with the affirmative. You have to show complete feasibility. First, you point to empty adjacent space, except that it isn't empty. It's a chassis mount point, which your extensive expertise managed to miss. Then, even if that were relocated, you ignored the frame crossbar that prohibits a port of any height to continue there. You posit, without any knowledge, evidence, or logic, that some other design would have preserved everything without consequence, when in fact, each suggestion snowballs into a series of design changes you haven't explored.
In fact, about the only ways Mini-DP and regular DP could be said to be similar, is the fact they both have 'Displayport' in ther name.
More distortions and histrionics. There is no difference in the signal or the wiring, which is exactly identical, right down to the pinout. The only difference is that the $1 plastic and metal connector at the end is different. There's no signal adapter, no nefarious plot, and no complex conversion necessary.
I just wanted to requote this so the unbridled idiocy of that statement could be reinforced.
I'm glad you agree. It is, however, your argument.
Try not to pick a spot that is already filled by the battery, memory card, or lens.
Right after you pick a spot in the MacBook that isn't filled by something else. If one can be redesigned, the other can. If a mini DP connector is useless, so then is mini USB, the HDMI C connector, and so many others over the years. After all, if any device can use the regular connector, which is bigger than USB A, any device can use USB A. And yet we don't see that.
By the way, displayport.org says:
Again, arbitrary selection and disingenuity. Shocking. It also says, "It is anticipated that PC manufacturers will adopt DisplayPort as a solution for connecting all types of displays–including monitors, projectors and HDTVs–with a single connector. DisplayPort will also be adopted in LCD panels as an LVDS replacement." (emphasis added)
I'm still waiting to hear about one of these devices where DP won't fit, but Mini-DP will.
Repeating answered questions accomplishes nothing. Music players, cell phones, digital cameras, video cameras, tablets, netbooks, and other portable video devices are a whole class of devices the DisplayPort standard is meant to serve and which it cannot without a suitable miniaturized connector.
Given HDMI inherently includes audio, which DVI cannot, that's somewhat impossible.
Another nugget of brilliance. HDMI connections optionally include audio, just like DisplayPort. Moreover it is not impossible. It is fact that HDMI was first implemented over DVI connectors in its early development. It is also the case that HDMI includes a miniature connector as well for portable devices, very much like mini DP, and was also added to the standard after the fact at the behest of a small number of companies.

mjteix

Dec 4, 2008, 05:28 PM

In fact, about the only ways Mini-DP and regular DP could be said to be similar, is the fact they both have 'Displayport' in ther name.

No.

The miniDP connector has the exact same pins, number and function, of the "regular" DP connector. A simple passive adaptor will do the trick to allow the use of "regular" DP devices with miniDP Apple computers. Apple probably choosed to use a custom-sized connector 1) just to be different 2) to be able to put it on the MBA (or other future small devices...). Like SJ said during the notebook event, this connector will be used in most (if not all) Apple computers in the future. The only exception will probably be the Mac Pro (depending on the video cards offered) and the XServe.

The free licensing of the miniDP specs are for accessories manufacturers to offer all the cables/adapters possibles to connect an Apple computer to anything they can think about. Apple probably thinks that it's too much wasted time trying to make all those adapters themselves (given the delays we know about for some of them and other less significant products).

Don't forget that DP is integrated in most new chipsets/GPUs and that it is also the new video interface for integrated displays (notebooks + AIOs) replacing the more complex LVDS interface. Having to deal with only one kind of interface is very "Apple", and given that more than 90% of the Macs sold are notebooks or AIOs, it makes a lot of sense.

It will make even more sense when all the Apple computers/displays are updated to miniDP/DP, first half of 2009.

butterfly0fdoom

Dec 4, 2008, 05:37 PM

I'm aware of the current overall design of Apple's laptops. My point (which is apparently too subtle) is that's not the only way to build a laptop, nor do the typical somewhat-engineering-related arguments as to why (eg: "cable management") carry a great deal of weight.

Indeed, it's not the ONLY way to build a laptop, but Apple chooses to design their laptops that way. Here's a great idea for you: if you want to change it so much, then go work there and change it. Bickering here yields no results.

I don't think "sturdiness" is a decent reason. The plastic MB and the MBP creak and flex noticably. Heck, there's enough play in my wife's MBP that too much pressure over the DVD drive (or picking it up the wrong way, making the whole case flex) will result in nasty sounds if there's a DVD being used.

The new "unibody" machines are better, but non-standard ports on Apple's laptops go back a lot further than that. Further, the Latitude E4300 on my desk (along with the D400, D410 and D430 next to it) is extremely "sturdy", with basically zero flex at all. It's been a while since I held a Thinkpad, but I remember them being similarly strong.

Older ThinkPads were study because of the interior structure that IBM designed. As for the Latutides, I'd hardly consider them sturdy. Granted, they're studier than Vaios, but I wouldn't consider them extremely sturdy, especially in contrast with the unibody MacBooks.

Just have to love the inherent bias in your words.

There are actually some concrete reasons (at least on some models) why Apple's vent location is poor - you can't run the machine with the lid closed.

Well, now, of course I'm biased, but at the same time, previous Apple computers have had designs with randomly placed vents and panels. My main point is, part of what makes the MacBook sturdier (and someone else demonstrated this to me after I actually commented that the Latitudes seem reasonably sturdy) is the fact that instead of multiple flimsy plastic panels conjoined together, the MacBooks just have a single aluminum body with an aluminum battery cover and an aluminum bottom panel.

The aesthetics argument is weak. They already "look like any other computer" (with the exception of the MBA). It would not be hard for Apple to keep the overall MB and MBP "look" while putting ports on both sides (or possibly even the front :eek::rolleyes:). I also see that someone else has brought up the 'form over function' point.

And your argument is even weaker; you fail to demonstrate HOW it's possible. Until you can prove your point, there's no meaning to your words. Teardowns of the computer establish that without a significant rearranging of the internals, there is no way to increase the amount of space for ports. And then comes the question, HOW would you rearrange the internals to maximize efficient usage of space? Stop being in the armchair and SHOW us how YOU would do it. Otherwise, you're just another whiner.

drsmithy

Dec 4, 2008, 06:37 PM

No.

The miniDP connector has the exact same pins, number and function, of the "regular" DP connector. A simple passive adaptor will do the trick to allow the use of "regular" DP devices with miniDP Apple computers.

I did say 'about', and I did say it for a reason.

The only exception will probably be the Mac Pro (depending on the video cards offered) and the XServe.

They used those stupid Mini-DVI adapters on the Xserve (to the great annoyance of a lot of sysadmins, I imagine), so I think it's a fairly safe bet that they'll use them on the new Xserves (even more frustration - and people wonder why businesses shy away from Apple).

drsmithy

Dec 4, 2008, 06:37 PM

No. For at least the fifth time now, it could have been done any number of other ways.

So you agree that Apple could have used DP instead of Mini-DP if they wanted to ?

Clearly you were asleep when you learned the rules of debate. The burden of proof lies with the affirmative.

Which I have provided. Similarly-sized, and smaller, laptops use DP (or equivalents). Clearly the overall size of the machine, and its included functionality, do not inherently preclude the use of DP. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, as the person asserting Apple could not have designed their machines without using Mini-DP, to provide evidence supporting that assertion.

You posit, without any knowledge, evidence, or logic, that some other design would have preserved everything without consequence, when in fact, each suggestion snowballs into a series of design changes you haven't explored.

Actually, I posit with both documented evidence and logic: other machines of similar or lesser dimensions and features provide equivalent, and greater, functionality. It is clear, therefore, that creating a laptop with the dimensions of the MB, MBP and MBA that uses regular DP is quite feasible.

More distortions and histrionics. There is no difference in the signal or the wiring, which is exactly identical, right down to the pinout. The only difference is that the $1 plastic and metal connector at the end is different. There's no signal adapter, no nefarious plot, and no complex conversion necessary.

You forgot the other differences. You know, the ones which are actually important:

Announced support from dozens of vendors for DP.
Several monitors in the market already using DP.
Several laptops in the market already using DP.
Several video cards in the market already using DP.

I'm glad you agree. It is, however, your argument.

I have made no such argument.

Right after you pick a spot in the MacBook that isn't filled by something else.

The MB has plenty of room for rearrangement. Phones and cameras do not.

If one can be redesigned, the other can. If a mini DP connector is useless, so then is mini USB, the HDMI C connector, and so many others over the years. After all, if any device can use the regular connector, which is bigger than USB A, any device can use USB A. And yet we don't see that.

These are called non-sequiturs.

Again, arbitrary selection and disingenuity. Shocking. It also says, "It is anticipated that PC manufacturers will adopt DisplayPort as a solution for connecting all types of displays–including monitors, projectors and HDTVs–with a single connector. DisplayPort will also be adopted in LCD panels as an LVDS replacement." (emphasis added)

How many PC manufacturers do you know of with a significant presence in the home theatre market ?

Repeating answered questions accomplishes nothing. Music players, cell phones, digital cameras, video cameras, tablets, netbooks, and other portable video devices are a whole class of devices the DisplayPort standard is meant to serve and which it cannot without a suitable miniaturized connector.

Repeatedly given the same refuted answers accomplishes even less.

Music players, cell phones and digital cameras don't have the space. Mini-DP isn't smaller enough to matter for them. In particular, it is no thinner (actually slightly thicker) than regular DP.
HDMI is a better solution for video cameras (smaller, more appropriate compatibility).
Tablets and netbooks have sufficient physical space to use DP (as evidenced by their use of similar, larger ports).

