or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Mini DisplayPort to HDMI cables face recall over licensing issues
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mini DisplayPort to HDMI cables face recall over licensing issues

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
HDMI Org, the group that oversees HDMI specifications, has deemed Mini DisplayPort to HDMI cables outside of its standard and will not allow them to be sold.

The group explained to TechRadar that the HDMI specification defines an HDMI cable as having only HDMI connectors on either end. Anything else is not a licensed use of the specification and therefore, not allowed.

All licensed HDMI products must undergo compliance testing. Given the fact that the cable is undefined by the group, it cannot be tested against the Specification, thereby making it unofficial and
unlicensed.

This outcome is devastating for the numerous companies that make money from these cables, though there is one upside. Cables, or dongles, that have a DisplayPort on one end and an HDMI female receptacle on the other are licensed.



HDMI Org does, however, note that there are users who covet this type of cable system, stating that recognizes that there "may be a market need for a cable solution rather than a dongle solution. However, at this time, there is no way to produce these cable products in a licensed manner." According to the report, hundreds of thousands of cables could be affected by a recall.

Apple reportedly developed a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter but never released it, relying instead upon third-party offerings .



First introduced in October 2008, the Mini DisplayPort connector is used by Apple in its latest Mac offerings. The standard was designed by Apple as a smaller form factor alternative to the DisplayPort standard. The Video Electronics Standard Association officially adopted the specification in 2009.

More recently, Apple and Intel have collaborated on Thunderbolt, a new high-speed I/O technology that makes use of the Mini DisplayPort connector. The first generation of Thunderbolt offers two channels of 10Gbps transfers in both directions, simultaneously, and 10 watts of power. Intel expects to scale the technology up to transfer rates of 100Gbps within a few years.



Late last month, Apple released the first Thunderbolt cable and added the first third-party Thunderbolt storage solutions to its online store. The cable was revealed to be an active cable with a transceiver chip at each end and tons of little resistors.
post #2 of 47
This is the equivalent of the snotty little kid taking his ball and going home because he doesn't like how the game turned out. I sense a hold-up in progress as well. I wonder how much they will steal?
post #3 of 47
glad I already bought my cables from monoprice.com so I do not care at this point what they do.
post #4 of 47
World gone mad. Nobody outside of the HDMI Group offices (they exist, presumably. I assume they spend their days watching HD films and nodding their heads etc.) thinks this is sane. The language they use makes it sound like the laws of physics are preventing them licensing these cables. Just do it for goodness' sakes. If not, sit and watch the eBay/Chinese import world circumvent your licensing income.
post #5 of 47
I don't see a problem with this. If somebody is in charge of and oversees the specifications for a certain type of cable, then they are free to do whatever they want with it.

Apple would do the exact same thing. You can't take a technology which Apple invented and do whatever you want with it. Apple would sue your ass. Apple is very strict about how their products are used and advertised.
post #6 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post

This is the equivalent of the snotty little kid taking his ball and going home because he doesn't like how the game turned out. I sense a hold-up in progress as well. I wonder how much they will steal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

World gone mad. Nobody outside of the HDMI Group offices (they exist, presumably. I assume they spend their days watching HD films and nodding their heads etc.) thinks this is sane. The language they use makes it sound like the laws of physics are preventing them licensing these cables. Just do it for goodness' sakes. If not, sit and watch the eBay/Chinese import world circumvent your licensing income.

What's the point of developing specifications and standards if nobody follows them and nobody enforces them? Especially if people are slapping on your logo on something you otherwise have no involvement in. Obviously, it's unlikely an A/V cable is going to do something disastrous, but if there is ever a fire with one of these cables, it's going to fall on HDMI Org's shoulders since it's their logo on it if they don't bother enforcing their spec. The problem is not HDMI Org speaking up to declare mDP-HDMI cables out of spec, since this is apparently the truth, and is certainly their right and responsibility to do so. The question is whether there is a legitimate demand for mDP-HDMI cables and how fast HDMI Org can develop a spec to meet this demand.

