Apple among tech leaders developing next PC to HDTV interface

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Apple Computer is among a group of Leading PC and consumer electronics companies that announced on Tuesday they are working to develop a specification, referred to as the unified display interface (UDI), that is intended to serve as the next-generation standard for connectivity between PCs and consumer electronics devices like HDTVs.



"UDI is targeted to become the new display interface for desktop PCs, workstations, notebook PCs and PC monitors, replacing the aging VGA analog standard and providing guidelines to ensure compatibility with today's DVI standard," the group said in a statement.



The UDI specification will be fully compatible with HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface), the standard digital interface for High Definition TVs (HDTVs) and advanced CE displays. It will also be able to use High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) technology widely deployed in HDMI-compatible products today. As a result, host platforms with UDI connectors will be able to plug into monitors and HDMI-equipped display devices including HDTVs with full content-use rights management and high-definition video compatibility.



For end users, UDI will provide a universal video connection from the computer host to the display, including PC and notebook monitors, HDTVs and projectors. For PC and monitor makers, UDI will offer easy integration with both discrete and integrated graphics controllers, letting manufacturers build computer platforms and all-digital LCD monitors that are lower in cost, easier to use and higher in bandwidth.



Other members of the group UDI specification group -- dubbed the UDI Special Interest Group (or UDI SIG) -- involved in the ongoing development and refinement of the specification include Intel Corp., LG Electronics, National Semiconductor Corp., Samsung Electronics and Silicon Image Inc. Joining the SIG as contributors are graphics chip maker NVIDIA Corp., semiconductor manufacturer THine Electronics Inc., and cable and connector makers FCI, Foxconn Electronics Inc. and JAE Electronics Inc.



The group is currently seeking more industry participants to help validate and refine the display interface specification, which is currently in revision 0.8. The UDI SIG expects to have the version 1.0 specification completed in the second quarter of 2006.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 71
    I can't find their website.



    I don't see what UDI does that HDMI doesn't already.



    HDMI



    Supports Audio,Video and RGB

    Supports HDCP

    Supports DVI signals

    Supports longer cable lengths



    What this sounds like is a group of vendors that want the industry to again move to "yet another connection" I want to see hard proof that this UDI connection is worthy of the long and arduous process of upgrading components again.
  • Reply 2 of 71
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    I can't find their website.



    I don't see what UDI does that HDMI doesn't already.



    HDMI



    Supports Audio,Video and RGB

    Supports HDCP

    Supports DVI signals

    Supports longer cable lengths



    What this sounds like is a group of vendors that want the industry to again move to "yet another connection" I want to see hard proof that this UDI connection is worthy of the long and arduous process of upgrading components again.




    No kidding, this is complete crap. I honestly don't understand what this is about. How can it be fully compatible with somthing that already exists and it perfectly fine?. Heck, look at what they are going to do with it:
    Quote:

    For end users, UDI will provide a universal video connection from the computer host to the display, including PC and notebook monitors, HDTVs and projectors.



    Not only does HDMI do that just fine, so does DVI!!



    God, I hate it when there are 5 different standards that do the same thing.



    But, wait I take that back. If this can support, say UHDV signals, in addition to current technologies, that would be cool. Of course, without any real information, we can't know, can we?
  • Reply 3 of 71
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,177member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    I can't find their website.



    I don't see what UDI does that HDMI doesn't already.



    HDMI



    Supports Audio,Video and RGB

    Supports HDCP

    Supports DVI signals

    Supports longer cable lengths



    What this sounds like is a group of vendors that want the industry to again move to "yet another connection" I want to see hard proof that this UDI connection is worthy of the long and arduous process of upgrading components again.




    It's supposed to be less expensive to implement. Longer cable runs with less interference. Thinner cables that are less expensive. Right now, if you want a front projector, it's expensive and difficult to set it up if the equipment is across the room. I was thinking about this at home. I was going to get a front projection unit. It would have required at least 60 feet of cable from the projector to the equipment bay. It would have needed a $600 booster. The cable was another $200. This could lower that cost to under $100. This will allow much less difficult ways of stringing a cable through the ceiling, walls, or under the floor. I bought an Hp 65" DLP instead.



    But this is just the physical layer. The software layer has been worked on since the 1990's. It's not new. The idea is to have binary drivers that will work across all operating systems.



    This Intel page will get you started:



    http://www.intel.com/design/servers/...lib/udi_wp.htm



    The PDF here shows some of the thoughts on this that go back a ways:



    http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes



    I can't find the Home page either. It's called something else, and I can't remember what.
  • Reply 4 of 71
    Two words that worry me: "Rights management"



    Why do they want this in a display?
  • Reply 5 of 71
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ctachme

    No kidding, this is complete crap. I honestly don't understand what this is about. How can it be fully compatible with somthing that already exists and it perfectly fine?. Heck, look at what they are going to do with it: Not only does HDMI do that just fine, so does DVI!!