Another nugget of brilliance. HDMI connections optionally include audio, just like DisplayPort. Moreover it is not impossible. It is fact that HDMI was first implemented over DVI connectors in its early development.

HDMI is a connector standard. What you are saying is the equivalent of "DVI was first implemented over VGA connectors in its early development".

Presumably I will also need to point out you have made yet another apples-to-oranges comparison and ignored the sigificant difference between "product released in the marketplace" and "product in its early development" as well

It is also the case that HDMI includes a miniature connector as well for portable devices, very much like mini DP, and was also added to the standard after the fact at the behest of a small number of companies.

So not like Mini-DP at all, then, which was created by a single manufacturer and released by them into the marketplace without being even proposed for, let alone integrated, into the standard ?

drsmithy

Dec 4, 2008, 06:47 PM

Indeed, it's not the ONLY way to build a laptop, but Apple chooses to design their laptops that way. Here's a great idea for you: if you want to change it so much, then go work there and change it. Bickering here yields no results.

So the point of this discussion forum is... what ? To gush about how everything Apple does is perfect ?

Older ThinkPads were study because of the interior structure that IBM designed. As for the Latutides, I'd hardly consider them sturdy. Granted, they're studier than Vaios, but I wouldn't consider them extremely sturdy, especially in contrast with the unibody MacBooks.

I can only compare the machines I have either used personally, or have on hand. I don't know which machines you have used, but the Latitudes, Thinkpads, iBooks, MacBooks, PowerBooks and MacBook Pros I have owned or used would all rank roughly equivalent on the 'sturdiness' scale.

Well, now, of course I'm biased, but at the same time, previous Apple computers have had designs with randomly placed vents and panels. My main point is, part of what makes the MacBook sturdier (and someone else demonstrated this to me after I actually commented that the Latitudes seem reasonably sturdy) is the fact that instead of multiple flimsy plastic panels conjoined together, the MacBooks just have a single aluminum body with an aluminum battery cover and an aluminum bottom panel.

That's the new unibody machines. The non-standard port thing goes back a lot longer than that.

And your argument is even weaker; you fail to demonstrate HOW it's possible. Until you can prove your point, there's no meaning to your words.

Untrue. I have pointed out numerous times that there are equivalently (or smaller) sized laptops which have equal, of not greater, port counts and varieties. Clearly, it's possible to build a laptop like the MB without having to resort to non-standard ports.

Teardowns of the computer establish that without a significant rearranging of the internals, there is no way to increase the amount of space for ports. And then comes the question, HOW would you rearrange the internals to maximize efficient usage of space? Stop being in the armchair and SHOW us how YOU would do it. Otherwise, you're just another whiner.

You've never criticised something without having a fully-functionally-equivalent alternative on hand to offer in exchange ?

diamond.g

Dec 4, 2008, 06:57 PM

How many PC manufacturers do you know of with a significant presence in the home theatre market ?

Sony? Samsung? (I am sure there are others, but those stuck out to me)

danny_w

Dec 4, 2008, 07:35 PM

They used those stupid Mini-DVI adapters on the Xserve (to the great annoyance of a lot of sysadmins, I imagine), so I think it's a fairly safe bet that they'll use them on the new Xserves (even more frustration - and people wonder why businesses shy away from Apple).
Apple will be even stupider than I thought if they do that. One of the reasons that businesses have been accepting of the full-size DP connector is because of the built-in positive latch (absent from the mini-DP connector), which is needed all the more in a cramped server room. Nobody wants a cable pulling out of the back of a rack of equipment that is a rat's nest of wires to begin with. Mini-DP (if they use it) will be just one more strike against Apple in a market where they really cannot afford that kind of misstep.

matticus008

Dec 4, 2008, 08:23 PM

So you agree that Apple could have used DP instead of Mini-DP if they wanted to ?
I agree that if Apple did not care about a single full-line and future-ready connector, and if they had not purposefully moved the ports to one side, and if they had made other internal design tradeoffs, that they certainly could have put a full-size DP port on the MacBook.

I do not agree that the disadvantage, if any, of using a mini DP connector outweighs the benefit of the expanded scope of devices it can access. DisplayPort is meant to be universal--all displays, all devices. It can better achieve this stated goal with a connector as small as possible. The HDMI standard added a connector to embrace this concept (larger than mini DP), and DP is not an established standard to the point that connector changes will not happen. Whether Apple's mini DP or some other, DisplayPort should have a smaller connector, but ideally shouldn't exist at all, given the current adequacy of HDMI and the future advantages of USB3 and other innovations that will occur between now and the end of HDMI's useful life.
Similarly-sized, and smaller, laptops use DP (or equivalents).
The overall size has no bearing on what can be accommodated by the design constraints of the internals. A device twice the size of a MacBook Pro might not have room for a full-size USB port, and a device the size of a thumb drive might have more than enough room for one.
Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, as the person asserting Apple could not have designed their machines without using Mini-DP
No. You remain the affirmative, and NO SUCH ASSERTION WAS MADE. You've repeated this absurdity 11 times now, completely fabricating it out of thin air.
You forgot the other differences. You know, the ones which are actually important
Those aren't differences. Mini DP is DP, exactly, with the sole exception of a smaller connector. There is nothing required of any other manufacturer of DP computers, displays, or media devices to support Apple products so designed. The only thing missing is an appropriate cable, which anyone can make and sell.
I have made no such argument.
"The MB has plenty of room for rearrangement. Phones and cameras do not." This is conclusory and vacuous. That the device is larger does not mean it has more room. Intel repackaged a processor to shave a few millimeters of space--which was then adopted in other machines.
How many PC manufacturers do you know of with a significant presence in the home theatre market ?
How can you so utterly fail at reading comprehension with such frequency? The question has nothing to do with anything. How many PC manufacturers do you know in the projector market? The answer is about the same. DisplayPort is intended to connect all display types, to be used for computers and home theater components alike.
Music players, cell phones and digital cameras don't have the space.
Those devices are suddenly smaller than 7x6mm? Mini DP is smaller in volume than an iPod Dock connector or the proprietary cable connectors on most cell phones. Mini DP is also slightly smaller than the HDMI C connector--one accepted by a standards body for implementation on these small devices--but I guess they failed, because drsmithy decrees that there's no room. Because small devices can't be redesigned, but bigger ones can.
HDMI is a better solution for video cameras (smaller, more appropriate compatibility).
HDMI is a better solution for DisplayPort, too.
HDMI is a connector standard. What you are saying is the equivalent of "DVI was first implemented over VGA connectors in its early development".
No. This level of ignorance is just inexcusable. HDMI is a complete interface. DVI was never implemented over a D-sub connector; available bandwidth and signal properties were unsuitable. What I am saying is that the first HDMI communications were on DVI cables, and the original plan was to use the DVI cable and connector forever, until the standard went in a different direction.
So not like Mini-DP at all, then, which was created by a single manufacturer and released by them into the marketplace without being even proposed for, let alone integrated, into the standard ?
Who cares about the sequence? IDE wasn't fully standardized for almost a decade after its release into the marketplace. Doesn't seem to have rattled the earth apart. Even if mini DP doesn't take off, it has full capabilities, full electrical compatibility, full hardware support, and no barrier to making a suitable cable.

Much ado about nothing at all.

funman895

Dec 4, 2008, 09:57 PM

It is going to take a while for mini-display port screens come out. Now people will have to buy from apple if they don't want to bother with adapters. I think the mini-display port is going to make people angry though.

AidenShaw

Dec 4, 2008, 10:02 PM

They used those stupid Mini-DVI adapters on the Xserve (to the great annoyance of a lot of sysadmins, I imagine), so I think it's a fairly safe bet that they'll use them on the new Xserves (even more frustration - and people wonder why businesses shy away from Apple).

I doubt that there will be another Xserve model - no point in making a half-assed 1U Nehalem server when Igadgets are the big sellers.

Xserve RAID gone, instead Apple is pointing people at a product that is far better than their storage array ever was.

Maybe Apple will do a deal with HP to sell OSX Server on a small set of ProLiant models. That might get IT thinking about OSX Server again. :eek: Imagine some 24-core DL580 256 GiB render farm engines....

http://h10003.www1.hp.com/digmedialib/prodimg/lowres/c01083382.jpg

(Of course, Apple would require that the front panel VGA connector be replaced with a mini-DisplayPort, and you'd have to buy $900 Apple displays to use the system.)

tuc

Dec 4, 2008, 10:47 PM

DisplayPort ... ideally shouldn't exist at all, given the current adequacy of HDMI and the future advantages of USB3 and other innovations that will occur between now and the end of HDMI's useful life.

The adequacy of HDMI and USB3 (as a display standard?) can be argued either way, but DisplayPort should indeed exist, if only in the internal (laptop/iMac) space. As I understand it, DisplayPort is simpler, cheaper, smaller, and less power-hungry than LVDS and is already taking over.

Perhaps it will not catch on as an external interface. I dunno. It's proponents claim it will make external displays simpler, cheaper, thinner, and less power-hungry too.

tuc

Dec 4, 2008, 10:59 PM

All I know is ... my neighbor has the new macbook and wants to hook it to the tv. She has HDMI S-video and composite video. How does she do it?

Plug Apple's $29 miniDP-to-DVI cable into the macbook, plug
a cheap third-party DVI-to-HDMI adapter into that, then use
a standard HDMI cable to connect to the TV.

