Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Depends on how he did his testing. 1600 X 900 is the native resolution of the iPhone 5. So did he do mirroring from the screen or did he play a 1080p video where the video would not have to be upscaled to 1080p? Not sure if that has anything to do with that or not.

Having a screenshot of some artifacts does not give us how he did his testing.

It seems it's an UI screenshot (that is, the iPhone outputting at native resolution), not 1080p video playback.
 
Threads like this are either incredibly amusing or exceedingly annoying to the people at Apple that planned and built these formats and devices.

Some day our descendants will all have instantaneous point-to-point data transmission with quantum entanglement. I wonder how needlessly complicated and blown out of proportion the technology will seem.
 
No. You interpreted my comments as Apple being "greedy". Let's be clear about that. It's your assumption that's what I meant. However - you'll never know what I meant for sure because you aren't me at the keyboard. However I do know what I meant - so it's all good.

I never said I was right. In fact - I'm most likely not. However just because I'm wrong doesn't make your opinions correct or factual.

Keep your winks. We both know they aren't genuine.

I don't think anyone in this thread cares about your personal communication style incompatibilities, nor which of you is right or wrong.
 
The adaptor only has 5,333 times the memory of my first computer.

If I were in charge I would have made just one adaptor that could also be a USB host.
 
just wondering when I can spend $10 to get a lighting --> usb3 adapter plus cable for my imac 2011. the usb 2.0 port is too slow like a snail.

or maybe lightning. I must find a use for that port!


You probably won't see one for a while, at least without hardware upgrades. The guts of the iPhone/iPad have limitations that mean USB3 would be wasted in terms of raw speed. The same is true of Thunderbolt, which is why we don't have a Thunderbolt <-> Lightning adapter that could sync a maxed out iPhone in a few seconds.
 
Incorrect. The adapter does not require a computer to function, it requires input. The computations all take place inside the adapter, not the computer. The same cannot be said about the hub which requires the CPU or the raid controller.

Incorrect. This Apple adapter does require a computer first to load internal OS (mini iOS) before it can do any computations. As per original article - " @jmreid thinks the adapter copies over a “mini iOS” (!) from the device and boots it in a few seconds every time it’s connected, which would explain the fairly lengthy startup time for video out."

Without this OS preloaded from main computer this "Full-Fledged Computer" can compute less, than dumb coffee machine :D
 
The adaptor only has 5,333 times the memory of my first computer.

If I were in charge I would have made just one adaptor that could also be a USB host.

...and 256,000 times more than mine (ZX-81). Or, if we count fully programmable calculators, much more than that of the Texas TI-57 (50 program steps and 8 memory registers) - my first programmable machine back in 1980. (I'm European and we didn't have Apple I/ II machines here in the late 70's; the HC revolution started here around late 1981 with the Sinclair ZX-81 and the Commodore VC-20.)
 
The Apple TV is an amazing device. For $100, you get a wireless video receiver at least, which alone would normally cost more, and at most a great movie-watching and music-playing box. All they have to do is release a little software update, and it can have apps... GAMES.

A Raspberry Pi costs 1/3 of that, it can run XBMC (supporting Airplay streaming, local and network based media playback, Netflix, Youtube & many other plugins, it recently added live TV support too).

It also has USB ports that can actually be used by mere mortals whiteout needing to invalidate a warranty to connect a disk full of videos or photos.

The Pi also has games & apps right NOW, not in some fictional future where your dreams have come true & Apple add features without adding hardware tweaks to lock out older devices.

The Apple TV is a nice looking brick, but other devices are better value & more flexible.
 
Incorrect. This Apple adapter does require a computer first to load internal OS (mini iOS) before it can do any computations. As per original article

It'll be interesting to see how the actual implementation really is on this thing. The article doesn't state it but one of the other people mentioned in the article, Anandtech's Brian Klug, is skeptical of the iOS idea and posits that it connects to the device to mainly to keep itself updated. https://twitter.com/nerdtalker/status/307749246097047552


Where is that label?
U

From the article - "And the H9TKNNN2GD part number". You can look up the part number from the Hynix, the memory manufacturer's website - http://www.skhynix.com/products/mob...nfo.ramKind=28&info.eol=NOT&posMap=MobileDDR2 Which tell you that the "2G" in the part number refers to the two gigabits capacity which is 256 megabytes.

I never said I was right. In fact - I'm most likely not. However just because I'm wrong doesn't make your opinions correct or factual.

No I'm right that your claim is wrong and this part isn't something that's taken off from an earlier iPad, which was my main point. I don't think anyone would argue me much on that main point. On the secondary point if you're arguing on the earlier iPad not having any other ARM part, here my point wasnthat earlier iPad didn't need a decoding chip to decode its own signal internally (which doesn't make sense) but that's just secondary.

Keep your winks. We both know they aren't genuine.

Hey now it's nothing personal on you :( (seriously no)
 
Last edited:
Are folks really carrying around uncompressed 1080p video on their iPads? If so where are they getting it?

