Apple Preparing to Add HDMI to Macs?

[Apollo33]

I think this is another situation of apple telling us what they think the standard is instead of letting it work itself out. I don't agree with their reasoning as this is something that is widely available on "windows" PC's with no issues.

HDMI is here, is the standard and they should support, end of story in my book.

While I agree they should put HDMI on the desktop Macs... and provide a MiniDisplayPort -> HDMI connector for laptop users, there's a good reason to go with DisplayPort.

The HDMI spec is primarily for outputting to a TV. They don't much care for multiple displays or high resolutions. DisplayPort v1.2 (which Apple hasn't yet put in their hardware) will allow for daisy-chaining of multiple displays off of a single DisplayPort (or miniDisplayPort). This means you could hook up two 30" monitors to one MacBook Pro (provided the graphics card could handle it). You couldn't do this with HDMI. HDMI is probably designed with a single 1080p TV in mind since that's the "Full HD" resolution.

The actual DisplayPort spec allows for audio-out as well... (although Apple decided not to incorporate this for whatever reason.) So it's essentially a big competitor to HDMI, but probably more ideal (than HDMI) for computer usage.

 

[TMay]

The more important aspect of this is the Cinema Displays. The 30" hasn't been updated in ages and the 24" is over a year old. It could be that the next revision of Cinema Displays would have HDMI connectors (with HDCP) allowing them to be much more useful (i.e. connecting a PS3 to them).

Seriously, how difficult is this to comprehend:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/home-...layPort-1-2-Confirmed--Blows-Away-HDMI-1-4/p1

Displayport is unquestionably better for a computing environment. Using adaptors, it is backward compatible with HDMI (excepting a few arcane color capabilities).

Apple isn't going to put HDMI into any current or future Cinema Displays.

Isn't
going
to
happen

No mini HDMI on Mac Book Pro

No HDMI on iMac

Maybe AppleInsider is correct and HDMI will replaced DVI on the mac mini in addition to the displayport. I'll be looking to see sales off the charts due to that.

 

[Earbird]

geez about time

 

[huntercr]

Forgive the ignorance, but what does HDMI enable one to do that can't be done already?

one less adapter?

I would personally prefer this since I like to route all my video through my A/V receiver. Currently I have to use a DVI->VGA adapter and route directly to my TV. Then I have to use the TV remote to switch to it.

If I had it running straight to HDMI, I could just use the AV remote.

 

[sgentle]

There is a massive amount of misinformation going around here...

The first is that everybody should read the release about DisplayPort 1.2 that was posted earlier. The biggest thing is that DisplayPort 1.2 can transfer any audio codec that comes on Blu-Ray, and that DisplayPort spits out HDMI signalling if an adaptor is detected, which could support any audio codec HDMI supports. It is the graphics card that is the limitation with the current macs. If a graphics card supported the 7.1 audio codecs, the fact that it is going through a DisplayPort or an HDMI port would make no difference.

Apple is not going to include a HDMI port because they could deliver the exact same thing with an adaptor, and it would be backwards compatible with existing adaptors... If you're concerned about having an adaptor though, you can even get a MiniDisplayPort to HDMI cable for $10 at Monoprice.

 

[TMay]

There is a massive amount of misinformation going around here...

The first is that everybody should read the release about DisplayPort 1.2 that was posted earlier. The biggest thing is that DisplayPort 1.2 can transfer any audio codec that comes on Blu-Ray, and that DisplayPort spits out HDMI signalling if an adaptor is detected, which could support any audio codec HDMI supports. It is the graphics card that is the limitation with the current macs. If a graphics card supported the 7.1 audio codecs, the fact that it is going through a DisplayPort or an HDMI port would make no difference.

Apple is not going to include a HDMI port because they could deliver the exact same thing with an adaptor, and it would be backwards compatible with existing adaptors... If you're concerned about having an adaptor though, you can even get a MiniDisplayPort to HDMI cable for $10 at Monoprice.

Thanks for the pdf and the cable link.

