Apple pushing Mini DisplayPort through no-fee licenses - Page 2

No way man. We (the computer industry) finally had a chance to have a single, ubiquitious display connector, that we haven't had since the days of VGA, and Apple has shit in everyone's custard.

I think this is a good move. My only concern would be the durability of the connector. Smaller connectors are generally less durable.

Since hardly anyone is using Display Port yet their is no standard size of Display port. Their really is no big deal to use the full size and mini port intermixed.

Their might be a physical reason for it on the other Mac notebooks, not just the MBA. I have found that my Sierra Wireless USB 3G adapter will not allow me to have it plugged in and my iPhone cable at the same time to my new MB. This was not an issue with my previous, polycarb MB. It was a snug fit, but it still worked. This indicates that the USB ports are slightly closer together. While far from conclusive, this—plus the other port side changes—should make us stop and think about the physical changes that have occurred with the new Mac notebooks.

Regardless, the good news is that it's free, it's new, small, it's fast, it's robust, it's versatile, and it'll be the standard for all modern PCs in the near future (DP, that is, so at most you'll have to get a $5 adapter from Monoprice to run your old display).

I won't argue whether it's required or not. That's a call none of us can make.

But as for the port itself, I don't see a problem.

If Apple came out with this well after DisplayPort became standard on many machines, I would agree that it wasn't a good idea. But at this point in time, Apple will very likely be selling many more computers with their mini DisplayPort connector than all other manufacturers selling machines with the standard DisplayPort connector put together.

That will be a good reason to sell monitors that use it. Once enough monitors are out, computers will have the port as well.

Having a mini connector on one end of a cable, and the standard size connector on the other is such a non issue, I can't understand why anyone is even bringing it up at all. How many USB and Firewire cables have that?

While the mini port may not seem to be needed on the current models, and certainly not on the iMacs and Mac Pros to come, Apple may really have something else in mind.

This use on their computers could simply be a way to get people to use it and manufacturers to make them.

It's possible that Apple has a small device coming out at some time in 2009 that will need a port the size of the mini.

By the time that device comes out, there will be products to go with it from the get go.

It's just a theory, but who knows? It does fit into the small tablet device we hear of all the time. Don't forget that DisplayPort also needs less circuitry both in the computer, and in the display. It also uses less power than does DVI or HDMI. Both good reasons to use it on a power challenged, handheld sized device.

As Apple is offring it, and is already using it, it's more likely thar VESA will accept it.

What many people don't realize, is that most "standards" started out as proprietary. Once they were offered, they became standard. Often, the manufacturers themselves organize their own committees and groups to formalize that standard.

That's the way almost everything we use has standards. It's worked that way going all the way back.

Many devices become de facto standards first, and then only later become "approved".

Nonsense!

You're getting emotional about this. It's no big deal. It would only be a big deal if the electrical specs were different, which they aren't.

How can you deny that introducing a second port ruins the dream of a single, ubiquitous port? It self evidently does.

The fact that it's wired the same inside won't help poor old Joe Consumer when he buys his monitor from shop A and his computer from shop B and goes home and bless it, the connector just won't go in. Yes, it will make for a cheaper adaptor, but he wouldn't need an adaptor at all if Apple could stick to standards.

You don't need an adapter. Haven't you been reading what I'm saying?

Cables will come with a standard size connector on one end, and a mini on the other, just as most USB and Firewire cables do now.

Ever connect a camera to a computer? Or a camcorder? How many of them have "A" connectors? Pretty much none! They ALL need a dual plug type cable.

That's just the way it is.

Even in the days of SCSI, most cables had different connectors on each side.

It would be better if everyone adopted the mini connector than the other way around.

And of course, you don't even bother to mention the other reasons I give. They could be very important.

So he will have to go out and guy a new cable? That's likely more expensive than an adaptor. Or do you envisage every monitor coming with two cables in the box, one for mini DP computers and one for standard DP? In that case that is a rather large waste of resources. Apple causing added expense to every monitor sold, and added environmental damage.

Lots of monitors come with a cable now. These DisplayPort cables will be as cheap as USB cables, Firewire cables, HDMI cables, or SATA cables, which is to say, pretty cheap.

Resources? Are you kidding? Don't you have at least one box of cables lying around like everyone else does? Or are you being facetious?

