Apple, please stop 'thinking different'

When Apple unveiled its latest Macbook and Macbook Pro the world rejoiced. Steve Jobs and his gang at Apple are excellent at product presentation and sales. One thing that was somewhat overlooked at the launch was the inclusion on of mini-DisplayPort.

It sounds great but where did Apple get this DisplayPort mini idea from? It seems as if they came up with the idea to design, fabricate and now push the small form factor display port themselves. It's also astonishing because mini-DisplayPort is following in the foot trails of mini-VGA and mini-DVI which all were wildly adopted?

Now Apple does plan on applying the mini-DisplayPort onto all of its products which will bolster the adoption rate to, well, only Apple. Apple is trying to push the standard like it did with mini-DVI and mini-VGA but is offering it "fee free". It is Apple's hope that by offering the port technology fee free, remember there is no free lunch, that other manufacturers will adopt the idea so that Apple's computers will work with more devices natively. As it stands right now you need to carry around a dongle to make the connection ($30.00 to purchase, although now shipping free with new purchases, sorry early adopters). The fee free idea is clearly aimed at avoiding the slow adoption rate of FireWire with its steep licensing fees. If Apple truly wanted mass adoption why didn't they submit the mini-DisplayPort to VESA for standard adoption practices?

The real question is do we need another port? Was DisplayPort that large to begin with that we already needed to miniaturize it? That's the question that was left in the air and Apple decided it was necessary to create another type of port to confuse the consumer. Although, when was the last time Apple created anything without the idea of profit in mind, who knows if the fee free mini-DisplayPort will remain fee free

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Joost your iPhone

Next Story

Nokia launches N97, an advanced mobile computer

91 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Let 'em be and keep their things within their closed circle of overpriced crap.
My ****ty late 2007 MBP was the first and last thing I bought from Apple.

GEIST said,
Let 'em be and keep their things within their closed circle of overpriced crap.
My ****ty late 2007 MBP was the first and last thing I bought from Apple.

What is not overpriced in the computer world ?

Apple makes perfectly fine products. I would buy an Apple laptop way before one sold by Toshiba.

Adobe products are overpriced.
Microsoft computer products are overpriced.
Logitech gamer products are way overpriced
All computer products targeting gamers are WAY overpriced.
All software made by big companies are overpriced to death.
iPod and Zune are both overpriced but very good mp3 players. BOTH.

Last time i owned an Apple laptop was something like 10 years ago. I was entirely satisfied with it.

Overpriced ? yes. Crap ? not from my own experience.

The reason Apple uses the mini-display port is because the full display port would not fit into the pull down latch on the MacBook Air which was never mentioned in the original article. Great research there.

matt4pack said,
The reason Apple uses the mini-display port is because the full display port would not fit into the pull down latch on the MacBook Air which was never mentioned in the original article. Great research there.


People actually buy the macbook air? And btw there is enough space to fit the full display port in the macbook air.

Great research there too.

/- Razorfold said,
People actually buy the macbook air? And btw there is enough space to fit the full display port in the macbook air.

Great research there too.


I don't see any research from either of you. Any proof on either side? My bet is that DisplayPort won't fit in the pull down latch. There isn't much room there.

Ha ha ha, I'm surprised anyone continued reading after "...the world rejoiced"

If you want to be taken seriously stick to realistic, rational and UN-biased journalism. Otherwise your credibility is very hard to maintain.

Anyway, Apple can do whatever they want. Who cares? Ultimately the consumer controls the market with their wallet. If you don't like laptops with "mini" ports, don't buy them. It really is that simple. As already mentioned, this is hardly a new concept at Apple. Take it or leave it. Or buy the adapter. This is not a difficult situation.

C_Guy said,
Ha ha ha, I'm surprised anyone continued reading after "...the world rejoiced"

If you want to be taken seriously stick to realistic, rational and UN-biased journalism. Otherwise your credibility is very hard to maintain.

Anyway, Apple can do whatever they want. Who cares? Ultimately the consumer controls the market with their wallet. If you don't like laptops with "mini" ports, don't buy them. It really is that simple. As already mentioned, this is hardly a new concept at Apple. Take it or leave it. Or buy the adapter. This is not a difficult situation.