    God, I hate it when there are 5 different standards that do the same thing.



    But, wait I take that back. If this can support, say UHDV signals, in addition to current technologies, that would be cool. Of course, without any real information, we can't know, can we?




    That's right. All these corporations got together, said "Hey, let's reimplement something that already works for no reason at all!" and they decided that it was a good thing to waste their money on. Maybe they're looking for a nice adapter and PCI card spec to plug your HDTV receiver into your computer.



    Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean its another standard to do the same thing. Oh, and DVI doesn't already hook stuff together that follow the HDMI content protection standards. So you can output your content to an HDMI device, but it won't come in without the support.
  • Reply 6 of 71
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,177member
    I got to this link from the EETimes. For some reason I couldn't get to their home page until just now.



    Maybe some of the info in this article will help ctachme understand how much broader this is in supporting ALL major interfaces in use now. Not just DVI and HDMI.



    Having just one output for video, audio, graphics, and gaming sounds appealing. The HDMI assoc is supporting this development as well, so there is broad appeal.



    OOPS, forgot to put the link in.\



    Here it is:



    http://www.eet.com/news/latest/showA...leID=175007096
  • Reply 7 of 71
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,177member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kmok1

    Two words that worry me: "Rights management"



    Why do they want this in a display?




    Read the links, and then comment again.



    This has nothing to do with rights management per se.



    HDMI was developed SPECIFICALLY to enable rights management. This will continue that capability.



    Like it or not, rights management is here to stay in one form or another. Complaining about it doesn't help.



    The question that matters is HOW it will function. Will it be convenient, or will it be a pain?
  • Reply 8 of 71
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,177member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ctachme

    No kidding, this is complete crap. I honestly don't understand what this is about. How can it be fully compatible with somthing that already exists and it perfectly fine?. Heck, look at what they are going to do with it: Not only does HDMI do that just fine, so does DVI!!



    God, I hate it when there are 5 different standards that do the same thing.



    But, wait I take that back. If this can support, say UHDV signals, in addition to current technologies, that would be cool. Of course, without any real information, we can't know, can we?




    First, don't link to Wikipedia. They aren't either the most up to date, or accurate source.



    But to alleviate your apprehensions about some UHDV standard, you can read the link here.



    You will notice that Intel's Ellis mentions Apple's 30" monitor directly. What is said should interest you.



    And just keep thinking; 16Gb/s, 16Gb/s, 16Gb/s...



    http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/12/20/udisig_formation/
  • Reply 9 of 71
    Melgross



    Good job. I'm just tired of waiting but then again Silicon Image (HDMI guys and then some) are behind UDI as well. Looks like compatibility with HDMI should be cake because UDI is common on a majority of the HDMI spec.



    HDMI cables are indeed expensive and the non locking causes some problems with beefier cables.



    If everyone can get on board here we could really have the ability to string devices throughout the house and network them. The typical house in 20 years is going to be an interesting beast.
  • Reply 10 of 71
    If this thing has DRM, I will pass. And no, I do not pirate, but I hate DRM getting in my way (as has happened to me with Audible and iTMS).
  • Reply 11 of 71
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kmok1

    Two words that worry me: "Rights management"



    Why do they want this in a display?




    To destroy the so-called "fair use rights" of their customers, period. Pirates will run their own HD DVD's off the same production line than the official ones, they won't care. Neither will the copyright infringers distributing the no-DRM copy on P2P.



    edit: to clarify, I think the companies involved should be able to use all the DRM they want. They are not responsible for the loss of fair use. The cause for that is the law that restricts the development of compatible, non-DRM products.
  • Reply 12 of 71
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,177member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Robin Hood

    If this thing has DRM, I will pass. And no, I do not pirate, but I hate DRM getting in my way (as has happened to me with Audible and iTMS).



    You guys are going to have to wake up!



    You won't pass, because you won't be able to.



    Everything will have DRM in some form or another.



    Unless you plan to pirate all cable, satellite, video, music, and digital radio, you won't have anything to watch or listen to. It's that simple.



    If it weren't for pirates in the first place, we wouldn't HAVE DRM.



    It's the chicken and the egg.
  • Reply 13 of 71
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,125member
    Vista won't support HD playback unless you have a HDCP monitor. Expect Apple to follow suit.