I do wonder though whether a mDP-HDMI adapter dongle + a regular HDMI cable will be cheaper than a dedicated mDP-HDMI cable? Certainly a dongle + regular cable combination will be more versatile since it's not a single use case solution and regular HDMI cables can be had cheaply now due to economies of scale. So perhaps HDMI Org's compromise solution may well be cheaper which isn't a bad thing.
post #7 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Cables, or dongles, that have a DisplayPort on one end and an HDMI female receptacle on the other are licensed.

What about my DVI-to-HDMI cable? That's a cable since it has a male HDMI connector on the HDMI end and not a female connector, which apparently would make it an adaptor and not a cable. And for some irrational reason that is allowed but the cable is not??

I suspect they are simply upset that they are only getting one licensing fee for the miniDisplayPort-HDMI cable. Whereas with an adaptor plus cable they would collect two licensing fees. One for the cable and one for the adaptor. (Or similarly, they'd collect twice if the computer had an HDMI port. Once for the port and once for the cable.)

Isn't there usually some agreement when a company's tech is used to create an industry standard that they will offer reasonable licensing of their tech? Requiring users to use a combination of adaptor and cable, when a simple cable with one connector at one end (DVI, DisplayPort, miniDisplayPort) and HDMI at the other would be a better solution, seems unreasonable.
post #8 of 47
But why are short cables with female HDMI connectors OK and long cables with male HDMI connectors not OK? And why are m/m DVI-HDMI cables OK--those don't have HDMI connectors at both ends.
post #9 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

glad I already bought my cables from monoprice.com so I do not care at this point what they do.

Monoprice's cable has a female HDMI receptor at one end, so I suppose that makes it a dongle?
post #10 of 47
The Capdase MiniDP-HDMI has an issue when displaying certain output on certain monitors. It's a dongle: http://www.capdase.com/en/product5.p...id=37&pid=3336

Maybe they've fixed it in recent revisions. I haven't tried any Monoprice cables.

Apple should just make their own MiniDP/Thunderbolt-HDMI dongle and evaporate all worries, the insanity of these HDMI Org people notwithstanding.

The Apple iPad-HDMI dongle works great, I don't see why they can't just make a MiniDP/Thunderbolt-HDMI for Macs, at least we know there shouldn't be any issues with it.

BTW have any of you realised Apple is now favouring iPad and AppleTV for HD Rentals of a lot of movies? That's right, even if you have a glorious 27-inch iMac you can't rent HD movies, but if you have a 10" iPad you can. Of course, that's what the iPad-HDMI dongle is for if you want to watch it on the big screen (but not your iMac or Cinema Display screen).
post #11 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

BTW have any of you realised Apple is now favouring iPad and AppleTV for HD Rentals of a lot of movies? That's right, even if you have a glorious 27-inch iMac you can't rent HD movies, but if you have a 10" iPad you can. Of course, that's what the iPad-HDMI dongle is for if you want to watch it on the big screen (but not your iMac or Cinema Display screen).

How? Doesn't the iPad connect to the same iTunes media store as the computer?
post #12 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

What's the point of developing specifications and standards if nobody follows them and nobody enforces them? Especially if people are slapping on your logo on something you otherwise have no involvement in.

Obviously, there is no problem with maintaining the standard, such as it is, but unless they also hold the patent, it would seem that they are creating problems where none should exist. Instead of forcing massive issues on retailers and manufacturers, why not work with them to develop a standard then get each in compliance.

Otherwise, all they are doing is taking the ball home.
post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post

Otherwise, all they are doing is taking the ball home.

And demanding extra money for future ball rental.
post #14 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

How? Doesn't the iPad connect to the same iTunes media store as the computer?

I can't speak to the iPad, but the AppleTV and the iTunes application on your computer have never had the same access to rentals. There are many movies which are on AppleTV but either not on the computer via iTunes at all or are only available in SD.