Again, agreed.

People must be building igloos in hell.

A big conmpany try to push their own standard (open or not). Oh my god this is a shock it never happened before :|

Complainning about the Mini Display Port only Apple uses fine. Acting like only Apple is doing **** like this not so much.

I bet manufacturers are going to overlook this and just the standards. If you own a MacBook or eventually anything Apple, you will need to carry around the converter. They did it to get the smaller form factor. I agree that they should have used something that is already some what of a standard. I give this port 2 years of life until they move on and try something else.

DisplayPort could be answer to worlds economic crisis too, only problem nobody uses it outside of apple. Dare to be different should be a new motto for them.

Digix said,
DisplayPort could be answer to worlds economic crisis too, only problem nobody uses it outside of apple. Dare to be different should be a new motto for them.


Digix I expected more of you :P
Apple is not using the DisplayPort, but their own version of it.
Most of us already used to HDMI, the rest of companies are playing a fairer game and slowly introducing displayport so we don't need adapters and what not nightmare.
Apple learned that their customers are suckers, so they going for the kill.

Well, they actually mentioned this in the latest MacWorld (25th year!). They had tried a similar port in the past, but it never took off. This time they are keeping it "public" so other companies can develop with it. I think it might be worth it. Plus it is supposed to have some better things than DVI.

It supports up to 2560x1600, the DisplayPort supports up to 4096×2160!
It doesn't support HDMI!
It doesn't support audio!
It doesn't support an auxiliary channel (USB or touch screen, for example, would have another cable).
They're the only ones manufacturing it, but there are no adapters available (to HDMI, S-Video, DisplayPort, etc).
No improvement in 3mm difference.

Please Point me out if i am wrong, but.
1. No, DisplayPort 1.2 or 2.0 will support 4K resolution with computer refresh rate. Currently 1.1 only support up to 2560 x 1600.
2. What do you mean by supporting HDMI? UDI was compatible with HDMI, not DisplayPort.
3. Audio? It does support it by spec but no one is using it. Reason below.
4. Auxiliary channel, Again it is supported by spec but no one is using it.

Point 1, 2 , and 4 will properly be solved by 1.2 where it will have double the bandwidth. Or Later for Point 4 in version 2.0 when USB 2.0 controller to be integrated inside. Offering USB 2.0 bandwidth.

Mini DisplayPort was on the roadmap in DisplayPort. I dont know why Displayport group never release it. There were also a Micro DisplayPort in the work as well. And the Dongle work much like Mini / Micro USB. So it should be fairly cheap to manufacture compare to Mini DVI.

To be honest i dont see what is all the fuss about it.

iwod said,

And if you could point out which part of Wiki point out my info was wrong?

You are not wrong, the other guy is. The mini displayport and the full-sized display port support the exact same wiring, the wiring locations are just different.

The difference between the two is still significant though. It is less that 1mm less in height, but it's just about 50% of the width.

I think the real problem is that you need a ******** of expensive adapters, none of which come with the computer. For example there are separate adapters for DVI and VGA and no adapter for regular DisplayPort.

The worst of all seems to be the Dual-Link DVI adapter, which Apple has recently pulled for some reason so people with 30" screens just can't connect them to their new Macbooks. But what makes the Dual-Link DVI crazy is that it requires a USB port for power or something. Considering the computers have only two USB ports this is pretty annoying.

The size benefits over regular DP are small enough that IMO it would have made no difference if the full size port was used. The regular DP connector isn't significantly larger than a USB port.

LaXu said,
I think the real problem is that you need a ******** of expensive adapters, none of which come with the computer. For example there are separate adapters for DVI and VGA and no adapter for regular DisplayPort.

The worst of all seems to be the Dual-Link DVI adapter, which Apple has recently pulled for some reason so people with 30" screens just can't connect them to their new Macbooks. But what makes the Dual-Link DVI crazy is that it requires a USB port for power or something. Considering the computers have only two USB ports this is pretty annoying.

The size benefits over regular DP are small enough that IMO it would have made no difference if the full size port was used. The regular DP connector isn't significantly larger than a USB port.