 

[Ca$hflow]

For the love of God Apple, esata, esata, esata.

Exactly! Not like I would use ALL 5 USB PORTS!!!

 

[kernkraft]

Im not sure HDMI can be considered the "next level." More like playing catch-up with the rest of the industry.

But whenever I purchased unibody MBs and MB Pros, I was told that the Mini Display Port was the future!


Having said that, when I replaced my plastic MB with a unibody one, Jobs also told us that not having a Firewire was gonna be the future. For me, that is just the sad past (I upgraded to MBP).

 

[baryon]

You both realize the article mentions replacing the DVI port, not the mini-DisplayPort?

Not to mention, practically every major video card, PC and monitor manufacturer has signed up to support DisplayPort in the future.

Of course Apple isn't going to stop with the Mini Display Port, they've just introduced it less than 2 years ago. But adding HDMI next to it means that the Mini Display Port can't replace HDMI.

And no matter how bad VGA is, it's still what most projectors, TVs and monitors use. After that, you have HDMI, and of course none use Mini Display Port, no matter how awesome it is, no one uses it so far. Then of course they have all said that they would adopt it in the future, but by the time everyone gets rid of their "old" plasma TVs, their "old" huge monitors, their "old" uber expensive projectors, that's going to take many years.

For example, I'm at university and I have to give many presentations. Each time, we have different projectors, but I can tell you that they either have VGA only or VGA and HDMI. My university isn't going to buy new projectors with Mini Display Port anytime soon, since these ones work just fine. So by the time my Mini Display Port is going to be of any use to me, my computer is going to be outdated, and I probably won't be using it anymore.

Conclusion: Adopting technology that doesn't exist yet is very risky. Adoption takes time, and having a machine that will be very nice and compatible in 5 years from when you buy it isn't really useful here in the present. Just because manufacturers "adopt" some new technology doesn't make my plasma TV compatible with that technology. I sill have to buy the new version, and doing so just for a new plug is ridiculous. And not very green either.

 

[christian_k]

Imho using a Mac mini as a TV hub is a terrible waste. It's a fast, reliable computer that could compute and excecute Mars missions. Hooking it up to a TV for watching some random clips is just not ok. Additionally, its almost as expensive as the TV itself.

You are right.

People just have forgotten how powerfull this little box is. You can do so much more with it than just consume...

Christian

 

[Ironduke]

If apple dont up the cpuz hopefully they will sweeten the deal by giving us 4GB's of ram & 320GB HD's on the basic Model

Yeah baby Gitsum

 

[kernkraft]

Suspiciously well equipped

I think that the Mini on the picture has far too many connectors for a Mac. So many in fact that you know immediately that it cannot be real and it's not going to. You gain something and you lose something. How long have you been purchasing Apple products?

why? I love my tv and it does what its says on the tin.

I also live in the UK and I have to tell you, in Hampshire and in London at least, they package Macs differently. No tins here...

They sell various food products in tins but manufacturers are under legal obligation to inform consumers. So, in a way "What it says on the tin" might be one of those sayings that time passed. Actually, I just realised that we are talking about a company that puts "MacBook Pro" on some of the boxes that have MacBooks in them with unibody cases and nothing that would make them professional in any way. Apart from the Blu Ray and HDMI.


And no, I don't think the sliced bread was such a great idea either.

 

[Chundles]

I think that the Mini on the picture has far too many connectors for a Mac. So many in fact that you know immediately that it cannot be real and it's not going to. You gain something and you lose something. How long have you been purchasing Apple products?

All they did was swap the mini-DVI for an HDMI port. All the other connections are present in the current Mac mini.

 

[OllyW]

All they did was swap the mini-DVI for an HDMI port. All the other connections are present in the current Mac mini.

Typical Apple, they can fit 5 USB ports in their smallest desktop but my 24" iMac with acres of free space on the rear only gets 3. At least they've stuck an extra one on the new iMacs.

 

[tvfilm]

IF HD DVD would have won over Blu-ray, Apple would have gone with HD-DVD players right away.