This could either be a licensing requirement by the studios. Or, perhaps more likely, Apple not so subtly suggesting you should spend money to buy more of their gadgets.
post #15 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I can't speak to the iPad, but the AppleTV and the iTunes application on your computer have never had the same access to rentals. There are many movies which are on AppleTV but either not on the computer via iTunes at all or are only available in SD.

This could either be a licensing requirement by the studios. Or, perhaps more likely, Apple not so subtly suggesting you should spend money to buy more of their gadgets.

We need an article to compare what is available on what platform.
post #16 of 47
Meh, just because it is not official does not mean somebody would not make it.

The allowed female receptor end cable just mean you need two different cables instead of one or an adaptor need to be use.
post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I don't see a problem with this. If somebody is in charge of and oversees the specifications for a certain type of cable, then they are free to do whatever they want with it.

Apple would do the exact same thing. You can't take a technology which Apple invented and do whatever you want with it. Apple would sue your ass. Apple is very strict about how their products are used and advertised.

I agree with this. So here's the problem: Thousands of cables which have been made and cannot be SOLD. The assumption is that they must be recalled and destroyed, which entails additional expense, waste and inconvenience. But - is there any reason they cannot be GIVEN away?
post #18 of 47
Sounds like a dummy spit to me; they don't like what Thunderbolt could do to HDMI, so they are being petulant.
post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post

I agree with this. So here's the problem: Thousands of cables which have been made and cannot be SOLD. The assumption is that they must be recalled and destroyed, which entails additional expense, waste and inconvenience. But - is there any reason they cannot be GIVEN away?

They eventually will be pulled from the dumpster and end up on eBay.
post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

...
I suspect they are simply upset that they are only getting one licensing fee for the miniDisplayPort-HDMI cable. Whereas with an adaptor plus cable they would collect two licensing fees. One for the cable and one for the adaptor. (Or similarly, they'd collect twice if the computer had an HDMI port. Once for the port and once for the cable.)...

It may well be that customers will use a mHDMI-mHDMI cable they already have lying around and will only purchase the cable/dongle miniDisplayPort(or Thunderbolt for that matter) to female HDMI.
That way, instead of collecting 2 or 3 times, they will only collect once ! Duh !
post #21 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

How? Doesn't the iPad connect to the same iTunes media store as the computer?

Ah my friend, how the veil of the RDF cloaks your mind. The iTunes media store is able to detect what device you are renting or purchasing on. Hence iPad movies are available in HD but some (many) are not available to rent in HD on Windows or OSX. Remember, you can't transfer rentals from iPad to Windows or OSX, only vice versa.

Look up The Adjustment Bureau. Notice on Windows or OSX it says "available to rent in HD on iPad and AppleTV". Same for Harry Potter Deathly Hallows Part 1, which is why I rented that on my iPad.
post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

We need an article to compare what is available on what platform.

No need, you can look it up as you please. Just browse through the latest movie rentals. If on Windows or OSX it is only available in SD, look for the fine print on Windows and OSX that says "available in HD on iPad and AppleTV". A fun game. I've already mentioned two movies above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I can't speak to the iPad, but the AppleTV and the iTunes application on your computer have never had the same access to rentals. There are many movies which are on AppleTV but either not on the computer via iTunes at all or are only available in SD.

This could either be a licensing requirement by the studios. Or, perhaps more likely, Apple not so subtly suggesting you should spend money to buy more of their gadgets.

I think the suggestion is pretty clear. Why can't you watch 720p on your 27" Mac but you can on a 10" iPad running ARM with a fraction of the RAM and storage?
post #23 of 47
I think the HDMI organization is being self-destructive. If they don't permit the cable, it will result in fewer consumers using HDMI, not more. Apple users will simply wind up buying future versions of Apple monitors which include the mini Display port instead of buying 3rd party monitors that have an HDMI port. And presumably, that would also reduce their licensing revenue. Seems to me they should just bite the bullet and test and license the cables.

