#5972867

Typhoon2097

2021-12-14 08:54

Clown world... Going the USB route for the naming scheme I guess 🙂

#5972870

Sylwester Zarębski

2021-12-14 08:59

Someone bring a bag of cash and HDMI LA smiled and took it...

#5972872

entr0cks

2021-12-14 09:02

Well that's shady.

#5972876

Dragam1337

2021-12-14 09:10

This sounds completely absurd... and as said above, sounds shady... really shady.

#5972885

heffeque

2021-12-14 09:50

What's the source for this? Is it an early "Holy Innocents' Day" or a very late "April Fools' Day"? I complete miss the point of this. Who would benefit from clients complaining that their "new" HDMI 2.1 doesn't work as expected? Is it just to avoid legal consequences for selling an HDMI 2.1 that doesn't handle all 2.1 features? Won't this damage the brand's and HDMI's name? Wouldn't naming it "HDMI 2.1-sub" or something like that, to note that it handles more than 2.0b but doesn't handle all 2.1 features have worked better?

#5972890

Kaarme

2021-12-14 10:13

I suppose this is a result of two things: HDMI Forum makes the decisions, and it's composed of the manufacturers producing hardware, so they don't care as long as they can make things easy for themselves. On the other hand, since 2.1 features are optional, it creates the problem of what to call a display with one or more 2.1 features but not all of them. Maybe some of the manufacturers would have liked to be strict, some would have liked to be free from all restrictions, and this is the end result. It's a forum, after all.

#5972891

southamptonfc

2021-12-14 10:23

What a joke. Someone like the EU might step in and fix this.

#5972893

heffeque

2021-12-14 10:53

southamptonfc:

Someone like the EU might step in and fix this.

Hopefully!

#5972896

insp1re2600

2021-12-14 11:05

Free upgrade

#5972908

alanm

2021-12-14 11:57

Doesnt make sense. Has it not occurred to them that consumers will return their products when they find out its not capable of providing the bandwidth they need?

#5972911

heffeque

2021-12-14 12:04

alanm:

Doesnt make sense. Has it not occurred to them that consumers will return their products when they find out its not capable of providing the bandwidth they need?

I think that they are hoping that some won't because some people will never notice.

#5972933

EJocys

2021-12-14 13:35

So, HDMI 2.0 and 2.1 is a "social construct" now?

#5972938

BLEH!

2021-12-14 14:04

Still won't run 4K60 :P

#5972943

Mufflore

2021-12-14 14:26

wtf?

#5972944

chinobino

2021-12-14 14:27

Re-labelling older tech in a way that suggests it has the capabilities of newer tech when it doesn't - what could possibly go wrong?

#5972953

H83

2021-12-14 14:55

This is so wrong in so many ways that it´s hard to believe...

#5972983

Catspaw

2021-12-14 16:00

Users: Will the real Slim Shady please stand up. HDMI 2.0 and 2.1 stand up. Users: We are gonna have a problem here.

#5972990

mikeysg

2021-12-14 16:17

Well, the HDMI 2.1 cables I'd gotten are supposed to do 8K60Hz or 4K120Hz and 48Gbps bandwidth (Ugreen and ATZ), so are these real HDMI 2.1, or the repackaged deal?

#5972992

Mufflore

2021-12-14 16:21

mikeysg:

Well, the HDMI 2.1 cables I'd gotten are supposed to do 8K60Hz or 4K120Hz and 48Gbps bandwidth (Ugreen and ATZ), so are these real HDMI 2.1, or the repackaged deal?

Try them and find out.

#5972998

mikeysg

2021-12-14 16:30

Mufflore:

Try them and find out.

Oops, I'd gotten them so that I could be ready when I do go 4K120Hz/8K60Hz but haven't actually gotten 'round to buying such monitors/TVs as my current monitors and TVs are still just fine. I'd figured that paying just a little more for (alleged) HDMI 2.1 cables would be worth it, anyway, ATZ and Ugreen are pretty good and trustworthy brands.