You don't need an adapter to use the Alternate Mode with an USB-C device. You obviously need an adapter if you're using a device such as the MacBook where you only have one USB-C port and you might want to charge the device at the same time.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
HDMI Announces USB-C to HDMI Cables for 4K Displays and TVs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem is bigger than whats reported here.
I bought a 12" 2015 Macbook, the goofy overpriced dongle, and a nice Dell Monitor. The 12" macbook absolutely refused to see the Monitor as a monitor, it thought it was a TV. Fonts looked horrendous on it. I spent some serious time with the nice folks at Apple Warranty Support. There was no fix, so I returned the entire deal.
That macbook sure is a solid little gorgeous machine though.
I bought a 12" 2015 Macbook, the goofy overpriced dongle, and a nice Dell Monitor. The 12" macbook absolutely refused to see the Monitor as a monitor, it thought it was a TV. Fonts looked horrendous on it. I spent some serious time with the nice folks at Apple Warranty Support. There was no fix, so I returned the entire deal.
That macbook sure is a solid little gorgeous machine though.
They need to ratify an HDMI spec that supports 4k@120Hz. (3D being in the 4k spec, you need at least 60Hz per eye to be reasonable use for fast motion and games).
USB-C/USB 3.1 is currently limited to 10Gb/s, HDMI 2.0 is 18Gb/s, so we'll need a faster USB standard to support the higher end HDMI bandwidth.
USB-C/USB 3.1 is currently limited to 10Gb/s, HDMI 2.0 is 18Gb/s, so we'll need a faster USB standard to support the higher end HDMI bandwidth.
Yeah. 30Hz is fast enough for watching videos or web browsing, and probably okay for photo editing, but practically useless for gaming or video editing.
Except MagSafe is both useful and a port everyone use - HDMI, a part barely anyone uses. It's a poor way to connect to an external monitor when you have DP and plugging your MacBook into a TV is a poor persons set top box. The only reason for it to actual exist is for presentations and that is now solved with 1.4 built into USB-C, there's no need for 2.0 HDMI on a laptop when DP is far superior.
I'd much rather another USB port that can do anything thanks (or Thunderbolt 3 in this case like we'll get with the new MacBook Pros, going all USB-C/TB3 is the correct way to go now)
[doublepost=1472754591][/doublepost]
In which case you'd use DisplayPort instead from the same port wouldn't you. Simple.
Why not? HDMI is just a cable to send digital video over. I'm not sure exactly how the protocol is implemented, but I believe some content even requires the content protection features of HDMI. You can also pass-through DVI, which was used by people for years for work.
Because you have DisplayPort to connect to computer monitors. HDMI is consumer technology for TV's and set top boxes primarily, not computer monitors.
Doesn't change the fact that MagSafe is a single usage case port. And do you actually have any numbers to indicate that people don't use the HDMI port?
FWIW, I typically only do this when traveling and I need to bring my own HDMI cable to attach to hotel TVs. If I need to bring an HDMI-USB-C cable instead of what I bring now (an HDMI-HDMI cable and an HDMI-mDP adapter), it's no big deal.
Yes, but MHL can support more - between 4.5W and 40W, depending on the MHL revision supported. If this USB-C spec can support MHL, then users connecting to an MHL-compatible HDMI port should be able to get some charging capability. 40W might be enough for an ultra low-power laptop (like the new MacBook) to get by.
But this won't be part of any HDMI spec, of course. Whether Apple will ship a computer that can use this capability is a complete unknown, but it would be very convenient for computers that only have one port.
As others have said, this 30Hz is only for 4K. HDMI has no problem with 60Hz at 1080p or 1920x1200 resolutions.
As for what people "should be using", many computers (especially Dells) these days ship with VGA and HDMI ports. HDMI looks much better than VGA and, IMO, is vastly preferable.
Video editing should be OK if the video is using the 24/25Hz frame rate used by film movies. But yeah, it would be a problem if the video is at 60Hz.
Well, Macs have (mini) DisplayPort. Some computers (like those from Dell) choose to use HDMI instead. And it works great. 4K at 60Hz requires HDMI version 2 support, but I would hope that any monitor or computer with this capability would have that support (and as a consumer, this is something to watch out for, just in case some manufacturers try to pull a fast one.)
No but obviously everyone uses the charge port and not everyone use the HDMI port - and it wouldn't be a far guess to figure its the least used of all the available ports.
Either way if it can be wrapped up in a multi port like USB-C then there's no need for it to exist is there.
[doublepost=1472760018][/doublepost]
Please show me these Dell monitors that use HDMI and not DisplayPort because ever 4k monitor i've seen from every brand, including Dell (not that id ever want a Dell badge sitting on my laptop ever again) all have a DisplayPort input. Asus, Acer, Dell, LG, all of them.
