Apple Offering Free Licensing of Mini DisplayPort Spec

[drsmithy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ATimson]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[matticus008]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

This is nonintuitive, I agree, but it's been the same way 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]

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

I understand DisplayPort is already royalty free?

Apple did not invent Displayport
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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.