Are the feds gonna come knocking at my door for my DVI -> HDMI cable then?
Apple would. Feds? Unlikely.
Do you have the same sentiment towards Apple licensing MagSafe?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MiniDisplay Port to HDMI Cables "Unlicensed" and Cannot Be Sold
- Thread starter drewyboy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple would. Feds? Unlikely.
Do you have the same sentiment towards Apple licensing MagSafe?
Well there are, check the other Newegg link, many cards from different brands using miniDP as well. Eg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161356
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102918
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150550
To name just three different brands all using miniDP.
Just to note that there are cheaper cards with mDP, e.g. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131397 just not the $29-$79 el cheapo cards.
Yet both of these posts show that mDP is gaining some traction in the higher price ranges where Apple competes.
B
As far as laptops are concerned, Dell, Lenovo, HP, and Toshiba have also begun using mDP.
I am glad I bought my mDp to HDMI when I bought my 2011 MacBook Pro. Good God. This is just a ploy to me to sell more dongles and extort people out of more money for a useless wasteful piece of electronic equipment.
HDMI supports resolutions up to 1920x1200 at 60 Hz in most implementations or up to 4096x2160 at 24 Hz in version 1.4. Because 24 Hz really isn't enough for anything besides video playback, almost no video is encoded at higher than 1080p and UHDTV uses 7680x4320 at 120 Hz, I highly doubt anybody will ever use HDMI as a connector for a high-res display. Licensing fees are $10,000 per year.
DVI supports resolutions up to 2560x1600 at 60 Hz and 3840x2400 at 33 Hz. Because it is electrically compatible with HDMI, it can do just about anything HDMI can with an inexpensive cable except perhaps audio. My TV has both HDMI and traditional audio ports, so this isn't a big deal to me. I didn't see anything about licensing fees with a quick search.
DisplayPort supports at least 3840x2160 at 60 Hz and probably more with the DP 1.2 spec. It is also electrically compatible with both HDMI and DVI. With better than 7.1 audio (192 kHz rather than 96 kHz), no license fees, Mini DP's much smaller size and optional Thunderbolt support, why do companies even include HDMI with their products?
DVI supports resolutions up to 2560x1600 at 60 Hz and 3840x2400 at 33 Hz. Because it is electrically compatible with HDMI, it can do just about anything HDMI can with an inexpensive cable except perhaps audio. My TV has both HDMI and traditional audio ports, so this isn't a big deal to me. I didn't see anything about licensing fees with a quick search.
DisplayPort supports at least 3840x2160 at 60 Hz and probably more with the DP 1.2 spec. It is also electrically compatible with both HDMI and DVI. With better than 7.1 audio (192 kHz rather than 96 kHz), no license fees, Mini DP's much smaller size and optional Thunderbolt support, why do companies even include HDMI with their products?
???? Yeah, your Mac came with an HDMI cable in the box did it? Well I'm ticked because mine didn't, or my Blu Ray player, or my Xbox...
This cable is obviously connecting a computer to a TV. You wouldn't be buying this cable or a dongle if you already had one.
anything more than 1280*1024 looks crap with VGA analog. I know. I've tried it. *maybe* with some real good monitor + adapter+ cable.
I'll see if I can borrow the mDP to VGA adapter and go into my NEC 2690WUXI (1900x1200) just to see what it's like.
Couldn't you just have a diplayport<->hdmi cable and then a hdmi<->hdmi cable? Problem solved!
regards
Claus
regards
Claus
Why would it be better than a small tower that could mount the disks internally?
My HP MediaSmart Windows Home Server wants to know....
I have one of these cables. It kind of works (the connection isn't the most secure, and the data handshake didn't work with my old 37" LCD), and I wish Apple would switch to something else.
Looks like I will have to buy any more down in Mexico where they don't care about 'licenses'.
It kind of works (the connection isn't the most secure, and the data handshake didn't work with my old 37" LCD), and I wish Apple would switch to something else.Looks like I will have to buy any more down in Mexico where they don't care about 'licenses'.
First: I dislike HDMI and I don't own a TV or video device
From what I can tell HDMI v 1.3 (since 2006) supports 2560×1600 x 75Hz at 24bit, so the FUD regarding resolution is BS.
Secondly: in this case I think that HDMI Licensing, LLC might have a point. HDMI and (mini)DisplayPort are two different things. From what I understand both electrically, and at the media access layer, they are not equivalent. There are no standards defined for testing therefore *by definition* a (mini)DP to HDMI cable cannot be called an HDMI cable.
At these data rates, the connector impedance becomes an issue - the physical size differences cannot necessarily be compensated for.
AFAIK The dongle solutions (e.g. mDP to HDMI from Moshi) contains some electronics to convert the signals, hence it can be tested according to some standard.
So yeah, my professional engineering opinion is that HDMI licensing LLC might be well within their rights, and that it is probably a *good* thing that they don't allow HDMI to mDP cables to exist because *they wouldn't work properly*. A dongle (defined as having some extra electronics in it) would, and a dongle /= a cable.
From what I can tell HDMI v 1.3 (since 2006) supports 2560×1600 x 75Hz at 24bit, so the FUD regarding resolution is BS.
