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.
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.
So the HDMI founders are Philips, Panasonic, Sony and Toshiba Known for their Players and in part TVs. The HDMI Forums consists of the rest of the TV Manufacturers and the big names in component Making (Analog Devices, NXP, Realtek, Qualcomm, etc.). So they are all members of a cooperation dedicated to “encouraging and promoting the adoption and widespread utilization of its Final Specifications”. I hesitate to call their decisions on connectivity options unencumbered by interests.
oh btw: Anti-Trust does not require to there be no competing offer, just vast majority of market share.
Oh I know, but I do think anti-trust would require an erection of some sort of barrier. Say, if HDMI required that if HDMI is present, displayport cannot be.
Right now, tv makers are complete free to choose.
No, that’s not required. Microsoft was hit with antitrust despite users being able to install alternative browsers and even operating systems. The problem was that Microsoft was being anti-competitive by making competition more difficult, not that competition wasn’t allowed.
You can certainly get a DP-to-HDMI adapter if you want, but that doesn’t mean there’s no anti-trust happening. If a new TV manufacturer can’t reasonably enter the market due to the protocol being overly restrictive for most accessories, I can see that being grounds for an anti-trust case. If they want HDMI to be a standard, it needs to be open. If they don’t, they need to provide alternatives in their products.