New iMac doesn't play nice with Apple's Mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter
By Donald Melanson 
posted October 26th 2009 11:59PM
posted October 26th 2009 11:59PM
posted October 26th 2009 11:59PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
As far as I know, Belkin is working on an adapter that'll be out soon.
Which Apple has already announced and Engadget is blissfully unaware of. What else is new.
I really like apple computers. I think they are just neat and shiny. I like to sleep with my macbook pro.
I'm sure your MBP is happy to sleep with you, too
You don't own a mac, the mac owns you!
How hard can it be to design a freakin adapter?
http://developer.apple.com/softwarelicensing/agreements/pdf/MiniDisplayPortImpLicense.pdf
9. Term and Termination
B. This Implementation License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate immediately and automatically, without notice from Apple, if:
iii. if You, at any time during the term of this Implementation License, commence and action for patent infringement against Apple.
That might have something to do with the slow uptake of the Mini-DisplayPort connector with third parties.
OMG Epic Fail, how can people continue to buy windows 7 when microsoft doesnt allow you to do something so basic. You should just buy OSX and it will just work.
oh oh sorry i read the headlines wrong. Thought this was about microsoft.
oh its apple, well you know its not such a major feature that anyone will use anyway and if you really need a second monitor that bad buy an apple studio display. Plus apple told everyone in advance that this was going to happen. Stop making such a big deal out of it Engadget. Steve hasnt hurt anyone, he just wants to make the world a better place.
I wish Apple had also added a HDMI port. I know HDMI is way inferior to DisplayPort, and every games console and TV will eventually go DisplayPort, but until that happens it would be nice to have a HDMI input to hook up that PS3 or XBox 360...
Really? Display port is better? I thought they did the same thing, just had different connectors.
PS: If your comment was sarcasm, please forgive my comment.
it's the same thing - all they do is convert one digital signal to another neither is "better"
Oh but I thought LightPeak was supposed to take over the world?
DisplayPort supports much higher throughput and resolutions than HDMI, so it is superior. It's also an open standard.
I am not defending Apple's position -- I really think they should include HDMI. If I were the owner of a brand new iMac, I'd be pissed off at having to wait for a special adapter to hook up my console.
hahahah you said hdmi sucks compared to DP so the Apple Fan Boys wouldn't jump all over you
how cute
Actually, doesn't HDMI 1.3 support the same Max res as Display Port, and doesn't HDMI 1.4 support an even higher one? :x
Matt:
No it doesn't. Look it up. HDMI 1.3 has 10.2 gigabits/second bandwidth and DisplayPort has 8.64 gigabits/second bandwidth. DisplayPort has more bandwidth than HDMI 1.2, but HDMI 1.3 was actually out before DisplayPort devices were, so DisplayPort has never in practice had more bandwidth than HDMI.
in terms of pure capability HDMI vs DisplayPort is like USB vs Firewire, you're going to see a lot of juggling back and forth
The main reason to go DisplayPort is because there is no licensing cost
Reminds me of the time everyone got mad because new models their favorite PMPs didn't playback MPEG, it's because the patent holders starting demanding payment
One factor on the HDMI side is that the new spec (I think 1.4) supports ethernet over HDMI. Useful in the near future for TV's supporting it that have built-in network capabilities so you can just run the one HDMI cable to your TV that supports video, audio, and ethernet. I think the new spec even supports bi-directional audio so you can also run audio back from your TV to the receiver if you're pulling down an OTA signal.
None of that stuff really matters for the iMac, but for the DP vs HDMI argument it should be considered.
DisplayPort 1.2 will double the bandwidth of 1.1 (to be almost twice that of HDMI 1.4) -- there'll always be something new coming around the corner. I think everyone agrees that a micro-HDMI connector would be nicer at the present time in Apple products. Maybe in the future it'll be nice to have DisplayPort, but right now it kind of sucks.
I'm sorry, I had gotten that wrong. It seems I had read the HDMI 1.2 spec a while ago. It now seems that their capabilities are similar, and ethernet over HDMI sounds highly interesting.
So it seems that the advantage of DisplayPort is that it's more open: no need to pay licensing fees.
I am sure Apple could afford the $1 or whatever it is adding HDMI as well without passing it on directly to the consumer. I'll say it again: if I was the owner of a brand new iMac, I would be pissed off at having to buy another cable or adapter. I wouldn't understand why Apple couldn't couldn't just have both HDMI and DisplayPort on the iMac. Considering how widespread HDMI is, that would make sense.
DisplayPort 1.2 also cuts the maximum cable length to 2 meters. Which is barely enough for a computer, it's a problem for use in other situations.
The ethernet in HDMI 1.4 is only 100Base-T. I'm not giving up GigE.
Besides, Apple still doesn't even have audio over DisplayPort right now. That's a complete drag. At least with real HDMI devices you do get audio. Uncompressed audio. For DisplayPort, it's still "coming soon".
why all these "mini" ports? a standard HDMI port is quite thin, and so is standard DisplayPort. the most ridiculous is the use of mini-Toslink in the new Mac Minis. i don't see why mini ports should ever be used on a full laptop, let alone a desktop.
question: what's the deal with HDMI and HDCP? is HDCP required for everything played over HDMI? or just protected stuff (somehow)? or is it not really required at all? a while back i thought someone said that HDMI required HDCP encoding/decoding at both ends, and displayport had a benefit in that it didn't. could someone address this?