Most monitors will have several ports for some time to come. Perhaps only Apple's will not. How does one deal with that now?

NEC used to have an interesting solution. They had two ports on their monitors. One was standard VGA, and the other was Apple VGA.

The cable they offered with the monitor had one of each. When connected to a PC, you used the Apple port on the monitor, with the Apple connector, and the PC VGA to the computer.

When you hooked to a Mac, you used the PC port on the monitor with the same connector from the cable, and the Apple end into the Mac.

Pretty good, and really didn't cost that much, according to what NEC told me at the time.

The DisplayPorts, either one, will cost much less.

I know there's loads of different cables now, so from that perspective having 2 new ones is no big deal. It just seems like a missed opportunity to me - to get everyone on the same boat: same port, same cable, same everything. Then maybe there wouldn't need to be millions of miles of cable manufactured every year that just sits around in it's unopened plastic wrap. *sigh*

Frankly, that site (and DED in general) is hard to take seriously.


That's a little melodramatic, though it is annoying that Apple has generally tended to make its own connectors for video. You mentioned VGA, Apple had it's own connector for analog RGB back then too, that one seemed unnecessary too.

Perhaps the fault was with VESA in the first place for not thinking that a smaller port would be useful in smaller devices, and Apple is making up for that lack of foresight.

Don't forget, guys, that this won't be the last video port ever designed. There will be another one after this, and another one after that, and so on.

Same thing for other interfaces. They are constantly changing with the technology.

Sometimes, when a port is first designed, no thought is given for other uses, and another one must be designed for that. Sometimes several different physical layers are designed at once. Depends on the need.

To say that one is enough is correct only sometimes.

Even the lowly IEC plug and socket which almost every component today uses (except, curiously, TVs), is inadequate for heavy current, though sometimes it's used out of spec. But, right now, there's no good "standard" substitute for electronics. Big power amps often need attached power cords.

So, nothing's perfect.

First, DisplayPort was designed with reduced size in mind. After all, the standard DisplayPort connector is a lot smaller than VGA and DVI connectors. Second, Apple showed its own "lack of foresight" by making not one, but two proprietary DVI connectors: Mini DVI followed by Micro DVI. Has Apple learned from this, or should we look forward to Apple introducing Micro DisplayPort and Nano DisplayPort?

Based on what I have read, it behooves me that anybody would argue against its implementation, particularly that it was a means for Apple to control the medium, gouge the consumer or address its needs to fit in a smaller form factor.

Unless somebody can confirm differently, I would suggest that the new protocol is well worth consideration and implementation. For example:

Advantages over DVI

• Based on micro-packet protocol.
• Allows easy expansion of the standard
• Allows multiple video streams over single physical connection (in a future version)
• Designed to support internal chip-to-chip communication
• Can drive display panels directly, eliminating control circuits and allowing for cheaper and slimmer displays
• Aimed to replace internal LVDS links in notebook panels with a unified link interface
• Supports both RGB and YCbCr encoding formats
• Auxiliary channel can be used for touch-panel data, USB links, camera, microphone, etc.
• Fewer lanes with embedded clock reduce RFI.
• Slimmer cables and a much smaller connector that doesn't require thumbscrews. Connector pins don't run the risk of bending if improperly handled.
• The DisplayPort connector is easier to connect when guided only by touch.

Advantages compared to HDMI

• DisplayPort does not require licensing or royalty payments as HDMI does
• Allows daisy-chaining of multiple displays

Disadvantages compared to HDMI

• No xvYCC color space support
• No Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio bitstream support
• No support for Consumer Electronics control signals

In addition, I understand that nearly 200 electronic companies form VESA and that a number of them have announced their intention to implement or support the protocol, i.e., AMD/ATI, Analogix, Apple, ASRock, ASUSTeK, Circuit Assembly, Dell, Genesis Microchip, Hewlett-Packard, Hosiden Corporation, Intel, Integrated Device Technology, Japan Aviation Electronics, Lenovo, Luxtera, Molex, NVIDIA, NXP Semiconductors, Palit Microsystems Palit, Parade Technologies, Philips, Quantum Data, Samsung, Sparkle Computer, Texas Instruments, and Tyco Electronics.

Again, I notice that the major dissenters in this forum are the same guys that continually dis Apple at every turn; protected in part by ignorance 'without prejudice'.