So? Some alternatives exist, who cares? All of them are basically moot these days as we see a rise of ultra-high bandwidth cables which allow multiple protocols to be channelled over them (case in point: USB-C, now being used as a video port).
Just checked it out: basically the only difference is that DisplayPort is easily made VGA-compatible with a dongle (it's a win, but it's not huge IMO), and it can handle some higher resolutions at short cable lengths. HDMI doesn't define cable lengths. That's also not as big a win as it sounds: both of them are hitting the limits of copper. You won't be able to run a 5K display with a single HDMI or DisplayPort cable.
Last edited:
Chroma subsampling. Do you have an Nvidia GPU? That will give you 4k60 over 1.4 but with reduced color fidelity.
They didn't say which year.
Well they can't give us everything we want. They have to save something for USB-D.
30hz is enough to watch a movie, so it's definitely "good enough" for many casual uses
And thats the point i'm making - there's no need for a stupidly big and very specific HDMI port on a MacBook Pro when you can have both protocols carried through USB-C. People are moaning that the USB-C to HDMI cable here is HDMI 1.4 and not HDMI 2.0 which does 4k at 60hz for monitors and my point is that its irrelevant as the same port will do DisplayPort at 60hz and all those monitors accept DP input.
It's a cable, not a dongle. But it still means one will have to BUY something since no existing HDMI cables one owns will work, so one must still purchase something. The question is how much this able will cost. Many places charge OBSCENE amounts for cables that are no better than generic $5 cables and most consumers wouldn't know there's no difference (i.e. digital either works or it doesn't).
I've said before that the iPhone should go to USB-C. It's the new STANDARD worldwide not Lightning. Given even Apple's Macs will all soon have USB-C, it only makes sense to have ONE CONNECTOR to rule them all (until something moves ahead so far it requires something better).
That would depend on the resolution they're using. HDMI is fine for 1080p type resolutions (my 24" monitor here is 1680x1050 and needs nothing more). I would not want to go to 4K unless my monitor was sufficiently large to support it without eyestrain (even with resolution doubling on the GUI like Apple uses) as things like games would have to be upconverted and that leads to fuzzy displays (i.e. Native is always best and Apple's GPUs can't handle things like 4K or 5K gaming save simple things).
As for 30Hz, that's 4K only and that's the same difference as 1080i (that most people watch every day on cable and/or satellite or broadcast television). Thus, for watching a 4K movie on a TV, it'd probably be fine for most people. If you're going to use a high-end monitor, you probably want a better connection.
This development (in my opinion) adds fuel to the fire that Apple may be seriously studying the very idea of dropping the Lightning port in favor of a multi-functional USB Type-C port on the 2017 model iPhone and iPad models.
After all, the MacBook and MacBook Pro models are heading in the direction of USB Type-C ports only; it would only be a natural that the iPhone and iPad follow suit in 2017. And it would have the advantage of Apple no longer needing to include a Lightning-to-Micro USB adapter for phone charging purposes in the European market.
After all, the MacBook and MacBook Pro models are heading in the direction of USB Type-C ports only; it would only be a natural that the iPhone and iPad follow suit in 2017. And it would have the advantage of Apple no longer needing to include a Lightning-to-Micro USB adapter for phone charging purposes in the European market.
Why are folks saying this won't require a dongle??
Yes it will; A new USB to HDMI cable IS a dongle. Just a different kind of dongle.
For example, if Apple decided to remove the HDMI port on the MBPs and replace it with USB-C, then I could not just connect my Mac to a tv or a monitor with the existing cable (that's attached to the monitor or tv).
That said, if near-future monitors and tvs come with USB-C ports that can handle everything that HDMI can, then (and only then) we're in business.
On the other hand, unless the device you're connecting to also charges the Macbook, this is pointless unless you intend to connect for a very short time. The (f'in) single port puts you in dongle-ville permanently.
Yes it will; A new USB to HDMI cable IS a dongle. Just a different kind of dongle.
For example, if Apple decided to remove the HDMI port on the MBPs and replace it with USB-C, then I could not just connect my Mac to a tv or a monitor with the existing cable (that's attached to the monitor or tv).
That said, if near-future monitors and tvs come with USB-C ports that can handle everything that HDMI can, then (and only then) we're in business.
On the other hand, unless the device you're connecting to also charges the Macbook, this is pointless unless you intend to connect for a very short time. The (f'in) single port puts you in dongle-ville permanently.
No, it's a cable. The thing you put between an iPhone and a USB port is also a cable, not a dongle.
Apparently the Negative Nancys and Debbie Downers are not letting you down today.....
Wouldn't an Apple display use Thunderbolt like previously to have everything via one cable? DisplayPort 1.3 supports 5K resolutions at 60 Hz and can have 32.4 Gb/s transfer speeds, and Thunderbolt 3 can reach 40 Gb/s.
