Readit News logoReadit News
bobdvb commented on Show HN: 3KB Serverless Analytics – No APIs, No Origin, No Semantic Parsing(SRF)   fullscore.org/en/... · Posted by u/aidgn
bobdvb · 4 days ago
We waste so much resources in storing/transiting data in human readable forms. Ultimately it's binary, we already use software to display it, requiring the data be in forms that are human readable just wastes resources.

If the data spends more time being executed than read by humans it doesn't deserve to be human readable.

Use binary packed data and have an AI write you an interpreter for the structure.

bobdvb commented on Valve: HDMI Forum Continues to Block HDMI 2.1 for Linux   heise.de/en/news/Valve-HD... · Posted by u/OsrsNeedsf2P
samplatt · 5 days ago
I replied to someone who claimed HDMI's only purpose was DRM, which is wrong.

I haven't pivoted since the start of the thread. There simply was not a digital solution that could negotiate then stream video and AND 2+ channels of audio, all in one cable, that was supported by more than a small fraction of consumer and industry devices at once. Firewire (which you seem fixated on), for all it's many technical superiorities, had almost zero market with Windows users, or consumers in general. Set-top boxes used it in the US, but was uncommon outside of the US. Camcorders used it, but in 2002 when HDMI came out most people were still using film camcorders IIRC; digital only really became commonplace well after HDMI gained footholds.

I'm not saying the cable itself controlled clocks and handshakes, I'm conflating terms over the last couple of comments. I'm referring to HDMI, the cable, the protocol, and the connectors. And yes - HDCP had a huge part in how HDMI was pushed, which is both bad (introducing proprietary bullshit's never great) and good (larger adoption of standards that work well in the field).

Was HDMI perfect? FAR from it. But all these "there was this tech that did THIS facet better" is missing the point that I've stated a few times. It was a good solution to a number of small problems.

bobdvb · 5 days ago
I'll upvote you because you're mostly right.

But to be fair, there is a standard that could have been used for digital video, SDI/HD-SDI, but the transceivers were expensive and it doesn't support any form of bi-directional handshake. There was already prosumer kit, mostly in the US, which had SD-SDI connections as an alternative to component. It didn't get popular in Europe mostly because of SCART.

I was once talking with someone who was very much involved in the process of standardising TV connectivity, a senior engineer at Gennum, and he said it wouldn't have been practical and SDI couldn't have been competitive with HDMI.

Personally, I would have loved the idea of some kind of SDI with return path signalling, like a test probe connector: https://w140.com/tekwiki/images/thumb/8/86/Tek_Interface_Evo...

bobdvb commented on Valve: HDMI Forum Continues to Block HDMI 2.1 for Linux   heise.de/en/news/Valve-HD... · Posted by u/OsrsNeedsf2P
friendzis · 10 days ago
IIUC the issue is not them being unable to implement 2.1 at all, but rather provide specifically open source implementation. They probably could provide a binary blob.
bobdvb · 9 days ago
That's probably how NVidia did it.

But there's very little software involved in HDMI, it's mostly hardware and a control API.

bobdvb commented on Valve: HDMI Forum Continues to Block HDMI 2.1 for Linux   heise.de/en/news/Valve-HD... · Posted by u/OsrsNeedsf2P
xg15 · 10 days ago
This sounds too easy to be true.

Does the "brand" include the physical shape of the connector?

Could I make hardware with a "NotHDMI" port that "happens" to be mechanically compatible with HDMI plugs, has the exact same pinout, etc etc?

Even then: In the OP case the hardware is already there, it's only about the driver. So wouldn't a driver for hardware that very clearly identifies the port as "HDMI" run into the same problem, even if the driver itself never mentions the term?

bobdvb · 9 days ago
No, the connectors wouldn't be regulated, you're not violating any IP by buying them and there's no prohibition on any of the manufacturers selling them to unlicensed companies. At worst you can assert a patent against the design but there's no specific patent for that design, there are patents for some aspects of the design/implementation but they're hold by the manufacturers of the connectors themselves.

There have been many examples in the past of consumer electronics companies selling things that are electrically and logically compatible with HDMI, but they just have to avoid using the word HDMI.

Probably one thing that the HDMI forum is holding over AMD/Valve is that there's an API to manage some of the functions of the HDMI driver. They could infer that this API is a part of the closed standards of HDMI Forum. But 90% of the threat is about certification and branding I am sure.

bobdvb commented on Valve: HDMI Forum Continues to Block HDMI 2.1 for Linux   heise.de/en/news/Valve-HD... · Posted by u/OsrsNeedsf2P
aoeusnth1 · 10 days ago
Maybe nothing, but can you afford to prove that in court?
bobdvb · 10 days ago
I need to post this everywhere:

THIS ISN'T AN IP/PATENT ISSUE!

This is branding and marketing issue. Anyone can implement the spec, it doesn't need to be a cleanroom implementation. It's almost certain that you could license the patents from the patent holders because HDMI doesn't develop it's own patentable stuff, they just get it from Sony, Panasonic, etc.

THIS IS A MARKETING / BRANDING ISSUE.