I would hope that one would expand the points of advantages and disadvantages as well, without emotions rhetoric, but with facts and a willingness to confirm any challenges.

This is very reminiscent of firewire. Sony was the first to use the IEEE1394 spec, but it was in the form of i-link, which was incredibly stupid because i-link couldn't supply power. Then Apple created in the 6-pin firewire connector, and later the 9-pin firewire 800. But by then it was too late. the IEEE1394 spec had been split between firewire and i-link. Look at any PC. If it has IEEE1394 at all it will be a 4 pin connector. You can argue this all you want, but firewire was doomed at birth because of this. A standard divided cannot stand.

Now we have displayport. Awesome technology, but as usual PC manufacturers are painfully conservative. So Apple is the first to market. But for some reason they are using a custom connector type, despite the fact that the standard one is pretty small. Apple could probably have accommodated for it if they really wanted to, but they didn't.

Now 99 time out of 100 I would say this is a stupid move, and would divide the standard and put it on the fast road to demise, just like what happened to firewire. But the fact is that no one, and I mean no one, uses normal displayport yet. They aren't actually splitting the standard, because the normal connector doesn't exist on any products yet. And while I guarantee you that each and every PC and monitor manufacturer is testing prototypes with displayport, the only real testing is for the interface itself. Mini displayport only changes the shape, not the actual pins. They don't have to test for that. All they have to do is replace the female connector, and since mini displayport is strictly smaller in every dimension, they could knock that off in a weekend.

Why do I bring this up? Because now that Apple is freely licensing their connector shape, there is really no reason NOT to license it and and use it in place of the normal port. The technology is the same. The cost is the same. The R&D is (basically) the same. The only substantial differences are in size and market penetration, where (thanks to Apple) mini displayport has a strict advantage in both.

So in conclusion, in all probability it will be mini displayport and not normal which will become the industry standard. What Apple did was extremely brash and arrogant, but it will probably work.

I do not see anyone against the standard or Apple implementing it. Dell does have monitors already to market with the VESA DisplayPort connector, and someone else mentioned HP and Lenovo as also having the connectors in shipping devices. All people are saying here is that it was ultimately needless to implement another connector to a standard that already had a very small connector.

They don't have any reason to use it over a full sized display port connector either. Standard DP is very close in size to the mini-VGA and Mini-DVI ports.


Apple doing something automatically makes it the case? If they can't fit something as small as a standard display port on a notebook, then they need to fire some people on the design or engineering staff.

Because no reasonable company would design such a device. Nobody else makes their engineers design around the eccentricities of their design team.

Purchased a Display Port Male to a HDMI Female today from Mono Price. Price seemed to be fair to me.

And nobody else gets purchases from me based on their design. Who's reasonable now?

Apple have forked this emerging standard into two competing connector sizes.

Very nice unibody macbooks. Very unstylish internet pants for connectors.

Do you also have a DisplayPort to mini DisplayPort connector?

Pretty funny.
Gee, if Apple had only put Windows in their laptops we could've had a standard.

Frankly, you are hard to take seriously.

Thanks for providing your reasoning on why my source is invalid and an alternate source and explanation of the issues being raised in this discussion. Oh right, you've done neither of those things. Thanks for nothing.

For those who keep repeating that Mini DisplayPort isn't that much smaller, take a look at the pictures below. Look at the DVI connector (top left), then the DVI port (bottom center-left), then the "full" DisplayPort connector (top right), then the Mini DisplayPort port (bottom center-right):




(Note: the bottom picture should be scaled down a bit to match up with the DVI connector in the top picture.)

I give credit where it's due. All connectors have been getting smaller over time. Out with the old, and in with the new.

I'm just pointing out that just because VESA has agreed upon a standard connector, it doesn't mean that it's the best choice, or that it serves every product category.

How do we look at all the connector types that exist for USB and Firewire? Each connector serves its own purpose. New ones are developed as new purposes are discovered that the old connectors aren't best suited for.

Camcorder manufacturers can't truly say that a full size FW or USB connector can't fit on even the smallest of devices, but they choose a connector that was designed to be much smaller, and that normally can't even carry power. Why? Because it's more convienient for them to use a smaller connector.

The same it true of still cameras.