Its all about Sony's ownership of Blu-Ray that irks Apple and many other developers like Microsoft (hence also no Blu-Ray on Xbox)

HD-DVD was a way better technology and widely accepted by MS and Apple but the movie studios colluded to control the HD disk market of their own movies they release.

Interestingly studios can't own movie theaters per the 1948 Paramount Decree (they were caught doing illegal things by owning everything from movie making to releasing, so they were told they can't own theaters, that stands even to this day)

but now with Blu-ray HD market, the studios made sure to not lose control and colluded to control the HD disc home video market by using tactics like payola to beat HD-DVD.

So essentially they colluded and joined as one to control the market over tech savvy companies that would have advanced HD quicker like Toshiba, Apple and MS because they are not in the movie making business and only in it for the technology side of it. in other words, no financial incentives to make certain $$$ on movies because they didn't make the movies and don't care how much it sells.

Just the fact that ALL HD-DVD movies are REGION FREE, was the first sign that HD-DVD was for the technology first, while Blu-Ray always kept all 5+ unneeded regions in tact to make more money for studios. etc. etc. HD-DVD also had U-Control and many other advancements forthcoming, then Universal decided to stop making HD-DVD's and slowly killed HD-DVD by controlling the distribution , the same B.S. tactics that made them lose theaters ownership rights in the 40's because they were essentially caught purposely killing competition and colluding with each other, price fixing and so forth.

HD-DVD also had the licensing to all DVD releases, so it was a natural entry gate for consumers to adopt HD via their Dual Combo Format Discs because the licensing of DVD movies is still owned by Toshiba, the maker of HD-DVD. They could have released ALL movies again in a dual format combo to get people into HD quicker. Studios ALWAYS (even to this day) hate that they don't own the DVD (logo) license.

Now they do with Blu-Ray and they now they totally use it as a monopoly and price fix everything. In other words, if Sony doesn't want you in , they won't let you sell Blu-Ray products, plus they get a cut from licensing which they didn't have before.


Sadly with the 2008 election, this issue was not at all important to many and why Blu-Ray just won using some really illegal tactics and had no govt. intervention stepping in to protect Toshiba, who were being punished simply because they don't make movies.

It was an unfair trade practice, collusion along with payola and I was surprise Toshiba did not sue left and right, neither did Microsoft (i guess because they know they had to make money and needed the studios regardless)


Not a HD-DVD fan boy, I love my Blu-Ray collection, I'm just speaking from some personal knowledge of the HD-DVD / BR war.

There was some massive corruption to kill HD-DVD via payola and underhanded tactics.

If this was the 1940's , the government would have stepped in but in 2008, it was nothing crucial for government at all.

Im sure Apple and MS are still not happy with the way it went down and why they both have still not supported Blu-Ray at all.

MS and Apple want Blu-Ray to fail .

They are sticking with downloads because they still have to provide some sort of studio content to it's users, of course.

But the way Blu-Ray won, believe me, MS and Apple are still not happy people (and rightfully so if you ask me)

I will be shocked if Apple EVER releases a Blu-Ray player in any mac or product. Shocked. Same for Microsoft.

I would never count on seeing a Blu-Ray player inside a Mac product or Xbox 360.

 

[gianly1985]

Typical Apple, they can fit 5 USB ports in their smallest desktop but my 24" iMac with acres of free space on the rear only gets 3. At least they've stuck an extra one on the new iMacs.

Your 24" iMac is so 2006-2008... (when the Mini had 4 usb ports)

Since March 2009:
- Mini: 5 ports
- iMac: 4 ports

The Mini doesn't have integrated webcam, stereo speakers, free wireless mouse and keyboard, etc. having one USB more than an iMac makes sense to me...

 

[CJM]

I regret more and more having bought an TV this Christmas...

Eejit.

I told my dad to take his back.

 

[kfury77]

I regret more and more having bought an TV this Christmas...

