Is a HDMI port realistic on the upcoming new iMac?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by crackbookpro, Sep 26, 2009.

?

Will they release a HDMI port on they next iMac update?

  1. YES, they will add a HDMI port...

    5 vote(s)
    5.0%
  2. NO, just the usual 'Apple ports'...

    96 vote(s)
    95.0%
  1. crackbookpro macrumors 65816

    crackbookpro

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Location:
    Om nom nom nom
    #1
    Will they release a very easy and wonderful port like a HDMI... or, will we just settle for the usual Apple ports?

    If, you think Apple will add a port update, please add..

    CrackBookPro:cool:
     
  2. tofagerl macrumors 6502a

    tofagerl

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    #2
    Been covered several times, but once again:
    No.

    Displayport is the HDMI-equivalent for computers, and while it doesn't have audio, an adapter with Displayport + Optical out => HDMI cable is sure to be found somewhere. (Though expensive)

    Apple simply doesn't see the iMac as a media machine.
     
  3. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #3
    DisplayPort is NOT the equivalent of HDMI for computers.

    HDMI 1.4 handles higher resolutions, HDMI 1.3 can do 2560x1600 over a single cable.

    On top of that, HDMI can handle 8 channel LPCM audio as well as Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master HD either in bitstream form or already decoded as LPCM.

    Thats 8 channels of uncompressed audio over a single cable.

    Optical cables are only capable of 2 channels of uncompressed 16-bit audio and highly compressed Dolby Digital and DTS signals.

    Apple's current audio-lacking mini DisplayPort plus optical combo is nowhere near as useful or as versatile as HDMI, especially when you see just how many monitors and HDTVs in the world DO NOT have DisplayPort but DO have HDMI.

    Again, I gotta go back to the connection issue. If I connect my PC to my HDTV and surround sound system, it takes ONE cable. HDMI. If I connect my unibody MacBook I have to have HDMI plus the mini DisplayPort to HDMI, as well as the optical cable and mini TOSLink adapter for it. If I use my external blu-ray drive on my Mac, I only get Dolby Digital or DTS audio out. Yet if I use my PC I get uncompressed and the lossless audio formats.

    DisplayPort just cannot compare to HDMI.
     
  4. tofagerl macrumors 6502a

    tofagerl

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    #4
    Well, how do I put this simply... You're wrong.

    Displayport can handle the exact same resolution on the same cable, but it can't do it on a cable longer than 2 meters. (Or at least that's what the standard requires)

    You'll also notice the HDMI-cable has far more wires in it - that's for the extra audio that's not required for a computer display.

    Oh, and Displayport was created by the same companies who created HDMI, and explicitly state that it is meant as the computer-version of HDMI.

    If you have a need for audio with your video-signal, that's fine, but Apple doesn't think you need it on the iMac, and therefor they haven't given it to you. You may disagree with that, but saying that displayport should be a carbon copy of HDMI instead of saying Apple should switch to HDMI is pretty ridiculous.

    So... Not to rub it in, but you're wrong.
     
  5. drrich2 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    #5
    Since the monitor's built-in, I'm thinking 'no.' Not anytime soon. The main practical use for a HDMI port would be a MacPro or MacMini where an external monitor hookup to a non-Apple display would be likely. I think the large majority of iMacs aren't hooked up to an external display or t.v., so I don't see it happening soon.

    Richard.
     
  6. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #6
    DisplayPort can NOT handle "4k" and "2k" resolutions that HDMI 1.4 can.

    How is audio not required? You don't like getting sound out of your computer? I know I sure do.

    With my notebook PC, I use one HDMI cable to connect it to my HDTV and surround sound. I get full blu-ray audio and 1080p picture right out of one cable.

    With Apple's mini-DisplayPort I'm limited to the SPDIF audio standard which basically takes me down to DVD quality audio.

    See, I couldn't care less what Apple thinks I need.

    Thats the biggest problem. It's all about what Apple thinks I need. It's not about what I truly need or what millions of others need, its about what they think you should have. If Apple doesn't like it then it doesn't happen. And thats why Apple's world wide market share will never come out of the low single digits.

