Alex Deucher:

The HDMI Forum has rejected our proposal unfortunately. At this time an open source HDMI 2.1 implementation is not possible without running afoul of the HDMI Forum requirements.

    • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      9 months ago

      DisplayPort is open in name only. The specifications are locked behind membership (and requisite fees of ~$5k/yr - just enough to keep most hobbyists and the like out while being less than a rounding error for big companies).

    • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s not the point of my comment, the point is that whatever hdmi is, it’s got very healthy competition, so there’s no real reason for anti-trust stuff

      • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        No it doesn’t, because it’s generally monitor manufacturers that add display port, and people who want to run on large tvs are SoL

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            When most TV manufacturers are part of the HDMI “standards” committee, they obviously have a vested interest in not using other technologies, especially when they provide many of the accessories used with TVs. If they allowed competing standards on their TVs, why would consumers buy their products instead of the competitors?

          • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            A choice they are making in favor of a tech cartel instead of what is best for their customers, which is the problem we want addressed