Yet DisplayPorts width prevents it from fitting in the MacBook Air. Also, any 3rd party can manufacture adapters without paying Apple a dime.

I agree, there really isn't anything to gripe about this time. Mini DisplayPort simply isn't a closed standard like MiniDVI was/is.

A good editorial and another example of Apple's commitment to a closed system as their primary means of profit.

Although it's NOT a closed system this time. Mini DisplayPort is royalty free (open). Any 3rd party can make use of it or make adapters without paying Apple a dime. The only reason they didn't adopt DisplayPort is because it won't fit in the MacBook Air!

I realize that I'm showing myself to be a geezer by remembering this, but Apple did this crap a long time ago and I REALLY hated it then. Even more reason to stay away from their hardware now.

When Apple first came out with color Mac's in 1987 they used a D-sub/DA-15 connector for their video, instead of the then standard VGA connector. Apple's monitors were horribly expensive at the time, and a market of adapters quickly sprung up. I was doing desktop support at the time, and was plagued by this until finally moving into the back-office arena. It was a real huge pain in the ass. Not only that, but they changed the standard when the Quadra 700 came out, doing a sync-on-green or some such that caused a whole new type of adapter to come out.

So, 21 years later, they are still up to the same old crap. Customers suffer, IT curses them for being non-standard, and Apple wonders why they only have 8.9% of the market....They should have just stuck with DisplayPort. While annoying in its infancy, it is at least a recognized industry standard that is more likely to be adopted and cause less headache later on.

P.S.: Before one of you Apple Fanboys flames me for being a soulless spawn of Gates, realize that I first started using a Mac in February of 1984, have personally owned five. I just got sick and tired of the proprietary crap, especially after the Mac clone debacle, and switched to Windows/Intel-standard hardware where I have more of a choice and control over the system I use.

still have a powermac 6500 that uses DB15. Finding the adapter in the middle of nowhere in 2004 was literally my luckiest break with computing.

Mad respect for being old school.

Anyone else think the only reason miniDisplay port exists is that standard display port wouldnt fit in the tiny area the microDVI port used on the MacBook Air?

Fagutish said,
Anyone else think the only reason miniDisplay port exists is that standard display port wouldnt fit in the tiny area the microDVI port used on the MacBook Air?

That's exactly what I was thinking. DP is just too big for that machine.

Dell's new 24" LCD's hade a D-Port. The new ones meaning the 24"s with two DVI ports.

Got one at work a week or so and was like WTF?... the HDMI port mutated?

I was one of the few excited about the display port adoption in the new Macbooks. it meant i could hook up a MBP and a desktop to a 3008fpw at the same time both at full res (the second DVI port on the 3008fpw doesnt actually have dual link support..making it near useless)

Apple's adapter prices are astronomical too, i hope someone smart starts using these tech schematics to make a uber cheap low maintenance miniDP->DP adapter

Unlike say the astronomically expensive DVI -> HDMI adapters.. but those are expensive cuase of licensing issues right? Right? right..

Sorry man, but this article is not well written. Several grammatical errors made this a hard read. I see your point, but work on the writing style and collective thoughts.

We need Waldorf and Statler from the Muppet show to make this editorial livable.

Oh the horror of another Editorial that sounds like someone complaining. Why not write something on the lines of how Apple screwed over their faithful users by removing firewire and making target disk mode horrid for file transfer as you need a special USB cable or over wireless if you use a MacBook Air.

The last thing we need is another type of display connection type.

We already have the industry standards which are good (e.g. DVI, HDMI), there's really no need for the DisplayPort. Where does it stop? An Apple-created Ethernet port? Apple-created audio port (dubbed 'AudioPort')?

In this day, computers manufactures should be adopting a more integrated and more compatible approach. This is a move in the opposite direction.

I've also been a Mac user for years, so I'm not anti-Apple.

bdsams said,
i agree and this was the tone of my article...we need more standards like USB


Well reading about DisplayPort you understand that is really a strandard or try to be, Is the real competition to DB-15.

We know that DVI try this but not in the same way, DisplayPost should be standard in all new hardware and does not have the limitation of HDMI, also don't need the pay for new royalties.