Alternatively, plug Apple's $29 miniDP-to-DVI cable into the
macbook, plug a cheap third-party HDMI-to-DVI adapter into
the TV, and string a DVI-D cable in between.

Dell 2408WFP $689 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=biz&cs=555&sku=320-6272)

I'm not sure what your point is. That is one of a handful of
monitors out there that support DisplayPort connections, in
addition to DVI/HDMI and VGA. Currently there is no way to
connect a Mac to it via DisplayPort because miniDP-to-DP
adapters don't quite exist yet. (It can still be connected via
DVI using Apple's $29 miniDP-to-DVI adapter but where's
the fun in that? :))

AidenShaw

Dec 4, 2008, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

Dell 2408WFP $689I'm not sure what your point is.

That is one of a handful of monitors out there that support DisplayPort connections, in addition to DVI/HDMI and VGA. Currently there is no way to connect a Mac to it via DisplayPort because miniDP-to-DP adapters don't quite exist yet. (It can still be connected via DVI using Apple's $29 miniDP-to-DVI adapter but where's the fun in that? :))

Not fun at all, unless the Apple dongle supports HDCP.

matticus008

Dec 5, 2008, 04:41 AM

USB3 (as a display standard?)
Oh yes. There are already more DisplayLink monitors than DisplayPort monitors. DisplayLink is a preview of some of what's being developed for USB 3.0, which has already been demonstrated to be capable of uncompressed 1080p transmission (or compressed transmission at 2160p and beyond) and, like DisplayPort, is packet-based. With USB 3.0, you could string together three 30" LCD monitors with nothing but a USB cable. DP has no native support for daisy chaining like this, and is planning to support DisplayLink in the future--so one has to ask, why not just use DisplayLink for everything (except internal connections)?
DisplayPort should indeed exist, if only in the internal (laptop/iMac) space.
Direct drive internals are indeed a good idea, but DisplayPort is not necessarily the ideal expression. It's unquestionably an improvement over LDI and FPDLink, and it does return us to a lingering point: while DisplayPort is a uniform signal standard internally, it is not a uniform connector standard. The presence of electrically compatible connectors is a non-issue--nobody is claiming those internals aren't "real" DisplayPort.

The problem with DisplayPort, and particularly for those who seem to be completely sold on the current connector, is that it's being rushed out before it can deliver on its promises. A major revision of DP is planned for 2009 with significantly higher bandwidth, and the vague "goal" of finding some clever hack to enable the use of these first-generation connectors and cables (which is not physically possible using existing technology). In other words, the current implementation won't even outlive DVI, let alone HDMI. DP's current performance, apart from the prospect of Direct Drive, offers nothing not available from HDMI or DisplayLink (and far less audio bandwidth, no xvYCC, and no device control compared to HDMI) for connecting external displays, because bandwidth promises are a bill of goods (and for the rah-rah standards people, requires proprietary extensions to hack together working OpenGL surface sharing--DP can't even fully implement what's already out there).

The future revisions to DisplayPort should be the first versions of DP, and people should not get too attached to a standard connector that may very well have no future once the actual benefits of DP are introduced in future revisions.

By the logic advanced by some people here, they easily could have engineered the standard to use HDMI connectors (thus giving Apple and others the option of a standard mini connector and avoiding this absurd non-issue altogether) and to require that DP produce HDMI signaling except in direct drive displays. But nobody seems to be calling the working group out on "NIH syndrome" or complaining about the uneven implementation of the far more important signal side of the standard by various companies. That would be far too rational.
Not fun at all, unless the Apple dongle supports HDCP.
Dongles don't support HDCP or not; DVI over DisplayPort is a direct passthrough of whatever's implemented in the graphics chipset, not the adapter. All currently shipping DP-enabled video cards support HDCP. The signal converter, required for those who have not fully implemented DisplayPort's DVI output is a simple electrical reconfiguration, not a complex processor, and wouldn't be necessary if video card manufacturers properly implemented the standard. I see no one is complaining about that, though.
(Of course, Apple would require that the front panel VGA connector be replaced with a mini-DisplayPort, and you'd have to buy $900 Apple displays to use the system.)
Or, so nefariously, a $100 bargain bin DVI monitor.

AidenShaw

Dec 5, 2008, 08:16 AM

Quote: (Of course, Apple would require that the front panel VGA connector be replaced with a mini-DisplayPort, and you'd have to buy $900 Apple displays to use the system.)

Or, so nefariously, a $100 bargain bin DVI monitor.

Matty, you should turn up the gain a little on your sarcasm detector ;)

matticus008

Dec 5, 2008, 09:31 AM

Matty, you should turn up the gain a little on your sarcasm detector ;)
Hah. Fair enough.

BenRoethig

Dec 5, 2008, 09:43 AM

Maybe Apple will do a deal with HP to sell OSX Server on a small set of ProLiant models. That might get IT thinking about OSX Server again. :eek: Imagine some 24-core DL580 256 GiB render farm engines....

http://h10003.www1.hp.com/digmedialib/prodimg/lowres/c01083382.jpg

(Of course, Apple would require that the front panel VGA connector be replaced with a mini-DisplayPort, and you'd have to buy $900 Apple displays to use the system.)

That is the one thing that has always held OSX server back. Apple has tried to Apply its one size fits all approach to the Server marker which doesn't work at all in the Enterprise market. If offered, I think OSX Server would be fairly popular.

drsmithy

Dec 5, 2008, 04:48 PM

I agree that if Apple did not care about a single full-line and future-ready connector,

If they cared about it, they could have used DP.

[...] and if they had not purposefully moved the ports to one side, and if they had made other internal design tradeoffs, that they certainly could have put a full-size DP port on the MacBook.

I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on these ominous "tradeoffs" you keep talking about.

I do not agree that the disadvantage, if any, of using a mini DP connector outweighs the benefit of the expanded scope of devices it can access.

What expanded scope ?

DisplayPort is meant to be universal--all displays, all devices. It can better achieve this stated goal with a connector as small as possible. The HDMI standard added a connector to embrace this concept (larger than mini DP), and DP is not an established standard to the point that connector changes will not happen.

Mini-DP: 7.4x4.5mm (33.3mm^2)
HDMI C: 10.42x2.42 (25.2mm^2)

So HDMI type C is smaller in overall area, and also smaller in the more important vertical dimension.

Whether Apple's mini DP or some other, DisplayPort should have a smaller connector, but ideally shouldn't exist at all, given the current adequacy of HDMI and the future advantages of USB3 and other innovations that will occur between now and the end of HDMI's useful life.

HDMI has licensing costs.

The advantages of DP over DVI and HDMI (and the reasons for its implementation) are described on displayport.org.

USB3 isn't implemented anywhere yet.

The overall size has no bearing on what can be accommodated by the design constraints of the internals.

Yes, yes it does.

A device twice the size of a MacBook Pro might not have room for a full-size USB port, and a device the size of a thumb drive might have more than enough room for one.

And the relevance of your mystery devices to a discussion about laptop computers would be ?

Those aren't differences. Mini DP is DP, exactly, with the sole exception of a smaller connector. There is nothing required of any other manufacturer of DP computers, displays, or media devices to support Apple products so designed. The only thing missing is an appropriate cable, which anyone can make and sell.

They are the differences that will dictate whether Mini-DP shows up anywhere else except for Apple hardware.

"The MB has plenty of room for rearrangement. Phones and cameras do not." This is conclusory and vacuous. That the device is larger does not mean it has more room. Intel repackaged a processor to shave a few millimeters of space--which was then adopted in other machines.

In no way, shape, or form, does my statement equate with:

No. This ends here. A USB connector is 13.2x6mm. Unless you find me a phone smaller than that, it will fit using your "there's enough space" rule. What's good for the goose...

How can you so utterly fail at reading comprehension with such frequency? The question has nothing to do with anything.

I suggest you reread your quote, identify who is expected to use DisplayPort, and then reconcile that with your assertion that DisplayPort is expected to be a universal connector.

How many PC manufacturers do you know in the projector market? The answer is about the same. DisplayPort is intended to connect all display types, to be used for computers and home theater components alike.

Not according to the people spruiking it.

Those devices are suddenly smaller than 7x6mm? Mini DP is smaller in volume than an iPod Dock connector or the proprietary cable connectors on most cell phones.

I love the way you keep changing the standard by which you are measuring the size of the ports. It's just so blatantly disingenuous.

Mini DP is also slightly smaller than the HDMI C connector--one accepted by a standards body for implementation on these small devices--but I guess they failed, because drsmithy decrees that there's no room. Because small devices can't be redesigned, but bigger ones can.

The way you keep putting words in my mouth is pretty bold, as well.

HDMI is a better solution for DisplayPort, too.

Apparently not, as outlined on displayport.org.

What I am saying is that the first HDMI communications were on DVI cables, and the original plan was to use the DVI cable and connector forever, until the standard went in a different direction.

