The HDMI Forum, responsible for the HDMI specification, continues to stonewall open source. Valve’s Steam Machine theoretically supports HDMI 2.1, but the mini-PC is software-limited to HDMI 2.0. As a result, more than 60 frames per second at 4K resolution are only possible with limitations.

  • OR3X@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 day ago

    But why does the HDMI fourm not want a open source 2.1-compliant implementation? Is it DRM related? I feel like it’s DRM related.

    • bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Likely moreso that they’re facing pressure from other competitors in the industry that see Steam and open source in general as a threat to their business model. The HDMI forum is made up of industry leaders, and naturally Microsoft and Sony are there.

      https://hdmiforum.org/members/

      • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        1 day ago

        They’ve been refusing open HDMI 2.1 since 2017. I don’t think that being afraid of Linux becoming the dominant gaming platform plays a role here; it’s more likely that they’re afraid people might find new ways to get at protected content.

        • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Ive never had using HDMI prevent me from enjoying pirated media, so Ive always been confused about what sort of drm a TV is looking for.

          • Imacat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 day ago

            It’s more of a barrier for people who are pirating media, not the ones consuming that pirated media.

            • leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              21 hours ago

              Don’t they mostly download it directly from streaming platforms these days, skipping the display and its connector altogether…?

        • b34k@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Isn’t getting at protected content pretty trivial anyway? At least that’s my impression from how easy it is to find basically anything.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      But why does the HDMI forum not want a open source 2.1-compliant implementation?

      To my knowledge they’ve never officially said but you can be sure that it has to do with Content Protection and that means DRM. An Open Source HDMI 2.1+ driver would make pirating much simpler, probably trivial and they don’t want that.

      It’s possible anyway of course but there are a couple of hardware hoops to jump through and that’s enough to keep most people from doing it.

    • fonix232@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Because that would open source certain implementations they want to hold captive.

      It also enforces closed source drivers which can be shipped with spyware/crapware, further extending profits for companies… companies that happen to make up the HDMI Forum.

    • tty5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      They charge a fee for access to the spec and maintain who can claim their products are HDMI compliant and require compliance testing on those products.

      An open source implementation would make that spec public and strip a lot of control they hold.

    • plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Part of being open source is subsequent licensing. This would allow any others to piggyback and avoid the fee.