HDMI does not require HDCP. Some content refuses to play (i.e. HD iTunes store movies) if you don't have it though. HDMI and DisplayPort have the same restrictions in terms of copy protection. If you don't have end-to-end encryption on your digital display link, you're gonna have a hard time for certain content, whether it's going over HDMI, DVI or DisplayPort.
DisplayPort supports and alternate encryption system, DPCP, but in practice no one uses it, links use HDCP, which then makes your connectors no longer royalty free.
Displayport is bi-directional, so data can go from the computer to the monitor, and from the monitor to the computer.
This is great for monitors with built-in webcams or multi-touch surfaces. It's not all about bandwidth.
Hi, my name is KarlW.
I know very little about HDMI, but i own a Mac so I'm going to splurt out what little I know about Apple's fancy plug thingy. Jobs is my hero!
**Note: HDMI isnt one-way either...
Wow, that was pretty rude.
Just responding to your ignorance Karl
Wow. Apple's changing things?? And they're not being consistent or sticking with standards? Hmmmm... That's a first... ;)
Read the article again. You failed to the first time apparently. You also know nothing about Apple's history.
Terry, try commenting again. You clearly failed the first time
F*ck Apple. They're changing things without notifying their customers. The last time I checked my Apple composite AV cable was working but when I upgraded to their latest firmware, it doesn't work anymore. Bullshit.
i don't understand. you bought the fricken monitor, why does apple insist on not letting you use it unless they're getting a cut? this is beyond greed.
It's a fricken computer, not a monitor.
oh so just because the monitor and cpu are in one package, it magically turns into something else?
by your logic, if you tied your monitor to your desktop, the monitor would no longer exist but would magically fuse with the desktop to form a freak chimeric unicorn?
the MONITOR came bundled together with the iMac, they just happen to be in the same package. i don't see how this is any different than normally buying a monitor and desktop together.
apple chose to support the monitor feature, but since they're greedy bitches, they're only doing so if they get a cut of the profit.
i don't see how there's any other way to read it.
You should care. When the motherboard blows in two years that's all you'll be left with. An overpriced display. Welcome to the world of all in one computers...
Hi Dan... I'm pissed I can't use my laptop as a monitor, please fix this for me. I paid for the screen I want to display whatever I choose on it.
ErnieP, are you aware that with the quality of that display, along with the resolution, the display is actually underpriced? It is essentially worth the price of the display, without the computer.
Also, if you're worried about the motherboard going in two years, buy a warranty.
@David
APPLE CHOSE TO SUPPORT THE MONITOR FEATURE BUT ARE ONLY RESTRICTING IT TO APPLE DEVICES.
YOUR LAPTOP COULD NEVER SUPPORT A MONITOR FEATURE TO BEGIN WITH.
stop trying to compare apples to oranges. analogy fail.
@ErnieP: If the motherboard blows in 2 years, you have no monitor at all since the input video is routed through the computer motherboard.
"it's almost certainly only a matter of time before Apple or a third-party manufacturer comes out with an adapter that does work"
Thats the silver lining to this cloud? That users will be able to fix this by throwing more money at apple?
And good work with the disclaimer at the beginning, like we expected apple to let us do something like that?
You could wonder.. who is the biggest idiot here. Apple for continiously messing over their own standards or the consumer who just keeps throwing money at Apple to get their own properties to function as they should. In the end as long as the consumer accepts being nailed over and over by Apple I can´t say there is a problem since people simply accept it. Now this is for the iMac equiped with a buildin screen but what´s next, you want your swell Mac to work with a proper high-quality screen and Apple decides it´s a no go. In the end as long as consumers accept to be fucked from behind over and over Apple will keep doing it the only solution is to make the sales drop even further till Apple figures out this bastard behaviour isn´t what the consumer wants. Btw is it just me or do I read news from Apple daily where they figured out a new way to nail their consumer?
This reminds me of the iPhone and all those wonderful iPod devices and docks that worked with every iPod on the market... except the damn iPhone. So now you have to go out and buy new docks and new FM Transmitters and things like the Apple FM remote won't even work. Pick a standard and stick with it!
So Apple is just acting like how Apple usually acts? This is news?
of course it is....
because this is Engadget.
unfortunate, I had pondered how I might go HDMI to DVI and then through to Mini DPort via the Apple adaptor. Well that sounds totally unlikely.
Have you mob (engadget) got it to work with anything?!
Figures. These jerkwads do crap like this all the time. How many frickin monitor ports have there been now? I have 4 different adapters because of these pricks.
The latest BS from them is with my 13" MBP and the Mini DisplayPort -> VGA adapter I bought from the Apple store. Their own adapter doesn't even work. I had to go out and buy yet another adapter (Mini DisplayPort -> DVI) and a DVI -> HDMI adapter cable just to use my MBP with my LCD TV (Samsung).
I know of no other company that pulls this kind of crap on their customers on a regular basis.
You know, you can get a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter from monoprice.com
Yeah, I had already bought the DVI adapter from Apple though and couldn't return it by the time I realized my TV didn't have DVI.