It would be one thing if the Mini Display Port outputted signal inconsistent with the HDMI standard which could in turn, cause either playback problems or damage to the HDMI device connected to the other end, but if that's not the case (and I'm assuming it's not), they should either license those cables or not license them, but let the manufacturers issue them with a disclaimer that they're not licensed. Besides, to claim that a dongle is okay, but a cable isn't, is really a distinction without a difference. (I thought size didn't count!)

My bet is that the ruling Board or committee of that organization simply doesn't like Apple, for reasons real or imagined.
post #24 of 47
another example of business being bad for business.
>>< drow ><<
Reply
>>< drow ><<
Reply
post #25 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The group explained to TechRadar that “the HDMI specification defines an HDMI cable as having only HDMI connectors on either end. Anything else is not a licensed use of the specification and therefore, not allowed... Cables, or dongles, that have a DisplayPort on one end and an HDMI female receptacle on the other are licensed.”

Taking a cue from Apple's "App Store" lawsuits:

1) A "Mini Displayport to HDMI cable" is not an "HDMI cable".

2) Since a Mini Displayport-HDMI cable does have an HDMI connector on one end, it meets the "either end" requirement.

Problem solved.
post #26 of 47
Another annoying article on several fronts, one of which is the obvious shortcoming of the article itself.

The article says in part that cables that have DisplayPort (the older, non-mini variety) on one end and that have the female gender of HDMI on the other are deemed legal by the HDMI Org, but does not explain whether the key difference is the use of DisplayPort as opposed to MiniDisplayPort, vs. the use female vs. male HDMI. It boggles my mind that the author of this article would not have bothered to clear this up. Basically, the article says that Apple's cable is classified as verboten by the HDMI org, but it completely fails to explain why, exactly, the HDMI org takes that position. Is it because it uses MiniDisplayPort at one end, or is it because it uses the wrong gender of HDMI at the other? How can someone write an article of this sort and leave fully unanswered the explanation for why HDMI org considers the cable non-compliant? All that talk about dongle is utterly meaningless. A dongle is simply a short cable that has two types of connectors.

As I ponder this, it seems very likely to me that MiniDisplayPort per se has nothing to do with it, in which case this article has managed to create a lot of confusion.

But the position of HDMI org is also silly. If they permit "dongles" of any sort, they permit cables that have a female HDMI socket at one end and any other sort of connector at the other end. If they restrict the other sort of connector, then this is silly at face value, to allow a dongle for only specific types of on-computer ports. Surely they are not that fickle. The other, less fickle possibility is that they require that adapter cables, i.e., "dongles", use female HDMI only, i.e., no male parts permitted. But this also is just silly. You have to ask why they would do this, and they only reason that I can think of is that the real, unspoken reason is that they do not want to see cables that have HDMI at one end and a proprietary connector at the other end. But if this is their concern, then they should not allow any sort of "dongle" that has a proprietary connector at one end. My guess is that this is what is really going on here, and it is most likely a matter of them doing what they need to do to force Apple to give up licensing fees when other companies want to make cables that combine HDMI and MiniDisplayPort. This makes a lot of sense, but still does not make perfect sense because it begs the question of why HDMI org would not ban a cable that has MiniDisplayPort on one end and female HDMI on the other.

All in all, this article is a really cheap article. It does not even begin to answer the questions that are immediately obvious, and probably has applied an erroneous interpretation to whatever facts were available to the author. Articles of this caliber are abundant on the Web. Articles where the author actually went to trouble of figuring out what is going on and then presenting the facts in a meaningful, straightforward way are as rare as hen's teeth.
post #27 of 47
[QUOTE=nvidia2008;1897525]The Capdase MiniDP-HDMI has an issue when displaying certain output on certain monitors. It's a dongle: http://www.capdase.com/en/product5.p...id=37&pid=3336

Maybe they've fixed it in recent revisions. I haven't tried any Monoprice cables.