Secondly: in this case I think that HDMI Licensing, LLC might have a point. HDMI and (mini)DisplayPort are two different things. From what I understand both electrically, and at the media access layer, they are not equivalent. There are no standards defined for testing therefore *by definition* a (mini)DP to HDMI cable cannot be called an HDMI cable.
At these data rates, the connector impedance becomes an issue - the physical size differences cannot necessarily be compensated for.
AFAIK The dongle solutions (e.g. mDP to HDMI from Moshi) contains some electronics to convert the signals, hence it can be tested according to some standard.
So yeah, my professional engineering opinion is that HDMI licensing LLC might be well within their rights, and that it is probably a *good* thing that they don't allow HDMI to mDP cables to exist because *they wouldn't work properly*. A dongle (defined as having some extra electronics in it) would, and a dongle /= a cable.
electrically there is no real support for HDMI to DP without a translator. Hence it needs to be an active device (dongle) not just a simple cable, in order to comply:
DP to HDMI dongle, then HDMI-HDMI cable.
Oh wait, that's how it's done at the moment!
Apart from some unscrupulous suppliers that try and sell a DP - HDMI cable to the public even though this *will not meet the HDMI or DP specs because there is no way to do it correctly with a simple cable*
No reason why VGA can't be used for "True HD" (I assume 1080p). The Xbox 360 can output 1080p over VGA.
Given that these cables do work, do you think that maybe it could be that the little electronic circuit board needed to translate between DP and HDMI might possibly be embedded in one of the two ends of the cable, kinda like is the case with Thunderbolt cables (but much less sophisticated)?
Note that there is nothing requiring an active device ("dongle" per you) to have a female connection on either end. It may just as well be male-male and 6 feet long, like this cable. The only thing needed is a little wee circuit board to translate the one signal to the other. Again, given that these cables do indeed work, I'm willing to bet they figured that out already.
Has Apple been on a multi-year worldwide blitz trying to get companies to include MagSafe connectors in all their power-needing electronic devices? Funny, I must have missed that.
Oh, or you are throwing up silly strawman arguments. I suppose that might be a valid explanation as well
Yeah, it just looks like crap and degrades with semi-long cables, unless you are really talking about HD video (30fps) instead of driving a computer monitor at HD resolution (100fps+).
"Mini DisplayPort to HDMI cables, such as those used to connect recent-generation MacBook Pro's to high-definition televisions do not comply with the official HDMI specifications. "
What HDMI specification is that? The unusually high cost of buying one???
What HDMI specification is that? The unusually high cost of buying one???
I use a MDP + USB --> Female HDMI port on my non-unibody Mac Mini to hook it to my HDTV. It works fantastic!
To quote one of my "buddies" this really is a non-issue. Manufacturers will simply switch the male HDMI end to a female one: Pick up a $2 male to male HDMI cable to fill the gap and voila!
To quote one of my "buddies" this really is a non-issue. Manufacturers will simply switch the male HDMI end to a female one: Pick up a $2 male to male HDMI cable to fill the gap and voila!
For a supposedly modern, complete solution, HDMI even fails at the things it's designed for.
Handshaking issues, limited cable length, unreliable connectors, expense...
And while most standards are encumbered by DRM now, or will be, HDMI was clearly designed with it in mind.
The sooner it goes away, perhaps in favor of something like HDBase-T, the better.
Handshaking issues, limited cable length, unreliable connectors, expense...
And while most standards are encumbered by DRM now, or will be, HDMI was clearly designed with it in mind.
The sooner it goes away, perhaps in favor of something like HDBase-T, the better.
I can't believe your post got so many negative votes. It just goes to show how freaking intelligent the average Mac user is. They actually appear to want to use dongles and pay Apple to use them to boot.
That article doesn't differentiate Display Port from MINI-Display Port. There's a big difference (literally). It's also funny how the increase almost directly correlates with sales of Mac equipment. I don't see many others than Apple using mini-display port and I certainly wouldn't call that in any way, shape or form a "defacto standard". Macs are a tiny portion of overall PC sales. And most average consumers don't have monitors that large to even care. My 24" monitors are already huge. If I went much bigger without sitting further away I'd be craning my neck.
That completely ignores the history of Mini-Display port. It most certainly was a propriety standard when it was released. Apple then decided to freely license it. Vesa adopted it later (It's unclear whether Apple still 'owns' it in light of the Vesa adoption; I'd imagine they do. Vesa is just a standards committee. They could adopt HDMI if they wanted to, but them paying to use something falls contrary to their accepted price of charging to access their specifications (no better than what HDMI does, IMO).
Vesa also has a history of failed "standards". Display Port was developed in secret and not free to access. Almost NO ONE uses it. Apple is the reason MINI-Display Port is becoming widespread, but it's hardly a standard. HDMI probably has 10,000x the penetration of it. Yes, HDMI is no good for a 30" monitor, but if you need a professional display that size you probably have a video card to support it. Anything over 27" for the consumer (used as a monitor, not sitting further away as a TV) is overkill, IMO. Your mileage may vary.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
DisplayPort is going to be on 90% of computers and monitors in 2014.
DisplayPort is going to be on 90% of computers and monitors in 2014.