Perhaps you have a link that supports this ?

matticus008

Dec 6, 2008, 11:49 AM

I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on these ominous "tradeoffs" you keep talking about.
No, you're not. You're just saying it to drag it on interminably.
So HDMI type C is smaller in overall area, and also smaller in the more important vertical dimension.
The vertical dimension is not more important, unless we're talking about devices thinner than 6mm. The important dimension is PCB surface area, and mini DP is indeed smaller.
HDMI has licensing costs.
Which funds ongoing development. DP relies primarily on Dell for funding, which is why it's only partly implemented the promises it makes on its website.
USB3 isn't implemented anywhere yet.
So? There is no current need for DisplayPort.
And the relevance of your mystery devices to a discussion about laptop computers would be ?
The use of a single connector across all of your products, as opposed to the HDMI and DVI (and USB and Firewire and so many others) experiences of multiple connectors and having to have multiple cables to connect devices all made by the same company. You talk about standardization as being important for consistency, when a standard with three connectors provides little. A single connector, used all all devices, from iPods to Mac Pros, means that a single cable will connect all Apple products--and a single dumb adapter will expand that scope to all DisplayPort products, because the Apple connector is completely identical in every way electrically, signal-wise, and in pinout. The adapter will cost pennies to make and can be sold by anyone for free. The comparative benefit is pretty clear for a company like Apple.

You talk about a conspiracy, so riddle me this. Why would Apple implement DisplayPort at all, when it provides absolutely no advantage to its products over DVI? Why would it bother making its connector available royalty-free if it didn't want others to be able to use it? Both moves show an intent to bolster adoption of DisplayPort. How do you spin that as trying to wall itself out?
They are the differences that will dictate whether Mini-DP shows up anywhere else except for Apple hardware.
Based on...? The existing use of one connector has never stopped a second connector before. If it did, DisplayPort wouldn't exist at all.
I suggest you reread your quote, identify who is expected to use DisplayPort, and then reconcile that with your assertion that DisplayPort is expected to be a universal connector.
Companies needed to support DisplayPort in order to achieve the stated goal of connecting computers, portable devices, media players, HDTVs, projectors, and external displays: manufacturers of computers, portable devices, media players, HDTVs, projectors, and external displays.
I love the way you keep changing the standard by which you are measuring the size of the ports. It's just so blatantly disingenuous.
What exactly is changing?
The way you keep putting words in my mouth is pretty bold, as well.
Not really. You're the one claiming I said the implemented design is the only possible design. On the other hand, you did claim that cell phones and iPods can't be redesigned for other connectors, but laptops can be, despite the fact that PCB free positive/negative space is almost identical.

Overall size of a product has no bearing on space on the PCB, despite your repeated ignorant assertions. Notebooks are larger than cell phones--and also contain more traces, circuits, and chips.
Apparently not, as outlined on displayport.org.
Yeah, because DisplayPort would do an unbiased review and declare itself unnecessary. Come on now. All of the major technology sites have looked into DP and all of them have articles panning the standard as premature, under-delivering, and generally needless. The whole notion of direct drive monitors is being used to show a concrete advantage, but packet-based HDMI extensions would have enabled the same thing while preserving backwards compatibility AND connector compatibility.
Perhaps you have a link that supports this ?
Simplified overview: http://www.hdmi.org/pdf/HDMI_CPTWG_4-17-02.PDF
For a complete look into the early efforts, including the attempt to reconfigure and extend DVI-HDCP to meet the later development goals, you'd have to have access to the whitepapers and mailing lists, and I am not permitted to share my copies.

This, curiously enough, is exactly the same effort currently underway for the DisplayPort connector--and will probably turn out the exact same way: a new connector once the full featureset is developed.

drsmithy

Dec 7, 2008, 08:15 AM

No, you're not. You're just saying it to drag it on interminably.

You still haven't offered a single convincing argument that Apple couldn't have made a MacBook just as well using proper DP.

The vertical dimension is not more important, unless we're talking about devices thinner than 6mm.

It is to Apple, because they equate 'small' with 'thin'.

Oh yeah, you need more than just enough vertical space to fit the opening of the port itself, as well.

The important dimension is PCB surface area, and mini DP is indeed smaller.

PCB area is largely dictated by horizontal dimensions and, relatively speaking, the MacBook has those in abundance.

Which funds ongoing development. DP relies primarily on Dell for funding, which is why it's only partly implemented the promises it makes on its website.

I think you've already highlighted that not all standards are "fully implemented" on first release.

So? There is no current need for DisplayPort.

Pretty short sighted to only think of what you need right now.

The use of a single connector across all of your products, as opposed to the HDMI and DVI (and USB and Firewire and so many others) experiences of multiple connectors and having to have multiple cables to connect devices all made by the same company.

Except there won't be a single connector across all of their products, because it won't fit on all of their products.

Added to which, on some of their products (eg: the Xserve), it will be a disadvantage (and offer zero advantage)

You talk about a conspiracy, so riddle me this. [...]

At no point have I said anything, whatsoever, about a "conspiracy". In fact, I expressed my views on the subject (which haven't changed) early on:

"The vast bulk of hardware will ship with regular Displayport. Mini-DP will be another ADC, that will rarely, if ever, be seen outside of Apple hardware or adapters to interface Apple hardware to standard hardware. "

"[...] because Apple is the poster-child of NIH-syndrome."

Based on...? The existing use of one connector has never stopped a second connector before. If it did, DisplayPort wouldn't exist at all.

The previous 4 times Apple have used their own port instead of a standard one.

Companies needed to support DisplayPort in order to achieve the stated goal of connecting computers, portable devices, media players, HDTVs, projectors, and external displays: manufacturers of computers, portable devices, media players, HDTVs, projectors, and external displays.

Has it occurred to you that DP is only about connecting computers to displays ? Hence the reason the people developing it are only talking about computers and the devices they get plugged into ?

Not really. You're the one claiming I said the implemented design is the only possible design.

Yes, that's because you keep implying that Apple wouldn't have been able to make the MacBook the way it is without Mini-DP.

On the other hand, you did claim that cell phones and iPods can't be redesigned for other connectors, but laptops can be, despite the fact that PCB free positive/negative space is almost identical.

No, I did not. I said redesigning a smaller device for a larger port would be substantially harder because of the relative sizes of the ports to the device, and probably not feasible because of that.

The PCB size is not a fixed variable. Because the horizontal dimensions are not a significant constraint, it can be resized and redesigned relatively easily.

Overall size of a product has no bearing on space on the PCB, despite your repeated ignorant assertions.

The overall size of a device most certainly has a bearing on what can be fitted inside it, despite your repeated, absurd claims to the contrary.

(Unless, of course, the device in question is a TARDIS.)

Notebooks are larger than cell phones--and also contain more traces, circuits, and chips.

Laptops have substantially more area (and volume) to put them in.

Yeah, because DisplayPort would do an unbiased review and declare itself unnecessary.

Regardless of what bias you might perceive, that doesn't change the advantages outlined.

Come on now. All of the major technology sites have looked into DP and all of them have articles panning the standard as premature, under-delivering, and generally needless. The whole notion of direct drive monitors is being used to show a concrete advantage, but packet-based HDMI extensions would have enabled the same thing while preserving backwards compatibility AND connector compatibility.

I really don't care if DP succeeds or fails. I'm not trying to sell it. From an overall perspective, HDMI is probably the best way to go.

Simplified overview:

That doesn't appear to say what you says it does.

If you could point to some devices that were sold with "HDMI using DVI plugs", that would be more convincing.

Unless you're trying to say that HDMI and DVI are electrically the same thing (at least for the video signal) ?

matticus008

Dec 7, 2008, 10:24 AM

You still haven't offered a single convincing argument that Apple couldn't have made a MacBook just as well using proper DP.
This has been done to death. The design, as is, does not accommodate the full size port. Unless you can show a complete, functional design containing the full size port without making any other sacrifices, that's more than enough reason, especially when coupled with a desire to use a connector that will fit on any product now and in the future they want to have display connectivity, including portable devices.

Unless you're saying that the small USB connectors and the HDMI C connector are both irrelevant and useless, you can't say the same of a similarly miniaturized DisplayPort connector. All you're actually doing is struggling for a better reason to bitch than mini DP not currently being an official part of the standard (except that all VESA standards are voluntary, and not strict, standards).
It is to Apple, because they equate 'small' with 'thin'.
What? Are you even listening to yourself? The vertical dimension of a connector is irrelevant if it is less than the thickness of the device. It has nothing to do with Apple "equating small with thin". No device is too thin for the mini-DP connector
PCB area is largely dictated by horizontal dimensions and, relatively speaking, the MacBook has those in abundance.
And it is quite full.
Except there won't be a single connector across all of their products, because it won't fit on all of their products.
Yes, it does. There is no product thinner than 6mm (allowing for the receptacle and the case) with video output.

"[...] because Apple is the poster-child of NIH-syndrome."
You never answered my questions, since you claim to have it all figured out. Why would Apple implement DisplayPort at all, when it provides absolutely no advantage to its products over DVI and/or HDMI? Why would it bother making its connector available royalty-free if it didn't want others to be able to use it? Both moves show an intent to bolster adoption of DisplayPort. How do you spin that as trying to wall itself out? Meanwhile, VESA, the real poster child for NIH syndrome, if we're stuck using that awful phrase of yours, gets a free pass from you.

Why didn't they just work with HDMI to implement a packet-based approach, reusing the connector, preserving backwards compatibility, and deferring to their better technical expertise in the other functions? They haven't managed to introduce a lasting standard since VGA, and not for lack of trying. But that's inconvenient for you.

You've got all the answers, so let's hear it.
Has it occurred to you that DP is only about connecting computers to displays ? Hence the reason the people developing it are only talking about computers and the devices they get plugged into ?
Why, then, does it explicitly implement the HDTV color space? Why does it include multichannel audio? Why does it contain an auxiliary data channel outside of the video pathway? Why does their website refer to HDTVs, media players, and portable devices as a goal for DisplayPort connectivity? Why are home theater manufacturers among its members?