So, it's not normally a matter of fitting the "standard" connectors in, because it CAN be done. But why should they? The smaller the connector, the easier the design is. Having designed plenty of electronics, I can say thar connectors are one of the biggest (no pun intended) problems we have. Either they are too flimsy, too big, or too expensive.

The industry is always looking to make connectors smaller and less expensive. That won't stop.

One of the reasons for getting rid of SCSI and PATA was the cable mess. My last hi quality cables for my SCSI externals cost $150 apiece!

My hi quality component VGA cables were $75!

Now, cable costs are nothing to even think about.

If inventing a smaller DisplayPort connector makes design easier for Apple, esp. if they are thinking of even smaller products, then other manufacturers will be thinking the same thing. After all, there is nothing the "full size" connector can do that the mini can't.

The point about having a cable that goes from mini-dp to dp directly is fair but Apple haven't gone to market with this first. Dell was first and they went with Displayport about a year ago. When I say 'about a year', I mean in the Apple sense of the phrase. 10 months ago.

This means that some displays will come with dp-dp connectors and if I take a Mac laptop to an office and they want me to simply plug it into a display, I'll always have to make sure to have my mini-dp to dp cable with me.

Is it a huge burden? No, of course not but it's a burden nonetheless that didn't need to exist. The displayport port is around the size of a USB port so the fact that Apple haven't opted for mini-USB suggests they could easily have gone with displayport.

The only justification I can see for it is if in future it extends to mobile devices and being able to connect them to standard displays. But most people output to TVs not computer displays and they can't drive very high resolutions.


I reckon it might be wireless after this. Either that or use USB3, maybe USB4.

It's one of those things where it's difficult to say if it's a good move or not until the market decides.

The PC industry clearly just doesn't approve of things that are Apple. Apple were pushing firewire but people complained about the license and yet look at HDMI taking off despite having to pay up for a license. Look at ITMS, rather than offer support, the industry just goes ahead and makes as many competing services with a lot of the same restrictions like using Windows Media DRM content, which won't play on a Mac.

The effect on Mac users if people don't adopt mini-displayport isn't that bad though. For desktop users, it just means getting the right cable and for laptop users, it means carrying the cable or adaptor around. Right now, there is a big problem as there's no direct HDMI output, you have to go dp->DVI->HDMI. This means you have to spend the money on Apple's overpriced adaptors.

You are totally wrong in that. It happens all the time. Though I disagree with your term. So very often devices are designed that need new connectors that I can't even come up with a number, other than to say it's vast.

In understanding the design process, you have to know how it develops.

What happens often enough is this:

"We need this new device to be this size, and have these features."

"We can't fit the connectors on it. It's too small. It will have to be bigger."

"No, it has to be this size."

"Well, the connectors won't fit."

"Then make sure they do."

"Well, we'll need connectors that will fit."

"So, what's the problem? Find different ones."

"There aren't any that we can use."

"I really don't see what your problem is. Design your own."

"Well, ok, we can do that."

There are literally thousands of "standard" connectors around for every conceivable purpose. More are being developed every day, literally!

Before our lifetimes are over, we will see dozens more for the end user. The number used by industry that you don't know about, fits in many dozens of pages in catalogs.

That posting on that site may be OK, but I say that because the writing on that site tends to be a defacto PR wing of Apple, Inc.

Any place there is a matter of subjectivity, most of the time it tends to take the side of Apple without acknowledging any positives of the other side of the discussion.

What I see here is that some people are more worried about the minor inconvience that may arise, but are ignoring the possible advantage.

Even though a handful of devices have been out already, it's just a handful. how many have actually sols is another question.

This is like USB. Until Apple supported it in the iMac, it was no more than a poorly functioning curiosity. After that, it took off.

The same thing could easily happen here. Apple sells at least 16% of all the laptops sold in the US, possibly more after this season is over. That's a far larger percentage of sales (and ports) than all the other devices that have had DP on them are selling together. That will make Apple the mover of DP technology.That's the truth. When Apple puts this in their other models early next year, which is only a short time away, then the 20+% of all computers sold retail (which is Apple's numbers in the US) will have a mini DP connector. That also means that over 66% of all computers selling for more than $1,000 will have them as well, which is where most people will by buying new DP monitors in the near term.

What does that tell you?