The Lighting port can handle Blue-ray. It can handle the 1080p that comes out of consumer cameras.

Lightning makes the iPad not good for Professional video editing. But it was never going to be good for professional video editing (at least by itself).

If the compressed stream is passed to the cable and then decompressed in the cable, then for $10 extra (over the price of the 30 pin to HDMI adapter) we are getting a separate and upgradable device which handles decompression for iOS devices. That's very cool.
 
So I go to a friends house and want to watch a video from my ipad I have to first check they have Apple TV, if not I have to unplug mine from the back of my setup, take it round and setup it all up instead of just taking a RELIABLE cable.

Lightning seems to me like a massive backward step by Apple if they wanted to do everything wirelessly then they should have just used micro USB!

Maybe just download something like iMediaShare and shoot it over to your friend's TV via DLNA? I'm sure they have a TV, bluray player, or something that has this feature.
 
I have read some uninformed commentary, but seriously this just takes the cake.

HDMI is the past. Once upon a time we had to connect devices to screens via cumbersome and annoying cables that had limitations like the physical connector used, cable length, and the silicon to output a signal for a device that has so many anachronistic choices it'll make your head spin. Cableless AV technology is where this is all headed, and lightning is just the beginning of Apple's latest migration away from old technology paradigms.

Outputting AV from an iPad or iPhone is a special case. Most people are not displaying video from an iPad or iPhone. In the places where I do demos of software we use Airplay Mirroring and an Apple TV which is a much saner choice for the platform.

Apple has spoken, Airplay is the main way to output audio and video to your devices, for those (few) people that have special needs they provide an adapter. Now, if there are issues with video quality on the adapter, it could be a legitimate gripe, but we need some actual data.

I highly doubt this, especially when you consider that 4K (UHD) video is the likely future of TV.
 
People have just given up. Everybody knows that Apple is not going to use anything standard even if it "just works".

99% of apple things both software and hardware are standard. If you say the opposite you're just trolling. Lightning is better than microusb, like AirPlay is better than DLNA. usually if Apple doesn't use that technology there is a reason or can't do a thing apple wants. Sure this news about AV adapters... weird. Maybe there is a problem with lighting, maybe they just got crazy. But i will not choose lightning over microusb with you can easily adapt anyway.
 
Did you even read my comment? No processor, no computer.

yes I did. It seems like you think it must have an output device. It does't. A computer is just something that has a finite set of arithmetic and/or Logical Operations. The input/output you seem to mention with a monitor are just really peripheral devices.

I'm just saying in all technically just about all those examples are fully computers. The output you see from this Adapter is just different from the type of output we are used to seeing or basing what computers are from. I'm just saying technically they are computers. I guess you could say they are "embedded computers" maybe.

EDIT: In your first post you seemed to think it must have a output device like a monitor (wrong they don't). Though in your post you quoted me you seem to think it must have a processor, and from what I can tell from the article the adapter does have a processor?
 
Last edited:
Lightning doesn't do USB 3.0, so you can safely assume that the bandwidth of the port is less then 5gbit/sec.

HDMI runs at 10.2gbit/sec. At the bare minimum, Lightning is at least half as slow as required to properly support a full HDMI link. There simply aren't enough pins and data doesn't move fast enough to make this happen.

The old 30-pin dock connector was capable of a full 1080P link because HDMI was handled on the device and passed through the 30-pin connector relatively unscathed, so it was literally just a wired adapter with some other bits and bobs strapped in to stabilize the signal...

I think you're confusing the capability of the port and the capability of the SoC. There's no reason why you can't push a 6 Gbit/s full-duplex signal through the Lightning interface. The iPad mini and iPod Touch (5th gen) are both powered by the A5R2 SoC though, which is based on an older design and has no Lightning specific capabilities.

Regardless of the physical connection, mobile devices tend to provide digital display output by methods that serialize as much as possible to reduce pin count. You've got FPD-Link II/III, MHL, MyDP, etc, all of which can operate at relatively high bit-rates (certainly well in excess of USB 2.0). Conventional HDMI actually uses 3 TMDS channels at 1.65 Gbit/s for 1080p.

It has never been clear to me what format the Apple 30-pin dock connector used for digital video. Existing pin assignments make it unlikely that anything approximating a conventional HDMI signal was used. Both Lightning and the 30-pin dock connector support 1080p30 output, HDCP, and conversion to HDMI via a device powered adapter. Some general assumptions can be made that the number of signaling pairs used for digital video is not more than 2, and that the bandwidth provided is at least the 1.24 Gbit/s required for 1920x1080, 18 bpp, 30 Hz using CVT-R. MHL and MyDP are both off the table for various reasons, so that leaves MIPI DSI, FPD-Link or something I'm not thinking of.

I wish it was. Unfortunately, it isn't. It seems it's just an AirPlay receiver (without forcing the user to explicitly set the client to stream), with all its associated problems: (when not streaming iOS-native video files but, say, mirroring or playing back non-iOS-native videos) low framerate, lowish resolution and a lag making it impossible to play fast-paced (action / racing etc.) games.