Slightly off-topic, but install Boxee and you'll love your AppleTV again. The beta is now available and easy to install for AppleTV. It keeps your settings and your media on the AppleTV but adds Boxee and XMBC to the menu. Awesomeness.
http://blog.boxee.tv/

 

[drummerlondonw3]

I
And no, I don't think the sliced bread was such a great idea either.

thanks

 

[MagnoSphere]

As an AppleTV user and fan aswell as a developer for iPhone and iPod Touch, this is a huge development in my opinion. It moves the Mac towards becoming an actual games console, the MacMini is virtually a games console right out of the box if you add HDMI.

Check out our blog post on the subject at http://www.magnosphere.com/blog/

 

[840quadra]

Typical Apple, they can fit 5 USB ports in their smallest desktop but my 24" iMac with acres of free space on the rear only gets 3. At least they've stuck an extra one on the new iMacs.

I have the same issue with my 1st generation 15' Unibody MBP. They have all the ports on one side, no USB on the Right side, and there is plenty of room for it. I understand that they may have had manufacturing reasons, but the could have easily put in a port that is wired to a USB controller, not directly soldered to the logic board.

Oh well, I make due!

 

[polaris20]

I don't really care either way for HDMI vs. MBP, though for me it's irrelevant, since I'm already using this.

My capture card isn't HD anyway, so the quality difference doesn't really matter. I would still need an adapter to go to DVI and VGA, since only one projector at work actually has HDMI on it; all the rest are VGA.

 

[cutthroughthebs]

Be a nice media server for sure but I think since Jobs has his intrest in the media sector he's down on pirated content and this little box would mean apples cool with it. Don't get me wrong though, anything could be used but I think Jobs likes to make it harder to actually use it in practice that's why HDMI isn't stock on a mac. I already have a system for that though... no big deal but it would make a nice little media server!

 

[Lazerlike42]

IF HD DVD would have won over Blu-ray, Apple would have gone with HD-DVD players right away.

Its all about Sony's ownership of Blu-Ray that irks Apple and many other developers like Microsoft (hence also no Blu-Ray on Xbox)

HD-DVD was a way better technology and widely accepted by MS and Apple but the movie studios colluded to control the HD disk market of their own movies they release.

Interestingly studios can't own movie theaters per the 1948 Paramount Decree (they were caught doing illegal things by owning everything from movie making to releasing, so they were told they can't own theaters, that stands even to this day)

but now with Blu-ray HD market, the studios made sure to not lose control and colluded to control the HD disc home video market by using tactics like payola to beat HD-DVD.

So essentially they colluded and joined as one to control the market over tech savvy companies that would have advanced HD quicker like Toshiba, Apple and MS because they are not in the movie making business and only in it for the technology side of it. in other words, no financial incentives to make certain $$$ on movies because they didn't make the movies and don't care how much it sells.

Just the fact that ALL HD-DVD movies are REGION FREE, was the first sign that HD-DVD was for the technology first, while Blu-Ray always kept all 5+ unneeded regions in tact to make more money for studios. etc. etc. HD-DVD also had U-Control and many other advancements forthcoming, then Universal decided to stop making HD-DVD's and slowly killed HD-DVD by controlling the distribution , the same B.S. tactics that made them lose theaters ownership rights in the 40's because they were essentially caught purposely killing competition and colluding with each other, price fixing and so forth.

HD-DVD also had the licensing to all DVD releases, so it was a natural entry gate for consumers to adopt HD via their Dual Combo Format Discs because the licensing of DVD movies is still owned by Toshiba, the maker of HD-DVD. They could have released ALL movies again in a dual format combo to get people into HD quicker. Studios ALWAYS (even to this day) hate that they don't own the DVD (logo) license.

Now they do with Blu-Ray and they now they totally use it as a monopoly and price fix everything. In other words, if Sony doesn't want you in , they won't let you sell Blu-Ray products, plus they get a cut from licensing which they didn't have before.


Sadly with the 2008 election, this issue was not at all important to many and why Blu-Ray just won using some really illegal tactics and had no govt. intervention stepping in to protect Toshiba, who were being punished simply because they don't make movies.