DisplayPort is not only about connecting computers to displays, and nobody but you is even making that claim.
No, I did not. I said redesigning a smaller device for a larger port would be substantially harder because of the relative sizes of the ports to the device
For the last time, the constraint is PCB layout, which means PCB free space, which is not in any more abundance on a MacBook logic board than it is on an iPhone or a netbook. Size of the overall device is irrelevant--larger computers have larger PCBs, but also have more on them. The device in question could be the size of a car, but the if PCB is 3x3, then lots of things won't fit on it. This level of ignorance simply must stop.
Because the horizontal dimensions are not a significant constraint, it can be resized and redesigned relatively easily.
Tell it to notebook engineers. Maybe they'll be happy to hear that their job is a piece of cake and drsmithy can do it all without making any sacrifices.

The bottom line is that you're complaining about it for the sake of complaining, and with no technical frame of reference to compare it to. You have no information to bring to the table and don't seem to have a problem with other examples of connectors becoming standardized or completely replaced after an initial introduction, or with "standards" driven largely by a single corporation, or with the creation of a new standard for no apparent reason (when HDMI offers all of the current benefits, and could easily have been extended with packet-based communication to match or exceed DP). But when Apple does those things, even with a pretty clear motive and nothing resembling a trap, it's suddenly worth bitching about. The argument makes no sense.

kaiwai

Dec 7, 2008, 03:29 PM

Still strikes me as backwards. Why not work with other manufacturers first to develop a standard, instead of coming up with one and hoping it gets picked up? Maybe someone smarter than me can explain this way of thinking.

*shakes head* Obviously you know nothing of the slowness of a committee - how long would it take for something like that to be developed if done by a committee? look at OpenGL as an example of what a wonderful success it has been!

Who cares about who developed what - the fact that the company has developed it; and due to the lack of bureaucracy, was able to develop it quickly, has now made it free to use. I don't know what you're whining about given those circumstances.

BenRoethig

Dec 7, 2008, 04:37 PM

*shakes head* Obviously you know nothing of the slowness of a committee - how long would it take for something like that to be developed if done by a committee? look at OpenGL as an example of what a wonderful success it has been!

Who cares about who developed what - the fact that the company has developed it; and due to the lack of bureaucracy, was able to develop it quickly, has now made it free to use. I don't know what you're whining about given those circumstances.

They were able to develop it so quickly is that they took an existing technology, somebody else's work, and modified it to suit their needs, the same you accuse another company of in another thread.

kaiwai

Dec 7, 2008, 05:09 PM

They were able to develop it so quickly is that they took an existing technology, somebody else's work, and modified it to suit their needs, the same you accuse another company of in another thread.

Please, you're beyond help. The two have ho relationship with each other.

matticus008

Dec 7, 2008, 08:07 PM

They were able to develop it so quickly is that they took an existing technology, somebody else's work, and modified it to suit their needs
...with both permission and full legal right. Or are you intentionally trolling?

AidenShaw

Dec 7, 2008, 08:11 PM

*shakes head* Obviously you know nothing of the slowness of a committee - how long would it take for something like that to be developed if done by a committee?

On the other hand, a committee might have had the good sense not to drop the latching mechanism from the full DisplayPort spec!

Not so important for an Igadget or laptop, but for most other applications (mini-tower, for example) you'll miss the positive attachment.

Like choosing to use a different port for 1394b, "forgetting" the latch will be a move that will probably keep Mini DisplayPort an Apple exclusive.

...with both permission and full legal right. Or are you intentionally trolling?

Probably not, but you certainly are! :p

(Matty, boost the gain on your irony detector... ;) )

matticus008

Dec 8, 2008, 05:45 AM

Probably not, but you certainly are! :p
(Matty, boost the gain on your irony detector... ;) )
There's no irony there. The two are not comparable. Adapting an open standard is the only way the standard evolves. Making a specious claim about applying the same process to a wholly-owned, privately held product is neither ironic nor constructive, but simply trolling.

Moreover, not to steal anyone's thunder, but the mini DisplayPort connector is now officially part of the upcoming DisplayPort 1.2 standard, straight from the horse's mouth--Bill Lempesis. Any conspiracy theories, rants, or otherwise shrieks of proprietary-ness are moot.

Not only is the connector electrically, signally, and pinout compatible, but it's physically sanctioned, as well. Yet another tempest in a teapot from a throng of misinformed complainers.

drsmithy

Dec 8, 2008, 08:02 PM

This has been done to death. The design, as is, does not accommodate the full size port. Unless you can show a complete, functional design containing the full size port without making any other sacrifices, that's more than enough reason, especially when coupled with a desire to use a connector that will fit on any product now and in the future they want to have display connectivity, including portable devices.

A ridiculous, unreasonable and almost certainly hypocritical standard.

Unless you're saying that the small USB connectors and the HDMI C connector are both irrelevant and useless, you can't say the same of a similarly miniaturized DisplayPort connector.

This is called a false dichotomy.

What? Are you even listening to yourself? The vertical dimension of a connector is irrelevant if it is less than the thickness of the device.

No, there needs to be room for more than just the receptacle. The shroud, the mounting, the external case, the supporting circuitry.

And it is quite full.

And it could have been a different size.

Yes, it does. There is no product thinner than 6mm (allowing for the receptacle and the case) with video output.

Right. There's not enough space to put a DP connector in a MacBook, but you're going to fit Mini-DP on an iPod Nano ?

You've got all the answers, so let's hear it.

I never said anything about "walling out", and I most certainly never said I "had all the answers".

Why, then, does it explicitly implement the HDTV color space? Why does it include multichannel audio? Why does it contain an auxiliary data channel outside of the video pathway? Why does their website refer to HDTVs, media players, and portable devices as a goal for DisplayPort connectivity? Why are home theater manufacturers among its members?

Ambition, perhaps ? Talking about what you want to happen do not necessarily have to agree with realistic anticipations.

For the last time, the constraint is PCB layout, which means PCB free space, which is not in any more abundance on a MacBook logic board than it is on an iPhone or a netbook.

But it obviously could be, otherwise the other 99% of the laptop market wouldn't be able to do it.

Size of the overall device is irrelevant--larger computers have larger PCBs, but also have more on them. The device in question could be the size of a car, but the if PCB is 3x3, then lots of things won't fit on it. This level of ignorance simply must stop.

So must the level of stupidity of insisting that a "device the size of a car" with a "3x3" PCB in it is in any way, shape, or form a reasonable comparison in this discussion.

Tell it to notebook engineers. Maybe they'll be happy to hear that their job is a piece of cake and drsmithy can do it all without making any sacrifices.

Obviously Apple's notebook engineers are pretty **** if they can't manage something the other 99% can.

The bottom line is that you're complaining about it for the sake of complaining, and with no technical frame of reference to compare it to.

No, I'm complaining about it because it's a valid complaint and I have a perfectly reasonable technical frame of reference to compare - the rest of the notebook industry.

You have no information to bring to the table and don't seem to have a problem with other examples of connectors becoming standardized or completely replaced after an initial introduction, or with "standards" driven largely by a single corporation, or with the creation of a new standard for no apparent reason (when HDMI offers all of the current benefits, and could easily have been extended with packet-based communication to match or exceed DP).

Like I said, I have no investment one way or the other with DP.

But when Apple does those things, even with a pretty clear motive and nothing resembling a trap, it's suddenly worth bitching about. The argument makes no sense.

I'm not sure which 'standard' you're offering as a parallel to mini-DP.

It's worth complaining about, for exactly the same reasons I've already mentioned.

matticus008

Dec 9, 2008, 01:21 AM

A ridiculous, unreasonable and almost certainly hypocritical standard.
I fail to see how. There is no such thing as extra space on the PCB. Any change to increase space for one item comes at the expense of another. Your handwaving aside, I see no justification for your claims, and you continually resist providing any.
This is called a false dichotomy.
No, it's not, because it's not a dichotomy at all.
No, there needs to be room for more than just the receptacle. The shroud, the mounting,
All part of the receptacle, if you'd ever bothered to look at the diagrams.
the supporting circuitry.
Not affected by the connector. You're just throwing things out to try to sound like you know what you're talking about.
There's not enough space to put a DP connector in a MacBook, but you're going to fit Mini-DP on an iPod Nano ?
No, you are. You're willfully ignoring everything that's been discussed. Your standard, "it can be redesigned", gets to ignore all the other design constraints, so I'm simply applying your argument in the alternative of your seeing reason.
Ambition, perhaps ? Talking about what you want to happen do not necessarily have to agree with realistic anticipations.
Ambition requires intent. You are claiming that there is no intent to compete with HDMI (despite repeated mentions of HDTVs and consumer electronics in their own whitepapers), and therefore there can be no ambition. You can't have ambition towards things you don't intend. That's a fitting image of your entire argument.
Obviously Apple's notebook engineers are pretty **** if they can't manage something the other 99% can.
Okay.
No, I'm complaining about it because it's a valid complaint and I have a perfectly reasonable technical frame of reference to compare - the rest of the notebook industry.
No, it isn't. It's now a standards-endorsed connector. You no longer have a basis to complain. You didn't before, either, since it was in active proposal since before you started posting, but now it's no longer up in the air, so there is no need to entertain this absurdity.

drsmithy

Dec 11, 2008, 11:40 AM

I fail to see how.