But what is a Standard is what you have to ask yourself?.
A product that is open I can be use by everybody, a product which is release by a consoltium or something that is massive use it?.

Regards

actually since Apple and Intel are working together, Intel might start adopting the mini displayport too

They are, as usually, trying to force people in using their own particular "standards". And they already tried to do that before: Quadra, ADC, mini VGA, mini DVI, micro DVI...!!! It seems they just like to do this kind of things. It was no surprise they would come with this.
The DisplayPort is really small, and I see no improvement in the miniDisplayPort 3mm difference... PLUS, compared to DisplayPort:

    It supports up to 2560x1600, the DisplayPort supports up to 4096×2160!
    It doesn't support HDMI!
    It doesn't support audio!
    It doesn't support an auxiliary channel (USB or touch screen, for example, would have another cable).
    They're the only ones manufacturing it, but there are no adapters available (to HDMI, S-Video, DisplayPort, etc).

Apple
Connect via Mini DisplayPort.

The LED Cinema Display attaches to your new MacBook, MacBook Pro, or MacBook Air using the new industry-standard Mini DisplayPort connector. Other display connectors have you lining up pins or fumbling with screws. But the Mini DisplayPort connector is easy in, easy out.

LOL!? Industry-standard? Right...

theyarecomingforyou said,
I disagree. It's actually one of the few editorials I actually found insightful and highlights a legitimate issue that I had not heard about before.



awsome, thanks!

They have done this sort of thing before also, so it's nothing new. Way back, they forced people to get used to using a 1 button mouse, even though their own operating system and other programmes needed a 2 button mouse. I really found the idea of having to press a key on the keyboard and then clicking the mouse to get a context menu ridiculous! And yeah, I know, that's not the case anymore as they now provide 2 button mice seperately for purchase, but still, why not do it in the first place itself? It's literally, "Our way, or the highway".

The Guardian said,
Way back, they forced people to get used to using a 1 button mouse, even though their own operating system and other programmes needed a 2 button mouse.


You really are ignorant, aren't you? Apple introduced the one button mouse with the Lisa in 1983, and a year later with the Macintosh. Back then, they were the only company shipping mice with their computers, and the OS only made use of one button. Only with OS X did the use of two button mice become common.

I think the motivation here is to keep the form factor small and compact. Thereby keeping the laptops small and tidy. Aside from an adaptor, I can't see a downside.

    It supports up to 2560x1600, the DisplayPort supports up to 4096×2160!
    It doesn't support HDMI!
    It doesn't support audio!
    It doesn't support an auxiliary channel (USB or touch screen, for example, would have another cable).
    They're the only ones manufacturing it, but there are no adapters available (to HDMI, S-Video, DisplayPort, etc).
    No improvement in 3mm difference.

Will this suffice?

CharlyAR said,
    It supports up to 2560x1600, the DisplayPort supports up to 4096×2160!
    It doesn't support HDMI!
    It doesn't support audio!
    It doesn't support an auxiliary channel (USB or touch screen, for example, would have another cable).
    They're the only ones manufacturing it, but there are no adapters available (to HDMI, S-Video, DisplayPort, etc).
    No improvement in 3mm difference.

Will this suffice?


Yes, that will. This is an excellent critique, why didn't the article state this? Thank you for the informed reply.

CharlyAR said,
    It supports up to 2560x1600, the DisplayPort supports up to 4096×2160!
    It doesn't support HDMI!
    It doesn't support audio!
    It doesn't support an auxiliary channel (USB or touch screen, for example, would have another cable).
    They're the only ones manufacturing it, but there are no adapters available (to HDMI, S-Video, DisplayPort, etc).
    No improvement in 3mm difference.

Will this suffice?

How often do you need to drive a display larger than 2560x1600? How many companies even sell displays that go beyond 2560x1600?

It's a computer, not a set-top box. If you want to watch stuff on your TV with an Apple product, get an iPod or an AppleTV.

It's a DisplayPort, not an AudioPort, not an AVPort, not an AuxiliaryPort, and not an AllInOnePort. If you want audio, use the audio-out port. If you want to plug in other accessories, use USB or FireWire.