    I am saying Apple should switch to HDMI. The only reason they go with mini DisplayPort is so they can charge you for the adapter that is completely royalty free and they can pocket the entire amount of the sale.
     
  7. tofagerl macrumors 6502a

    tofagerl

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    #7
    Those are movie-resolutions. When DisplayPort gets updated, it might have those resolutions, but currently it supports all resolutions COMPUTER DISPLAYS have, since it's made for COMPUTER DISPLAYS.
    Yes, from my stereo. Not from my screen.
    That's a good use of HDMI cable! You're using it to connect to a TV instead of a COMPUTER DISPLAY.
    It's not Apple's standard, Apple has simply decided to use this standard. Argue with them (steve@apple.com? @mac.com? I forget.)
    Fair enough. I'm simply explaining why we won't see HMDI-out on the iMac, I'm not the one who makes these decisions.
    Well, it's also about cost and space-saving on the device. But your point is very valid. I think their designphilosophy is that the device should have one single unit for each task. Like one port for video-out (or two on the mac pro, of course), one for audio-out, one for audio-out, one for audio-in and so on and so on. Except that my argument totally falls apart if you mention USB, so please don't ;p
    Well, technically the adapter from MDP to HDMI would be royalteed (whoa, that can't be a word??), but an adapter from MDP to DP would be royalty-free since DP is royaltee-free.
     
  8. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #9
    So what if they're movie resolutions? HDMI supports them, DisplayPort does not.

    Conversely, HDMI supports all the same resolutions as DisplayPort. HDMI does support 2560x1600.

    A stereo? Guess you need to upgrade your setup for HDMI audio support anyway ;)

    When I'm playing games or watching video using either my Mac or my PC, my audio is all coming out of my receiver powering my surround sound set up. So, again, HDMI is more convenient and offers better quality.

    Yup and I'm using HDMI to connect my unibody MacBook to my LG desktop display. Another good use of an HDMI cable ;)

    Actually, Apple's implementation of it IS their standard. Why? Because the actual mini DisplayPort standard supports audio, while Apple's implementation does NOT support audio. The mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter I have supports audio because its part of the standard. But, again, Apple's implementation in all of their current Macs does NOT support audio. So, again, right now it is Apple's standard.

    Which is exactly why Apple doesn't make mini DisplayPort to HDMI ;) If they did not only would they be paying the licensing fee they loathe, but then they would fall right into the hands of my argument that HDMI should just be included by default. As it stands right now (just googled it), all three of Apple's mini DisplayPort adapters are licensing fee free. So that means they get to pocket the entire purchase amount after manufacturing costs. Which would be what? About $1 for the DVI and VGA adapters?
     
  9. mrsir2009 macrumors 604

    mrsir2009

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
  10. J the Ninja macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    #11
    What in God's name do you need 4k support on an iMac for? Are you planning to drive a digital cinema PJ with the thing? BTW, 2k (2048x1080) is less bandwidth than 2560x1600, so DPs lack of it is not a hardware issue.

    The main use of HDMI on a computer for HTPC use. For actual computer use, DP is just plain better. You need to remember, these are not competing standards, they are not meant to do the same job. Yes, DP is the computer version of HDMI. No, it does not do the same things. Why should a standard for a different use be exactly the same?

    http://www.maximumpc.com/article/the_myth_of_an_hdmi_displayport_standoff


    Of all the Mac's for HTPC use, the iMac seems by far the worst, since you have the built in primary display and no obvious way of getting rid of it. The Mini needs HDMI, not the iMac. It's a waste of fairly limited IO panel space. Speaking of which, guess what is almost the same size and shape as an HDMI port? An eSATA port. Would you rather your iMac have eSATA? Or HDMI, which as far as computer use is concerned, is exactly like the MDP connector next to it, but much clunkier.

    EDIT: A few more complaints: HDMI does not stay in as well as DP. MDP is lighter than HDMI, and DP latches. HDMI is heavier like DP, but just has a clip like MDP. Not cool. Also, unless both devices are 1.3 capable, you CANNOT do 2560x1600 over type A or C HDMI cables. You also cannot daisy-chain multiple displays from a single HDMI cable. No real need for this, who wants to daisy-chain TVs? But for monitors? It's VERY nice to have.
     