Saying they don't want an open source implementation is just a smokescreen. 99% of the implementation is in hardware anyway.

bobdvb commented on Valve: HDMI Forum Continues to Block HDMI 2.1 for Linux   heise.de/en/news/Valve-HD... · Posted by u/OsrsNeedsf2P
rcxdude · 10 days ago
AFAIK clean-room reverse engineering is sufficient but not always necessary for such an implementation to be allowed, but it does make the fair use argument a bit more difficult. (and of course the DMCA criminalizes any reverse engineering of 'technical safeguards' regardless of how you do it)
bobdvb · 10 days ago
The spec is open to them and this isn't an IP issue, it's a branding issue.
bobdvb commented on Valve: HDMI Forum Continues to Block HDMI 2.1 for Linux   heise.de/en/news/Valve-HD... · Posted by u/OsrsNeedsf2P
friendzis · 10 days ago
IIUC, the problem is a bit tautological. Regardless of legality of reverse engineering itself, HDMI is a trademark which you obviously cannot use without being licensed. Using HDMI connector itself is probably a grey-ish area: while you can buy the connectors without agreeing to any licenses and forwarding compliance on vendor, it would still be hard to argue that you had no idea it was a HDMI connector. If you are using the HDMI connector, but are not sending anything else but DVI over it, it should be fine-ish.

The real problem starts when you want to actually support HDMI 2.0 and 2.1 on top. Arguing that you have licenced for 2.0 and then tacked a clean-room implementation of 2.1 on top gets essentially impossible.

bobdvb · 10 days ago
HDMI's gate is certification and the ability to then use their marketing brand.

This is absolutely not a technical issue. You can implement the 2.1 spec if you want, you just can't say it's 2.1.

If Valve wanted they could happily get it to work and let people figure out that it works, they just can't use that title in their marketing.

bobdvb commented on Valve: HDMI Forum Continues to Block HDMI 2.1 for Linux   heise.de/en/news/Valve-HD... · Posted by u/OsrsNeedsf2P
brokenmachine · 10 days ago
Reading a standards spec to understand what the device you paid for does?

Straight to jail!

Pirating the entire internet to train your AI?

That's fair use.

bobdvb · 10 days ago
They're wrong, there's nothing stopping you implementing anything you like, you just can't use the HDMI brand without complying with their rules.
bobdvb commented on Valve: HDMI Forum Continues to Block HDMI 2.1 for Linux   heise.de/en/news/Valve-HD... · Posted by u/OsrsNeedsf2P
jsheard · 10 days ago
AIUI the spec being leaked ironically makes things worse, because for an unofficial implementation to be legally kosher it would have to be clean-room reverse engineered anyway, and since the official spec is out there the integrity of such an effort would be called into doubt. You'd somehow have to prove you didn't look at it, ever, or at least be trusted enough for people to take your word for it.

(I'm not a lawyer, please correct me if I'm wrong)

bobdvb · 10 days ago
They don't really have to worry about patent infringement, the biggest issue is that they can implement anything they want, they just can't call it HDMI 2.1 without certification.

That's confusing for the consumer but technically viable.

HDMI exists to write standards, to certify them and to enforce the brand integrity. Patents are a different issue and would be handled separately.

(I am an engineer who spent half his career dealing with this stuff at a technical, legal and commercial level).

bobdvb commented on Valve: HDMI Forum Continues to Block HDMI 2.1 for Linux   heise.de/en/news/Valve-HD... · Posted by u/OsrsNeedsf2P
jauntywundrkind · 10 days ago
That HDMI Forum does not allow TVs to be sold with DisplayPort is a massive reason I think they deserve to have their building surrounded by angry people with pitchforks and torches. Anti-competitive abusers, doing awful things to prevent a better world.

DisplayPort actually makes sense as a digital protocol, where-as HDMI inherits all the insane baggage of the analog past & just sucks. HDMI is so awful.

bobdvb · 10 days ago
No, they don't put DP on because every $ of hardware they fit to the TV needs to provide value. DP requires a large board component that may need manual handling, circuit traces (+ decoupling) and silicon on the chip to interface. It then requires software support in the stack and that needs testing/validation.

The percentage of people who will actually use DP to connect their TV vs HDMI is tiny. Even people who do have DisplayPort on their monitors will often times connect it with HDMI just because it's the more familiar connector. I spent a decade working in that area and we literally were debating about spending cents on devices that retailed for hundreds, or thousands. The secondary problem that drives that is that ~90% of TVs sold use the same family of chips from MStar, so even if you wanted to go off-track and make something special, you can only do it from off-the-shelf silicon unless you pay a fortune for your own spin of the silicon. If you want to do that then you better commit to buying >1m chips or they won't get out of bed.

HDMI forum was founded by mostly TV manufacturers, they're not interested in constraining the market in that way. It's all just been market consolidation and making TVs cheaper through tighter integration.

u/bobdvb

KarmaCake day270May 31, 2012
About
Video Architect and generally doing non-dev things.

[ my public key: https://keybase.io/bobdvb; my proof: https://keybase.io/bobdvb/sigs/sJtwH4_BwTN906267jbgXXsXD8i5td_d5Ez0MbjSlec ]

View Original