I use the Monoprice dongle and an HDMI male-male cable with a 2011 MacBookPro and a Samsung HD-ready monitor, and it has worked fine so far, including the new audio-pass through to monitor option in the Sound preferences panel. You should be aware, however, that Monoprice sells one dongle that does not support audio-pass through and one that does, so be careful when you order.

Apple does offer the Moshi 3rd party adapter on the website, although it is relatively expensive.
post #28 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

My bet is that the ruling Board or committee of that organization simply doesn't like Apple, for reasons real or imagined.

But Apple doesn't make any of these cables, so what would that have to do with anything?
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

I think the suggestion is pretty clear. Why can't you watch 720p on your 27" Mac but you can on a 10" iPad running ARM with a fraction of the RAM and storage?

Sorry, I'm confused. You CAN do that, though.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #30 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Sorry, I'm confused. You CAN do that, though.

Not in most countries from the iTunes store.
post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Sorry, I'm confused. You CAN do that, though.

This is what I mentioned earlier:

The iTunes media store is able to detect what device you are renting or purchasing on. Hence iPad movies are available in HD but some (many) are not available to rent in HD on Windows or OSX. Remember, you can't transfer rentals from iPad to Windows or OSX, only vice versa.

Look up The Adjustment Bureau. Notice on Windows or OSX it says "available to rent in HD on iPad and AppleTV". Same for Harry Potter Deathly Hallows Part 1, which is why I rented that on my iPad.

Hence my response to Wiggin that you can rent and watch 720p HD movies on a 10" iPad... but on a 27" iMac, sorry, no HD rental for you. How many movies have these restrictions? I leave that to the individual to discover. One might be unpleasantly surprised. Wiggin suggested this may be to encourage purchases of iPad and AppleTV. Which sounds plausible.
post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Not in most countries from the iTunes store.

This too. But I was referring specifically to iPad being favoured over PC/Mac for HD Rentals.
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

This too. But I was referring specifically to iPad being favoured over PC/Mac for HD Rentals.



I'm still confused.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



I'm still confused.

Don't confuse the US iTunes store with the rest of the world.
post #35 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Don't confuse the US iTunes store with the rest of the world.

These things you say absolutely disgust me.

Why can't licensees get it together and actually offer stuff to their country's citizens? It's depressing.

What we need is ONE iTunes Store. Every movie, every TV show, every song, every app, every audiobook, every podcast. In every country.

The Long Tail says the greed-mongering studios will get MORE money by allowing everyone on Earth access to their stuff, and there would be less piracy if people could actually PAY for things they wanted. RIght now, people have the option to pirate media or fly to [country name] and buy a local copy. I know that many people would pay if the option to buy it was offered.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #36 of 47

deleted


Edited by kellya74u - 7/24/13 at 10:10am
post #37 of 47
Ahh... mini-DP. The connector no-one wanted.
post #38 of 47


And lawyers wonder why everybody hates them
post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

These things you say absolutely disgust me.

<snap> I know that many people would pay if the option to buy it was offered.

I certainly would like to rent movies thru iTunes. But it's not offered here in The Netherlands. The iTMS has been available here since 26 October 2004, so that's only 18 months since its inception. Still no movies or TV shows. Some people get iTunes Gift Cards from sites like itunescode.nl, mediawob.com, www.instantitunescodes.com and itunes-giftcards.com and rent or buy movies that way.

But I digress.
“A PC is no bargain when it doesn’t do what you want.” - Apple 2009
Reply
“A PC is no bargain when it doesn’t do what you want.” - Apple 2009
Reply
post #40 of 47
Y R all the links in the article broken? Is it the authors' (Blake Steven) fault?
“A PC is no bargain when it doesn’t do what you want.” - Apple 2009
Reply
“A PC is no bargain when it doesn’t do what you want.” - Apple 2009
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Mini DisplayPort to HDMI cables face recall over licensing issues