It was an unfair trade practice, collusion along with payola and I was surprise Toshiba did not sue left and right, neither did Microsoft (i guess because they know they had to make money and needed the studios regardless)


Not a HD-DVD fan boy, I love my Blu-Ray collection, I'm just speaking from some personal knowledge of the HD-DVD / BR war.

There was some massive corruption to kill HD-DVD via payola and underhanded tactics.

If this was the 1940's , the government would have stepped in but in 2008, it was nothing crucial for government at all.

Im sure Apple and MS are still not happy with the way it went down and why they both have still not supported Blu-Ray at all.

MS and Apple want Blu-Ray to fail .

They are sticking with downloads because they still have to provide some sort of studio content to it's users, of course.

But the way Blu-Ray won, believe me, MS and Apple are still not happy people (and rightfully so if you ask me)

I will be shocked if Apple EVER releases a Blu-Ray player in any mac or product. Shocked. Same for Microsoft.

I would never count on seeing a Blu-Ray player inside a Mac product or Xbox 360.

blu-ray won out because it was in the Playstation 3, which type of things is always a tremendous factor (For example, the inclusion of DVD players in Playstation 2 was one of the most significant factors in its victory over the Sega Dreamcast). While not many people were buying HD disc players in the early days of the format war (either HD-DVD or blu-ray), millions of people were buying Playstation 3s when they came out. Everybody always wants the newest game system, while new media formats are typically much slower to catch on.

This meant that within a year, you had 10 times more blu-ray players out there than HD-DVD players. In other words, there was already a tremendous install base for blu-ray, whereas HD-DVD had only just started to develop any kind of foothold amongst consumers.

This, coupled with major retailers and a few important movie studios (notably, Warner Brothers and Disney) opting to go with blu-ray, decided the format war.

No blu-ray drive in the Xbox? That's not a sign of Microsoft opposing HD-DVD. It's because you don't just take your console and change the whole thing around half-way through its life cycle.

Note: I've never owned anything either HD-DVD or blu-ray related, and in fact I was a supporter of HD-DVD in the first place. I just don't think that your statements reflect reality.

 

[PrinceAvalon]

Uh lol audio passed via HDMI isn't more powerful or better than S/PDIF lol or your Optical/Coaxial cables.. especially Optical.

HDMI became so popular and the "standard" for the A/V and TV equipment because it allowed HD audio and video in ONE cable instead of the 3 component and one for optical/coaxial audio or the DVI on the more pricy DVD units and optical/coaxial.

So it looked "neater" to the people so hung up on what wires look like. Note, I'm not saying aesthetics are bad in any way I'm an artist so very anal about neatness OOPS lol but not too anal and for something like a DVD unit which is most likely gonna sit on a shelf or case and the wires unnoticed I think it's a somewhat silly argument. Not the convenience factor of one cable I totally agree but aesthetics so much of 4 v 1 cable to me anyways is a moot argument. On something like a computer which usually is more seen/open an aesthetics argument I support/agree with then but even then it's not life/death to me it's just wires there are more important things in this world to worry about not what wires are hooked to a plastic/metal box lol.

HDMI has a bandwidth of around 10-20Gbps but I bet most of that is for the video stream not audio and Optical is around 10-50Gbps but in some cases it gets to 100-120Gbps.... and as of now it ONLY does audio.... And the way it transmits data as light energy I believe we are the limiting factor and holding back what Optical can handle but it itself can go well beyond 100Gbps. Not to mention it suffers no EM interference and gives off none while I believe HDMI like virtually all other cable but optical suffers this "flaw"

Now am I an HDMI hater, hell no... but it isn't actually superior tech to optical and they could have found a way to use it for A/V but maybe it would have cost more not sure why they went to HDMI and not tried to figure out how to use Optical as the all in one cable.

As for the mini..... well it'd be nice if it had HDMI for the aforementioned reasons already that if I yet again state would be all but redundant lol. I'd personally like it but who knows if they'll allow/offer it...