  11. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
  12. J&JPolangin macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Location:
    Thule GL @ the TOW
    #13
    ...why is that?
     
  13. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #14
    Its nothing more than DVI with audio pins and a different plug.
     
  14. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #15
    No, it's not. It's becoming a standard now and so far it's best cable out there. Or is VGA replacing it? :p

    No HDMI because MDP is Apple's port -> Great profit from adapters
     
  15. tofagerl macrumors 6502a

    tofagerl

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    #16
    Apple doesn't charge license fees for MDP. DP is also license-free.
    HDMI, on the other hand, is damn expensive.
     
  16. StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #17
    How is 2 cords and an adapter better than 1 cable? This is already annoying me because I need another cable to connect to my TV. HDMI cables are dirt cheap now. You can get a 25 ft HDMI off of amazon for 8 bucks.
     
  17. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #18
    It isn't better, its simply no different.

    HDMI cables have always been cheap unless you've been looking at stupidly overpriced junk near TV displays.
     
  18. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #19
    No, it's not. DVI max bandwidth is 3.96Gbits/s while HDMI's is 10.2Gbits/s. HDMI is much more capable in future displays and it provides video and audio in same cable
     
  19. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #20
    Half correct. HDMI is electrically compatible with DVI. It requires no conversion to work between them, only a pin-to-pin adapter.
     
  20. xxBURT0Nxx macrumors 68020

    xxBURT0Nxx

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    #21
    The only lines that might get an HDMI port would be the macbooks and the mac mini because they are more likely to be hooked up to a tv.

    However, I wouldn't hold your breath on HDMI because I can't see Apple paying the licensing fees to include an HDMI cable because it really would have no benefit over a mDP for probably 99.9% of mac users.

    And to the guy whining about not getting lossless audio and such... did you not think that maybe you are getting a botched solution trying to play blurays from your mac because macs don't support bluray? Sure you can hook up a bluray drive and rip copies of the movies, but until bluray is supported by apple I wouldn't expect everything to just work...

    Macs really aren't designed to be HTPC's... way too much of a hassle and too many hoops you have to jump through to get everything working together.
     
  21. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #22
    HDMI = royalty fees
    DisplayPort = no royalty fees
     
  22. The Final Cut macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #23
    I never was a fan of HDMI. Mostly because DVI had its video quality many years ago. If I need audio there are many convertors/ switches/ adapters etc i can use and Im sure the new iMac will have optical out. HDMI also has HDCP which is a ridiculous anti privacy measure, like having a bed that would alarm if your with a hooker. HDMI can die out for all I care. There are countless things that would be more benafical on the new iMac than HDMI.
     
  23. jdechko macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    #24
    I'd be surprised to see HDMI on the iMac, but not so surprised if the Mini got it. DP is the new DVI: it's meant for computer displays. HDMI is for CE devices (or it was designed with CE in mind at least). Of course, I realize that computer devices have crossed over into CE territory, and as such, they are forced to use a common denominator, which, as we've established, usually means HDMI in the case of CE.

    Regarding resolutions, yes, HDMI can support higher resolutions, but it's also at v5 of the spec (1.0-1.4), while DP is at 1.1.

    The other thing that DP has on HDMI is a cable-lock mechanism so that the cable doesn't fall out. Seriously, who designed HDMI without a way to keep the cable securely in place?
     
  24. SAIRUS macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2008
    #25
    I love mackids, they'll quickly defend their platform.

    "oooh well its just for computer screens, you don't need to use that high of a resolution till Jobs says we can"

    Call me an HDMI fan because I like having just 2 wires, one into the receiver and one into the TV. Yeah I'm a blu-ray supporter as well (actually I prefer to rip blu-rays to a huge hard drive and run them from there -best of both worlds). Oh and them falling out? Well aren't most wires behind a desk or a TV stand?

    Though when using a computer, it doesn't matter. What gets the job done, works for me.

    Had a MacMini as a home theater PC, but sold it once PS3 came out. Mac's don't make good home theater PCs anymore. The second they have blu-ray support and an ability to output the sound to my receiver untouched, I'll switch back pretty fast.
     

Share This Page