Because you are arguing that any criticism not accompanied by a fully working alternative, identical in every way except a single change, is invalid.

There is no such thing as extra space on the PCB. Any change to increase space for one item comes at the expense of another.

Only if the PCB size is fixed, which it is not.

Your handwaving aside, I see no justification for your claims, and you continually resist providing any.

I have provided a great deal of support for my arguments. All of which you have handwaved away with an argument that ultimately boils down to an implied assertion that there was no other solution to creating the MacBook without using Mini-DP.

No, it's not, because it's not a dichotomy at all.

It is, because the usefulness of, and justification for, Mini-USB and HDMI C connectors is completely, utterly and totally independent of anything to do with Mini-DP. The situation is not either/or, as you imply. I can quite reasonably have the opinion that Mini-USB and HDMI-C are useful and justified, but Mini-DP is not.

All part of the receptacle, if you'd ever bothered to look at the diagrams.

I have. Your 6mm dimension won't fit it (and that's without even taking the curve of the iPod cases into account).

Not affected by the connector. You're just throwing things out to try to sound like you know what you're talking about.

What use is a Mini-DP connector going to be without something to drive it ?

This brings up a contradiction in your logic. You are essentially asserting that PCB sizes and layouts are fixed, and cannot be changed. You are also insisting that the MacBook [Air|Pro] PCBs are 'full' and that the PCBs of iPods are in a similar situation.

On wonders, then, where the space to put a Mini-DP port (and its supporting circuitry) onto the PCBs of iPods is going to come from, given that they are full.

No, you are. You're willfully ignoring everything that's been discussed. Your standard, "it can be redesigned", gets to ignore all the other design constraints, so I'm simply applying your argument in the alternative of your seeing reason.

You are not applying "my reasoning" at all. You are applying your grossly and deliberately distorted interpretation of it, so as to create a strawman to assault. At no point have I suggested a different design would not require other changes, nor did I ever ignore other design constraints.

No, it isn't. It's now a standards-endorsed connector. You no longer have a basis to complain. You didn't before, either, since it was in active proposal since before you started posting, but now it's no longer up in the air, so there is no need to entertain this absurdity.

So not only can I go out today and buy a DP to Mini-DP cable/adapter, but Apple are including them with all their hardware sporting Mini-DP ?

No ? Then my complaint is still completely valid.

AidenShaw

Dec 11, 2008, 01:44 PM

It's now a standards-endorsed connector.

Please show us a link to the announcement that VESA has endorsed Apple's proposal.

Mini-DisplayPort is Apple-owned proprietary IP, which is why you need a license from Apple to build it into a product. (See http://developer.apple.com/softwarelicensing/agreements/pdf/MiniDisplayPortImpLicense.pdf for the legal license.)

There's no point in discussing things with you when you make blatant lies like "It's now a standards-endorsed connector."

If, someday, VESA adopts the standard - then it will be a standards-endorsed connector. Right now it's Apple proprietary, and it's been offered to a standards body. Much different from being a standard.

matticus008

Dec 11, 2008, 02:42 PM

Please show us a link to the announcement that VESA has endorsed Apple's proposal.
Email VESA yourself. Bill Lampesis will be more than happy to confirm it. If you don't believe the standards body alone, check with Molex.

If you can't be bothered, then at least see corroboration here (http://www.macuser.de/forum/showpost.php?p=4587698&postcount=83), here (http://www.test.upcraft.com/) and here (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1324031&postcount=49). None of the actual DisplayPort 1.2 documents are public yet, so I can't provide you with them.
There's no point in discussing things with you when you make blatant lies like "It's now a standards-endorsed connector."
Except that it's neither blatant nor a lie, much less a plurality of lies. It was an active proposal long before this thread and its runaway bitching ever got started, and its inclusion in DisplayPort 1.2 is now a done deal.

Instead of you know, checking your facts or attempting to resolve your misunderstanding, you just fly off the handle. It might be excusable if it were the first time.
Because you are arguing that any criticism not accompanied by a fully working alternative, identical in every way except a single change, is invalid.
Because your criticism waves away any other contributing factors in favor of an ignorant statement that some other similar-sized product can accommodate it. It should go without saying that notebook design, whose engineers are well paid for their singular ability to make things fit, is the result of a huge number of competing factors, and each finalized design is a series of conscious decisions and compromises. Apple in particular works with very tight tolerances, because it makes a great deal of money from its design, whether you wish it were so or not. There is no such thing as a simple redesign of the MacBook that comes without costs.

Until you can face the fact that there is no "single change" fix to these kinds of problems, you're simply wasting everyone's time.
Only if the PCB size is fixed, which it is not.
Maximum PCB size is dictated by space available. Now you're entering a whole new chapter of redesign.
I have provided a great deal of support for my arguments.
I have yet to see a single reference, apart from your ill-fated original assessment that the port could simply expand along its current plane.
I can quite reasonably have the opinion that Mini-USB and HDMI-C are useful and justified, but Mini-DP is not.
Then do it. Explain how HDMI's C connector is useful and justified, but DisplayPort's mini connector is not.
This brings up a contradiction in your logic. [...] On wonders, then, where the space to put a Mini-DP port (and its supporting circuitry) onto the PCBs of iPods is going to come from, given that they are full.
"Its supporting circuitry" consists of a new graphics subsystem, which replaces the existing one. Keep in mind also that I'm referring to future products, since none currently have dedicated video output ports, and not, as you are, to existing hardware designed to specific manufacturing tolerances.
So not only can I go out today and buy a DP to Mini-DP cable/adapter, but Apple are including them with all their hardware sporting Mini-DP ?
What does that have to do with your complaint? You don't appear to be complaining about unimplemented portions of the standard in products or future availability anywhere else. For that, you seem to have patience. But for this, it's a different ballgame.

All the necessary parts will be available before DisplayPort even approaches 1% market penetration. Being an early adopter sometimes means having to wait for all the pieces to fall in place.

Mackilroy

Dec 11, 2008, 03:21 PM

It's so much fun coming back here day after day and watching you two pick each other apart. :)

AidenShaw

Dec 11, 2008, 04:27 PM

Email VESA yourself. Bill Lampesis will be more than happy to confirm it. If you don't believe the standards body alone, check with Molex.

If you can't be bothered, then at least see corroboration here (http://www.macuser.de/forum/showpost.php?p=4587698&postcount=83), here (http://www.test.upcraft.com/) and here (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1324031&postcount=49). None of the actual DisplayPort 1.2 documents are public yet, so I can't provide you with them.

Except that it's neither blatant nor a lie, much less a plurality of lies. It was an active proposal long before this thread and its runaway bitching ever got started, and its inclusion in DisplayPort 1.2 is now a done deal.

So, in other words, it hasn't been endorsed by VESA as a standard, and your claim that it has been amounts to a blatant lie.

Proposed, "under consideration for a future revision", "draft standard" or whatever - today it is not a "standards-endorsed connector".

Sheesh.... :rolleyes:

matticus008

Dec 11, 2008, 06:05 PM

So, in other words, it hasn't been endorsed by VESA as a standard, and your claim that it has been amounts to a blatant lie.
What part of "is a part of DisplayPort 1.2" is so difficult to parse?
Proposed, "under consideration for a future revision", "draft standard" or whatever - today it is not a "standards-endorsed connector".
It is neither proposed nor under consideration at this point. As to draft standards and working versions, they are by definition standards-endorsed by virtue of having been adopted by the standards body. Certification of draft-n products is uncontroversial despite ratification being a year away. EIDE was on the market nearly two years before its finalization. Both were/are known to be standards-endorsed and standards-compliant.

The question of whether the mini connector is destined to a proprietary life in a pathological conspiracy to avoid implementing standards-compliant hardware has been answered in the negative. Feel free to continue with false pedanticism, though, by all means.

AidenShaw

Dec 11, 2008, 06:14 PM

What part of "is a part of DisplayPort 1.2" is so difficult to parse?

The part where I can see the 1.2 spec, obviously.

The current spec is 1.1a.

The current spec does not endorse mini-displayport.

Remember that you said:

Originally Posted by matticus008
It's now a standards-endorsed connector.

The word "now" means currently, today.

That's not the case. Your statment is not truthful. You could have used future tense, or any number of wiggle-phrases.

But you didn't. You said "now", which is a lie.

I won't press this further - obviously truth has no meaning to you.

...whether the mini connector is destined to a proprietary life...

Very good - using a future tense rather than the present.

matticus008

Dec 12, 2008, 08:45 AM

The word "now" means currently, today.
Yes, it does. The final decision to include the mini connector was made over a week ago. Currently, today it is blessed by VESA and available to buy from Molex.
That's not the case. Your statment is not truthful. You could have used future tense, or any number of wiggle-phrases.
Why? It is currently, today a connector approved by VESA, the standards body. Again, final ratification of the standard revision often occurs long after approval and endorsement, as in the case of 802.11n and EIDE, to use the same examples I've already provided.

I can't help it if yet again, you fail to comprehend based on your desire to get a word in, jumping far ahead of yourself in the process. This is simply a rehashing of your "had its first" = "is a" linguistic failure. If truth were truly what you were after, you wouldn't have come out making grand accusations.

drsmithy

Dec 14, 2008, 04:43 PM

Because your criticism waves away any other contributing factors in favor of an ignorant statement that some other similar-sized product can accommodate it.

No, it does not.

