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.

  • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.