    Now this doesn't mean your own high def content recorded on your red.com camera won't playback. It just means that HDCP protected content won't play.



    Sucks but that's the future. I just hope they don't lock stuff down so much that you can't utilize your music for personal reasons (ie adding soundtracks to your imovie files) .



    I'm all for protecting artists rights but then again the idea of selling music to me taints the art or at the least some buffoon in a suit selling it.
  • Reply 14 of 71
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    You can't really record HDMI anyway, so it doesn't really matter if it's protected or not.
  • Reply 15 of 71
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    You guys are going to have to wake up!



    You won't pass, because you won't be able to.



    Everything will have DRM in some form or another.



    Unless you plan to pirate all cable, satellite, video, music, and digital radio, you won't have anything to watch or listen to. It's that simple.




    That's exactly what I'm going to do, at least until the new DRM is easy to strip off. This is no empty promise: I held off any DVD purchases until CSS was thoroughly broken, too.
    Quote:

    If it weren't for pirates in the first place, we wouldn't HAVE DRM.



    Bullshit. They would have DRM for the exact same purposes they have it now: to be able to force the customers to watch ads, to lock the customers in their own platform, to be able to release the content in different regions at different times and prices without anyone being able to import it, and to be eventually able to charge extra for everything that is commonly considered "fair use" or disallow it altogether.
  • Reply 16 of 71
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,177member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wmf

    You can't really record HDMI anyway, so it doesn't really matter if it's protected or not.



    It's because it's protected that you can't record it.



    The concern is that the digital signal can be intercepted between the device outputting the signal, and the device displaying it. A box could built that would go between the output and the input. This would output the digital stream to a recorder, or HD.



    HDMI eliminates that possibility with its DRM.
  • Reply 17 of 71
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    It's supposed to be less expensive to implement. Longer cable runs with less interference. Thinner cables that are less expensive. Right now, if you want a front projector, it's expensive and difficult to set it up if the equipment is across the room. I was thinking about this at home. I was going to get a front projection unit. It would have required at least 60 feet of cable from the projector to the equipment bay. It would have needed a $600 booster. The cable was another $200. This could lower that cost to under $100. This will allow much less difficult ways of stringing a cable through the ceiling, walls, or under the floor. I bought an Hp 65" DLP instead.





    Why use HDMI at all for projectors? just go DVI->VGA and do the projector runs with VGA cable, that is how we do classroom setups at work and it works like a charm at 20-60FT. The cables cost about $40 and a VGA line amp is about $30. Forget HDMI, it is like using Firewire for a network, OK for connecting 2 computers if you have no other choice, but a crossover cable is WAY cheaper...and faster if both have GigE



    Newer isnt always better.
  • Reply 18 of 71
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,177member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gon

    That's exactly what I'm going to do, at least until the new DRM is easy to strip off. This is no empty promise: I held off any DVD purchases until CSS was thoroughly broken, too.Bullshit. They would have DRM for the exact same purposes they have it now: to be able to force the customers to watch ads, to lock the customers in their own platform, to be able to release the content in different regions at different times and prices without anyone being able to import it, and to be eventually able to charge extra for everything that is commonly considered "fair use" or disallow it altogether.



    Oh please. Don't pretend.



    First you pretend that you will be able to do what can't be done, and then you pretend that pirating isn't the reason DRM was invented.



    That's why we have these problems today.
  • Reply 19 of 71
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,177member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    Why use HDMI at all for projectors? just go DIV->VGA and do the projector runs with VGA cable, that is how we do clasroom setups at word and it works like a charm at 20-60FT. The cables cost about $40 and a VGA line amp is about $30. Forget HDMI, it is like using Firewire for a network, OK for connecting 2 computers if you have no other choice, but a crossover cable is WAY cheaper...





    Newer isnt always better.




    That's not good. Besides you are talking about low rez. HDMI has both audio and video in one cable. UDI will have far better quality, with a less expensive cable, and less expensive interfaces inside both output and input.



    And you are losing quality with those cheap solutions even at the lower resolutions. It won't work for 1080p or higher. The degradation is far too great.



    Again, I get the feeling that the links are not being read, or the answers would have been seen.
  • Reply 20 of 71
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,125member
    I like the bandwidth 16Gbps sounds like overkill but at this rate UHD 4k resolution should be possible.



    What I'd love to see in a universal connection is the ability to have 3 different types.



    UDI-V- Video only

    UDI-AV Audio and Video

    UDI-AVP Audio,Video and Power



    That way you'd match the appropriate cable to the environment. For smaller devices the AVP cable could provide say 10 watts of power or less. Perfect for powering portable devices or phones with screens on them.
Sign In or Register to comment.