Neither is the comparison of a similar (or better) product 'ignorant'. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It should go without saying that notebook design, whose engineers are well paid for their singular ability to make things fit, is the result of a huge number of competing factors, and each finalized design is a series of conscious decisions and compromises. Apple in particular works with very tight tolerances, because it makes a great deal of money from its design, whether you wish it were so or not. There is no such thing as a simple redesign of the MacBook that comes without costs.

Again, since it seems to be having trouble sinking in, putting DP on the MacBook would have involved no redesign, only design.

Until you can face the fact that there is no "single change" fix to these kinds of problems, you're simply wasting everyone's time.

You're beating down a straw man. Again.

Maximum PCB size is dictated by space available. Now you're entering a whole new chapter of redesign.

Again, no "re" -design.

You really are quite schizophrenic. Even though you have agreed the MacBook could have been designed differently to include DP, basically all your arguments boil down to insisting that it couldn't have been designed differently.

I have yet to see a single reference, apart from your ill-fated original assessment that the port could simply expand along its current plane.

Don't lie. You have seen numerous references to, for example, machines of similar or smaller size including ports equivalent or larger than DP. Further, despite attacking numerous straw men, you still haven't come up with a reason why comparing the MacBook to other laptops is invalid.

Then do it. Explain how HDMI's C connector is useful and justified, but DisplayPort's mini connector is not.

A device the size of the MacBook could fit regular DP.

It is unclear as to why any of the devices you have proposed will require Mini-DP. Similarly, why, if they were being redesigned to fit it Mini-DP, they could not be similarly redeigned to fit regular DP. Finally, why they would not be better served by HDMI (or if, indeed, they would benefit from an onboard video-out at all).

There are devices with HDMI connectivity, where a HDMI-A-sized plug will not fit.

"Its supporting circuitry" consists of a new graphics subsystem, which replaces the existing one. Keep in mind also that I'm referring to future products, since none currently have dedicated video output ports, and not, as you are, to existing hardware designed to specific manufacturing tolerances.

Ah. So you think Apple will make larger iPods ?

What does that have to do with your complaint?

Since my complaint was Mini-DP being a) another example of Apple's NIH-syndrome; and b) a cheap attempt for some early lock-in to sell more monitors, I'd say it has everything to do with it.

All the necessary parts will be available before DisplayPort even approaches 1% market penetration. Being an early adopter sometimes means having to wait for all the pieces to fall in place.

Only when you're an Apple customer. Other manufacurers tend to just use standards, or have transition periods, or make a token gesture towards interoperability.

matticus008

Dec 14, 2008, 09:34 PM

Neither is the comparison of a similar (or better) product 'ignorant'. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Product-level comparisons are indeed ignorant as to constraints of individual design criteria.
Again, since it seems to be having trouble sinking in, putting DP on the MacBook would have involved no redesign, only design.
Such an analysis begs the question. The genesis of the mini connector stems directly from design constraints, wherein the finished product could not accommodate the full size connector without burdening some other aspect of the design.

You suggest that Apple went off on its own to create this connector out of some aversion to a standard that VESA itself credits Apple for significant involvements in creating. This does not compute, as they say.
You really are quite schizophrenic. Even though you have agreed the MacBook could have been designed differently to include DP, basically all your arguments boil down to insisting that it couldn't have been designed differently.
None of the arguments so boil down. This really isn't that complicated. Any alternative design involves tradeoffs which you have demonstrated no rational understanding of, nor a compelling justification to defer to your conclusory armchair quarterbacking.
Don't lie. You have seen numerous references to, for example, machines of similar or smaller size including ports equivalent or larger than DP. Further, despite attacking numerous straw men, you still haven't come up with a reason why comparing the MacBook to other laptops is invalid.
You can continue to repeat this, but it will continue to remain untrue. A power brick is smaller than a notebook and contains a significantly larger connector. There is no direct relationship between product size and port accommodation.
It is unclear as to why any of the devices you have proposed will require Mini-DP. Similarly, why, if they were being redesigned to fit it Mini-DP, they could not be similarly redeigned to fit regular DP.
It's trivial. The mini connector is less than half the PCB size, presenting a wide array of options given the external constraint of PCB size, determined prior to connector selection.
Finally, why they would not be better served by HDMI
They would be! But VESA decided to pull the ultimate NIH and create a new connector for no good reason, and so that ship has sailed.
There are devices with HDMI connectivity, where a HDMI-A-sized plug will not fit.
There are devices with DisplayPort connectivity where a regular DP plug will not fit. The PCB sizes of HDMI and DP connectors are similar, both full size and regular. You cannot make your argument for HDMI and foreclose its use for DP.
Since my complaint was Mini-DP being a) another example of Apple's NIH-syndrome;
Readily disproven by VESA's own press releases: "Many VESA member companies have played important roles in establishing the DisplayPort specifications and compliance testing process, including [...] Apple [...]"

If the standards body has no ax to grind, then the claim is utterly without merit. They can't very well have "not-invented-here" problems with something they were significant contributors to inventing.
a cheap attempt for some early lock-in to sell more monitors
There is no lock-in. None. Every DisplayPort monitor is compatible; every Apple monitor is compatible. The connector used is fully supported by VESA, with the royalty-free license bridging the interim period between approval and ratification, thus helping to bring products to market faster. If they wanted to lock anyone in, they would just sit on the connector until its ratification next year.

rtheb

Dec 16, 2008, 02:42 PM

Interesting thread here...

Vydeo Cancelled their Mini DP to DP cables... :/ (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=617759)

drsmithy

Dec 18, 2008, 08:06 PM

Product-level comparisons are indeed ignorant as to constraints of individual design criteria.

Only if you believe there is something Earth-shattering unique about the MacBook making such comparisons invalid.

(One can only assume you never compare two products, since apparently doing so is not only pointless, but impossible.)

Such an analysis begs the question. The genesis of the mini connector stems directly from design constraints, wherein the finished product could not accommodate the full size connector without burdening some other aspect of the design.

This is a massive assumption on your behalf, for which you have offered nought but handwaving and vague implications of impossibility to support.

You suggest that Apple went off on its own to create this connector out of some aversion to a standard that VESA itself credits Apple for significant involvements in creating. This does not compute, as they say.

Actually, not, I suggest Apple went off on its own to create a connector because that's what Apple as already mentioned, the poster-child of NIH-syndrome - do. Helping to sell some monitors is icing on the cake.

None of the arguments so boil down.

Yes, they do. All of them. You cannot (or, at least, you have not) made an argument supporting the inclusion of Mini-DP without the inherent implication that there is no other way to design a laptop equivalent to the MacBook.

This really isn't that complicated. Any alternative design involves tradeoffs which you have demonstrated no rational understanding of, nor a compelling justification to defer to your conclusory armchair quarterbacking.

Given your inability to come up with a convincing example of even one of these catastrophic tradeoffs that a regular DP connector would have wrought, it seems you are the one who has demonstrated no rational understanding of design.

I have already highlighted examples of similar designs that can fit a DP connector. Clearly both I, and the designers of said hardware, understand that it is possible. You are the only one who has demonstrated an inability to grasp a design different from - but functionally equivalent to - the existing one is possible.

You can continue to repeat this, but it will continue to remain untrue. A power brick is smaller than a notebook and contains a significantly larger connector.

Unsurprisingly, another irrelevant and idiotic comparison. A power brick and a notebook are completely different devices. What's next ? A laptop and a jumbo jet ?

There is no direct relationship between product size and port accommodation.

You can keep trying to change the subject with ludicrous assertions like this (how are you going to fit a port onto a device physically smaller than it is ?), and you can keep trying to make completely irrelevant comparisons between laptops and power bricks, or laptops and cars, but it doesn't change the fact that other laptops the size of the MacBook have fitted DP-sized (or bigger) ports in.

Now, if you could somehow show that no-one else had managed to engineer a 13" (or even a 1" thick) laptop without using Mini-DP (or something similar), you just might have the glimmerings of a point. Another option would be to highlight some feature that only the MacBook had, which justified having to use so much more internal space as to render anything larger than Mini-DP impossible.

But laughable non-sequiturs like comparing a laptop to a submarine (or whatever your next example will be) and insisting it somehow proves something about the design constraints of the former, just makes you look dumb(er).

It's trivial. The mini connector is less than half the PCB size, presenting a wide array of options given the external constraint of PCB size, determined prior to connector selection.

Again, the implication that it could not have been designed any other way, ergo Mini-DP was the only solution.

There are devices with DisplayPort connectivity where a regular DP plug will not fit.

Not yet there aren't.

Readily disproven by VESA's own press releases: "Many VESA member companies have played important roles in establishing the DisplayPort specifications and compliance testing process, including [...] Apple [...]"

If the standards body has no ax to grind, then the claim is utterly without merit. They can't very well have "not-invented-here" problems with something they were significant contributors to inventing.

Mini-DP isn't (or certainly wasn't, when the MacBook came out) a VESA standard.

Apple have NIH problems because they invented another port when an existing (standard) one would have done fine. If they didn't have NIH-syndrome, they would have just used DP and designed the MacBook slightly differently to accommodate it.

There is no lock-in. None. Every DisplayPort monitor is compatible; every Apple monitor is compatible. The connector used is fully supported by VESA, with the royalty-free license bridging the interim period between approval and ratification, thus helping to bring products to market faster. If they wanted to lock anyone in, they would just sit on the connector until its ratification next year.

