I agree on your digital download (I'll abbreviate DD) statement...but honestly, DD is decades away from being a reality for the masses.
It's 2010 and my crummy 20Mbit downstream and 1.5Mbit upstream doesn't stream movies very well.
Homes are going to need to see a huge surge in network bandwidth, throughput, etc. And you're also going to need the websites (for lack of a better word) to have a super huge pipe to support millions of homes streaming/downloading/watching movies/tv over a standard internet connection.
It just isn't here or even on the horizon for at least 10 years. We've been seeing commercials since when?...2001 from companies like Cox with promises of a DD world and here we are almost 10 years later and zippo.
As optimistic as I usually am, I'm quite the realistic on this topic. And, contrary to your belief, humans like to own physical objects...I don't necessarily want a world where I do not own a shiny dvd or bluray disc that I can always touch and hold and watch whenever, wherever...I don't want to have to wonder about the magic in the internet cloud about who owns my "movie" and what happens if the company goes out of business or someone hacks it and deletes all my movies...or if I pay my bill late and they nuke my account...or if they mix my name up with someone else and screw up my movie list.
Yes...humans like tangible things.
-Eric
Because Apple is a stubborn son of the gun wanting to go its direction in tech not the publics direction, thats why it took so long. Im going to wait and see what they do I just hope it doesnt get handicapped again with Intels god awful integrated crapo graphics. Would love to get a new Mini and hdtv but Apple has a habit of crippling its lower stuff over and over and over and I fear Mini will get crippled in some fashion. Its the Apple way. Shame they cant just build a super Mini.Not sure why it took this long, but finally....
Displayport provides full support of HDMI with an adaptor, and it has a better architecture for a computing environment than HDMI which was never designed for that. Displayport also has a better architecture for the future than HDMI.
All said and done, Displayport on a computer has advantages over an HDMI port, so if you have to pick one, Displayport would be the winner.
Displayport provides full support of HDMI with an adaptor, and it has a better architecture for a computing environment than HDMI which was never designed for that. Displayport also has a better architecture for the future than HDMI.
All said and done, Displayport on a computer has advantages over an HDMI port, so if you have to pick one, Displayport would be the winner.
Unsure. Displayport allows for audio, too.
Eric, I agree with what you say and I apologise that I didn't clarify that I am speaking from a Japanese market perspective.
The problem is that people don't want to have to have an adaptor
Not true...Mac users have become accustomed to using adapters for years now and this didn't stop the sales' growth...
More over, the "adapter switching trick" allows the 2009 MacMini to have:
- 2 VGA
- 2 DVI-SL
- 1 DVI-DL
- 2 HDMI (with no audio or stereo audio or 5.1 non-HD audio, depending on how much you want to spend in adapters)
- 1 Display Port 2560x1600 (to drive DIRECTLY a modern HP or Dell display)
- any combination of the above mentioned
We're looking at 7-8 video ports on a 16x16cm device. Try to do this without adapters.
Take a Dell ZinoHD, you cannot even hang 2 digital monitors to it. (it has HDMI+VGA)
From the VESA website:
"high definition audio formats such as Dolby MAT, DTS HD, all Blu-Ray formats..."
Happened.
Maybe you missed that the DP 1.2a spec came out recently.
Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD are working only with HDMI 1.3 (and better), if I was informed correctly.
Toslink will not work (and so the adapter also will not work for these audio-codecs).
Not true...Mac users have become accustomed to using adapters for years now and this didn't stop the sales' growth...
More over, the "adapter switching trick" allows the 2009 MacMini to have:
- 2 VGA
- 2 DVI-SL
- 1 DVI-DL
- 2 HDMI (with no audio or stereo audio or 5.1 non-HD audio, depending on how much you want to spend in adapters)
- 1 Display Port 2560x1600 (to drive DIRECTLY a modern HP or Dell display, and of course the 2560x1440 27" iMac in "Target display mode")
- any combination of the above mentioned
We're looking at 7-8 video ports on a 16x16cm device. Try to do this without adapters.
Take a Dell ZinoHD, you cannot even hook 2 digital monitors to it. (it has HDMI+VGA, so only 1 digital output). But it has HDMI "without adapters" so it's cool.
Never heard such a nonsense. Silicon Image has been selling their DVI transmitter/receiver chips with integrated HDCP for many years, and graphics cards have been using them for years.
So, if you have to play with third party devices, you have to put something in your machine that everybody else is also using. DVI is on its way out and nobody cares for Apple's proprietary solution.
"sales growth"?? Mac computers still have just a tiny fraction of the overall computer market.
for what-should-be obvious reasons, I might add...
Blue Ray!![]()
Forgive the ignorance, but what does HDMI enable one to do that can't be done already?
We're looking at 7-8 video ports on a 16x16cm device. Try to do this without adapters.
Take a Dell ZinoHD, you cannot even hook 2 digital monitors to it. (it has HDMI+VGA, so only 1 digital output). But it has HDMI "without adapters" so it's cool.
Personally, I don't think BlueRay is going to increase its market share much at all. The future lies with digital download. People simply don't want discs taking up valuable storage space. Blue Ray was too late coming to market. Doesn't mean I am opposed to having a Blue Ray compatible disc drive on my Mac, I just think that its usefulness will be short lived.
Anyways, why should Apple support a SONY created device? SONY are the biggest opponents to having their media side of the business being released on the iTunes Stores.
See, you've missed the point (at least to a degree). The winner isn't what tech is better - it's what has become standard. HDMI has become an overwhelming standard. It's *THE* way to connect AV right now. That's what's going to be on all of the consumer electronics, all of the TVs, etc.
Now, the degree to which you haven't missed the point is in saying that you can convert DisplayPort to HDMI with an adaptor. That would seem to make DisplayPort a better choice.
The problem is that people don't want to have to have an adaptor. They want it to "just work," which is what's made Apple stuff so successful recently. As a company, Apple has been providing stuff that "just works" to people, and made a ton of money doing so. If they refuse to adopt what has become the clear standard and require an adaptor to use it, that would be a large exeception to that practice. It's not good business - especially for Apple.
And of course, the fact that - at least currently - Apple hasn't made the DisplayPort tech in their products compatible with HDMI is another big issue. If you insist on making people use an adaptor, at least make your computers compatible with the adaptor by providing audio-streaming and HDCP in it.