(Note that, not having purchased the new adapter myself, I don't know about whether iOS-native video files are handled the same way as on the AppleTV. As the latter has 8GB caching storage, it can pre-buffer streamed video just fine. Here, the lack of buffer MAY mean this adapter can't even play back iOS-native video files properly, unlike the ATV.)

That is, unlike the old HDMI / VGA adapters (which did mirroring without problems), there's no point in preferring this adaptor over the old, true AirPlay-to-AppleTV way. That is, don't purchase this if you already have an Apple TV - this won't offer any (resolution / framerate / lag) advantage over streaming to the AppleTV, unlike with the previous adapters.

All in all: I'm VERY disappointed. I loved the old adapters, which I used a lot when I needed much better performance / quality than with AirPlay (again, except playing back iOS-native videos, which are played back flawlessly if your network is fast enough not to have buffering problems). However, given that this adapter doesn't seem to offer anything over AirPlay (on the contrary: it may not even decode iOS-native files natively), I surely won't purchase it.

Apple should have gone the separate micro-HDMI way, as has Nokia, instead of - even when compared to Apple's previous tech - just offering us a technically vastly inferior "solution".

Well, but it isn't like AirPlay at all, because there's no WiFi involved whatsoever in this situation. There's no radios in Apple's adapter, and that has serious advantages.

I still have many questions about this whole situation. Were the Panic crew using video out or video mirroring mode? Because while the iPad mini supports playback at 1080p30, the screen is only 1024x768, so to mirror that 1:1 to a 16:9 display with letterboxing would yield... 1366x768. Yeah, I got nothing.

I also wonder what's in the other end of the adapter. Panic only showed us one end, and we all know how Apple likes to cram silicon into tiny spaces. The cable was also cut down to a nub, so although it looks from the solder pads that the cable uses 9 conductors (1 for each pin of the Lightning connector), it's hard to say for sure. I did spot 1 NXP chip on the board, but at a glance, it didn't seem to have the full complement of chips we've come to expect from Lightning cables/accessories. I also couldn't make out if one or both of the differential signaling pairs was being used. Another possible reason for using an ARM SoC in this device is because it has a Lightning port of its own, albeit solely for power.

One last theory to throw out there is that because the iPad mini and iPod touch (5th gen) are both still using the older A5, they don't support a digital video signaling mode appropriate for Lightning and are therefore sending the H.264 AirPlay versions of the video data via USB 2.0 to the adapter.
 
Are folks really carrying around uncompressed 1080p video on their iPads? If so where are they getting it?

The Lighting port can handle Blue-ray. It can handle the 1080p that comes out of consumer cameras.

Lightning makes the iPad not good for Professional video editing. But it was never going to be good for professional video editing (at least by itself).

If the compressed stream is passed to the cable and then decompressed in the cable, then for $10 extra (over the price of the 30 pin to HDMI adapter) we are getting a separate and upgradable device which handles decompression for iOS devices. That's very cool.
We are not talking about uncompressed 1080p. It´s all in the linked article.
 
99% of apple things both software and hardware are standard. If you say the opposite you're just trolling. Lightning is better than microusb, like AirPlay is better than DLNA. usually if Apple doesn't use that technology there is a reason or can't do a thing apple wants. Sure this news about AV adapters... weird. Maybe there is a problem with lighting, maybe they just got crazy. But i will not choose lightning over microusb with you can easily adapt anyway.

How exactly is Lightninh better than microusb (or MHL to be exact) if it delivers worse picture (i.e. no 1080p)? Has Apple skimped on specs once again? They should have put Intel i5 with 1GB of RAM into this cable. Maybe then it would work as well as MHL.
 
No it's not. Given that it's a complete AirPlay receiver, it does need RAM to function.

I'd even add it should have MORE RAM (or flash storage) to properly buffer iOS-native video files. If it buffers / decodes them at all, as the AppleTV does (not sure about this adapter)...

You made me think of something. Ok, since lightning lacks enough connectors to stream raw 1080p in a sufficient time, couldn't they just include a flash storage for buffer in future adapters? This way there's a delay before the content is displayed, but at least the HDMI source would be uncompressed. Idk
 
I would take the design of the lightning adapter over true HDMI out anyday.
We are not talking about a design comparison, but a possible quality problem. The design of the lightning connector is not the issue here, it is fine.
 
Just because you don't understand why something was done doesn't meant it's stupid.

In stripping down the iPad to focus on what it does rather than what a few users might do with it, HDMI support was understandably neglected. Since some users need wired HDMI, paying $50 for an adapter is not unreasonable (heck, I paid that just taking the family out to breakfast & dinner yesterday). Maybe they could make a dedicated solution cheaper, but a tiny box capable of on-demand updates for any all-software solution was cheap and easy. Why so much RAM? why such a processor? at their volumes that may be a wise choice, leveraging the supply chain rather than finding yet another nonstandard solution to work in.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.