I'm not aware of any DP to Mini-DP adapters or cables, and they certainly didn't exist when the newest MacBooks were released. That is the "lock-in", that is the attempt to sell more monitors.

matticus008

Dec 18, 2008, 09:34 PM

Only if you believe there is something Earth-shattering unique about the MacBook making such comparisons invalid.
No. There is no other explanation at this point other than your willful ignorance.
This is a massive assumption on your behalf, for which you have offered nought but handwaving and vague implications of impossibility to support.
Perhaps you recall your earlier photo blunders. The illustrations posted in this thread handily demonstrate the lack of space. You have not presented any authority suggesting that Apple's engineers and designers did not know what they were doing and did not select the optimum design for their established criteria--in other words, you have not justified a plausible alternate design. And it's "naught".
Actually, not, I suggest Apple went off on its own to create a connector because that's what Apple as already mentioned, the poster-child of NIH-syndrome - do.
Apple is a member of VESA. VESA's own press releases credit Apple for their involvement in the development and implementation of DisplayPort (NIH syndrome? Where?): "Many VESA member companies have played important roles in establishing the DisplayPort specifications and compliance testing process, including [...] Apple [...] " The complaint that Apple's connector was retaliatory petulance because they didn't create it is utterly without merit.

You continue to claim, for no reason other than sheer stupidity, that Apple walked away from a standard they played a large role in creating out of spite. If they were going to do that, then they would not have adopted DisplayPort at all.
You cannot (or, at least, you have not) made an argument supporting the inclusion of Mini-DP without the inherent implication that there is no other way to design a laptop equivalent to the MacBook.
This is supremely idiotic. The choice of mini DP does not require any such implication. You are the only one trying to force a binary where none exists. Just as a handheld camera can be designed around a full-size USB port, so could the MacBook. You continually create arbitrary restrictions in other devices instead of recognizing the essential point: design is about compromises. I have said many times that the MacBook could have been designed differently, with different tradeoffs and different priorities. Each time you come back to troll, you insist on claiming this "there's no other way" strawman. That, too, is supremely idiotic.
Given your inability to come up with a convincing example of even one of these catastrophic tradeoffs that a regular DP connector would have wrought
Once again, that's you. The tradeoff is blatantly apparent: it DOES NOT FIT ON THE CURRENT PCB.
Unsurprisingly, another irrelevant and idiotic comparison. A power brick and a notebook are completely different devices.
Yes, they are. Congratulations.
it doesn't change the fact that other laptops the size of the MacBook have fitted DP-sized (or bigger) ports in.
A fact not at issue.
Again, the implication that it could not have been designed any other way, ergo Mini-DP was the only solution.
False.
Not yet there aren't.
Then your assertion regarding HDMI C is also false. You keep asking for it both ways, and you can't have it. You're just dying to argue about things you don't understand, and it is both tedious and boring.

HDMI has a standard size connector and a mini connector. DisplayPort does as well. Unless you are criticizing HDMI's C connector, which results in roughly the same PCB savings, you cannot criticize the mini DP connector on those grounds.
Mini-DP isn't (or certainly wasn't, when the MacBook came out) a VESA standard.
A mini connector was advertised and promised for 1.2 at least as far back as January. Apple's connector was a proposal at least as far back as September. As of at least early December, it is no longer a proposal. It is a done deal. Apple's connector is the mini connector for DisplayPort. The complaint that it is a proprietary trap is therefore baseless.
Apple have NIH problems because they invented another port when an existing (standard) one would have done fine.
Again, you can't have NIH problems against something you are credited for designing, nor can the summary and unsupported argument that another "would have done fine" be arbitrarily targeted against one connector solely to satisfy your need to bitch.
That is the "lock-in", that is the attempt to sell more monitors.
For the last time, if they wanted lock-in, the spec wouldn't be wide open. It wouldn't be exactly electrically compatible. It wouldn't be standardized. It wouldn't be in their LCD cinema displays, which have never been marketed toward general Mac users. It wouldn't be so effortlessly bypassed with the use of a simple adapter at market price.

SACD02

Dec 19, 2008, 12:05 AM

I think this topic is the best place for my little rant. By the way, I'm a long time reader of both Macrumors and Appleinsider (and the now gone Thinksecret) and these sites have been my gate into apple rumors for such long time;laptop G5s with liquid cooling anyone?:D. Man those were the days

Anyways I'm a professional photographer who have used Apple computers since 1988. I have been a passionate fan as long as I can remember and watched as many stevenotes as possible. I was one of the fools who paid for a ADC to DVI converter and later saw ADC being phased out!
So let me summirize the issues i have with Mini-DP:

1)The new Mini-DP is the most stupid idea from Apple since ADC. Before you drink the kool aid and tell me that Mini-DP is a standard, let me tell you one thing. Something is standard when everybody uses it not just Apple. Sony, Panasonic, Dell, HP, Toshiba, Microsoft, nVidia and ATI have clearly spoken and their answers are clear: They are going to support DVI, HDMI and the full sized Displayport. If somehow you're thinking that all of these big companies are going to all of a sudden start using Mini-DP so they can be compatible with Apple's display, then you seriously need to wake up. PC manufactures almost always choose function over form and that's why they still put VGA output on their computers. Manufactures will move to Display port, but the they'll move to the full sized one not the Apple designed version of it! So stop saying Mini-DP will somehow become popular among others, I bet it wont. We're talking companies who still support legacy ports on their computers, what makes you think that will change instantly?

2)Being a standard doesn't mean anything! There is a Dual Layer specification in CD's format book! Did it ever become anything because it was included in the standard? Where are all the DVD+RW DL discs out there? I mean they exist in the standard book! Being a standard doesn't equal being mainstream. if nobody uses it, it wont become anything more than a niche port! I mean Firewire (one of Apple's own invention) has an acceptable level of support especially in the pro world and yet Apple decides it is no longer needed on their consumer laptops (once they boasted they include all the I/O ports on their consumer laptops as well)

3) Provide backward compatibility! If Steve is concerned with having his Mini-DP port, fine at least give us a lonely DVI port or include the cable! Are you telling me if I buy the supposdely pro laptop, I wont be able to connect it to my 2 30" ACD screen? that I have to pay $100 for a converter cable so the laptop can be thin? what kind of stupid logic is that?

4)Apple is being innovative! Yeah right! Where's Blu-ray and HDMI then? Oh yeah these "industry standard" formats are somehow a bag of hurt and not needed! Somehow HDCP is bad but Apple's DRM in music store was the greatest idea of all time!Come on and cut the crap; even Microsoft with their support for the stupid HD DVD is including BD-R/BD-RE functionality in Vista SP2. Apple who sits on the board of BDA yet refuses to include it natively in their OS! Feeling like Innovation? Give us Blu-ray which is already 2 years old and all the PC manufacutres (except the HD DVD's creator Toshiba) are including it in their laptops.

5) Remember the past! Remember how PowerPC was the superior processor that better than anything that Intel would ever do? Remember the "awesome" roadmap that IBM had for G5? Remember Firewire being the most superior solution for connectivity (which I believe it is) yet Apple drops it?Remember ADC and its fate? Dont be so quick to forget all those promises and their eventual fate. Mini-DP has every chance to join the hall of fame of failures that Apple experimented with. Stop thinking that Mini-DP will become a huge success because Apple says so. Apple also promised all the things I mentioned above and they didn't happen!

Conclusion: If you like Apple like I do, don't support them when they put out a crap like that. The days are gone where Microsoft or Apple could singlehandedly set an industry standard. Nobody is going to champion Mini-DP just because Steve Jobs think its sexy! Don't forget the past and try to defend every decision that Apple makes no matter what!

/Rant over

Anyways i'll be glad to participate more in this form
cheers

matticus008

Dec 19, 2008, 01:49 AM

1)The new Mini-DP is the most stupid idea from Apple since ADC. Before you drink the kool aid and tell me that Mini-DP is a standard, let me tell you one thing. Something is standard when everybody uses it not just Apple.
No, something is standard when it is adopted and endorsed by the standards body. Mini DP is officially sanctioned by VESA. DisplayPort promised a mini connector back in January, and here it is, delivered and pending ratification next year (right along with 802.11n--you've got a problem with that, too, I take it). "Kool Aid" has nothing to do with it.
Sony, Panasonic, Dell, HP, Toshiba, Microsoft, nVidia and ATI have clearly spoken and their answers are clear: They are going to support DVI, HDMI and the full sized Displayport.
That's the magic of the mini connector--it's already supported! All it needs is the actual parts to start shipping, which will take place before DisplayPort monitors even hit 1% market share. Apple couldn't implement it if it weren't supported by the manufacturers of their graphics subsystems and monitor logic.
If somehow you're thinking that all of these big companies are going to all of a sudden start using Mini-DP so they can be compatible with Apple's display
They don't have to change anything at all.
2)Being a standard doesn't mean anything!
Yes, that's true, but it directly contradicts your first rant.
3) Provide backward compatibility!
Done!
I have to pay $100 for a converter cable so the laptop can be thin? what kind of stupid logic is that?
It's $29, and thin has nothing to do with it. Definitely stupid logic.
Remember ADC and its fate? Dont be so quick to forget all those promises and their eventual fate. Mini-DP has every chance to join the hall of fame of failures that Apple experimented with.
You should be more concerned about the fate of DisplayPort in general. VESA hasn't had a lasting market success since VGA. This isn't their first attempt at a DVI replacement.
/Rant over
I certainly hope so. It generally helps to know what you're talking about, or at least to read the thread, before engaging in rants.