It should be telling you that Apple has an oversized influence as to which connectors will be seen, and used.

Apple isn't where they were with FW long ago. Others must pay attention these days, and they do.

Thanks for your reasoning, though you haven't provided an alternative source that better explains the issue, nor really said how that article is misleading. That article also states opposing views and then refutes them. There's no such thing as truly objective news anyway; most of the tech media is anti-Apple and they're also generally wrong and misinformed on what the market wants.

Agreed, you people whining about the standard obviously don't understand what has happened with USB & firewire in the way of port standards. All those miniature usb port types you find on various cameras are a result of no good standard mini port for USB. Firewire on the otherhand has one smaller port that is comparable to the full size 400 port.

Those of you complaining don't understand the history of the cabling industry, Apple has actually done us a service by creating a mini-display port so early on before the standard display port has really been adopted. Maybe this way we won't even have to deal with a full & mini standard. If Apple's mini-display port takes off in the market then maybe for once we'll have 1 standard port everyone can use!!

Well said. People keep making the assumption that the larger, more costly (in terms of bulk material), less power efficient standard will win out over Apple's smaller, more cost and power efficient version. In many ways, Mini DisplayPort is like if Apple had developed Firewire to be superior in every way to USB including cost. Apple has had to rethink and/or drop their support of Firewire due to that last factor, which they won't have to do with Mini DisplayPort (unless full DisplayPort magically becomes deeply intrenched, which seems highly unlikely).

There is a difference here. The smaller type-B variants of USB have a full size USB type A connector. They work with your computer, printer, or other device out of the both. 4, 6, and 9 pin firewire are designed to be part of a firewire ecosystem. Devices usually come with cables for both 4 and 6 pin firewire. Mini-VGA/DVI was designed to work with VGA and DVI displays out of the box ( well, until Apple got cheap and stoped including the adapter).

So far, Mini-DP has been handled more like ADC where they take a standard and make a parallel implementation modified to their uses. Scratch that, ADC at least had adapters both ways to the standard DVI. Look, we don't know what Apple's ultimate intentions are here. I can only go by what I see and what I see worries me. Until the new cinema display came out, Apple had never released a monitor based on a mini variant of a port. It could be a model designed as a quazi-docking station for laptops or it could be the sign of things to come.

Right now all we have is uncertainty. Will Apple or anyone else release video out, HDMI, or standard displayport adapters for Mini-DP? We don't know. Will Apple adopt DP or Mini-DP for its desktop products? I don't know. Will mini-DP catch on with anyone other than Apple? I don't know. The one thing I do know is that I can't assume everything is going to just peachy because Apple says so. I, we need evidence one way or the other.

You guys are taking this to soap opera level dramatics. Their is nothing that prevents a a full DP to mini DP cable.


We don't have uncertainty. Apple offers a free license for mini DP to anyone who wants to use it.

Yes their will be adaptors for mini DP. Yes someone other than Apple is going to use mini DP.

It's high time Apple does something similar with the MagSafe adapters.

Would they extort ridiculously high prices and sell MagSafe accessories themselves, there would be a point, from a share holder perspective, to Apple's actions.
But all Apple's MagSafe policy leads to is that important products are not available or only available as hacks.

(Never mind that Apple should never have gotten a patent on the MagSafe adapter, if the patent system would work properly, given that magnetic plugs are common place for tea kettles and rice cookers!)

We still don't have a proper car power adapter or a universal AC/Car/Air adapter like I have for my PowerBook. Can't use it, because there's no power tip available. (The company has one ready, but can't ship it for licensing reasons!)

All Apple does is cause its customers grief with these policies.

Until Apple decides to introduce "Micro DisplayPort" or "Nano DisplayPort", just like they did with Mini DVI followed by Micro DVI.

I can't think of a single product that I've bought that required a FW or USB cable, that when they included the cable at all, and many haven't, included more than one.


I don't remember how Apple handled ADC, but here, they've announced free licensing from the very beginning, and have entered the connector to VESA's standardization process even BEFORE Apple's new products came out.


While there is uncertainty for sure, some of what you offer there is not correct.

Apple DID announce, as you should know from at least what you've read here, that mini DP will be on ALL of their new computers. So, that part is fixed.

The only way we'll get evidence is to wait to see what happens.