If Apple's licensing the port for free, that means other companies will be able to make adapters. Right now Apple's the only one using it, so it seems only right that they're the only one selling anything for it.

The people who will see the benefit of having a smaller port are the people who see the benefit of a thinner laptop, a smaller car, or a lighter bike. If you just don't care about that kind of stuff then why would you be complaining anyway?

bdfortin said,

How often do you need to drive a display larger than 2560x1600? How many companies even sell displays that go beyond 2560x1600?

It's a computer, not a set-top box. If you want to watch stuff on your TV with an Apple product, get an iPod or an AppleTV.

It's a DisplayPort, not an AudioPort, not an AVPort, not an AuxiliaryPort, and not an AllInOnePort. If you want audio, use the audio-out port. If you want to plug in other accessories, use USB or FireWire.

If Apple's licensing the port for free, that means other companies will be able to make adapters. Right now Apple's the only one using it, so it seems only right that they're the only one selling anything for it.

The people who will see the benefit of having a smaller port are the people who see the benefit of a thinner laptop, a smaller car, or a lighter bike. If you just don't care about that kind of stuff then why would you be complaining anyway?

It looks like it is smaller by 1mm... so it really, it has no benefits and other companies are busy adopting the excellent new standard the displayport which Apple agreed on with a bunch of other companies.


bdfortin said,
The people who will see the benefit of having a smaller port are the people who see the benefit of a thinner laptop, a smaller car, or a lighter bike. If you just don't care about that kind of stuff then why would you be complaining anyway?


The size difference is 1-3mm..do you even know how small that is?

Unless your laptop is like 5mm big the size difference in the port won't even make a difference in the overall size of the laptop.

Please...

/- Razorfold said,
The size difference is 1-3mm..do you even know how small that is?

Unless your laptop is like 5mm big the size difference in the port won't even make a difference in the overall size of the laptop.

Please...

Sorry, but the height difference is about 0.6mm but the width is over 8mm. Seeing how the MDP is only 8.3mm in width, that's pretty significant as it's over 50% reduction is width. So you have a port that is taking up 50% less area, seems like a good thing to me.

Also, as my laptop only has about 18mm of vertical working space, 1mm is a significant percentage of that space.

/- Razorfold said,
The size difference is 1-3mm..do you even know how small that is?

Unless your laptop is like 5mm big the size difference in the port won't even make a difference in the overall size of the laptop.

Please...


Lol...Excellent reply.

owensd said,

Sorry, but the height difference is about 0.6mm but the width is over 8mm. Seeing how the MDP is only 8.3mm in width, that's pretty significant as it's over 50% reduction is width. So you have a port that is taking up 50% less area, seems like a good thing to me.

Also, as my laptop only has about 18mm of vertical working space, 1mm is a significant percentage of that space.

0.6mm is about 3% of that space. Hardly significant.

As for the width: Completely irrelevant. There is more than enough room for it in that direction.

owensd said,
Sorry, but the height difference is about 0.6mm but the width is over 8mm. Seeing how the MDP is only 8.3mm in width, that's pretty significant as it's over 50% reduction is width. So you have a port that is taking up 50% less area, seems like a good thing to me.

Also, as my laptop only has about 18mm of vertical working space, 1mm is a significant percentage of that space.


Oh really? Because the height of the port takes up the ENTIRE width of the macbook.....oh no wait it doesn't and theres empty space on top and below it. Making the port smaller by 0.6mm will not change the width of the laptop at all.

Point proved.

/- Razorfold said,

Oh really? Because the height of the port takes up the ENTIRE width of the macbook.....oh no wait it doesn't and theres empty space on top and below it. Making the port smaller by 0.6mm will not change the width of the laptop at all.

Point proved.


Try fitting DisplayPort into a MacBook Air. Width is an issue with that computer.

Try fitting DisplayPort into a MacBook Air. Width is an issue with that computer.




If that latch was put just a tiny (and by tiny i mean less than a mm) higher. A display port will fit in perfectly. There is enough space above the latch for it to be raised.

/- Razorfold said,
The size difference is 1-3mm..do you even know how small that is?

Unless your laptop is like 5mm big the size difference in the port won't even make a difference in the overall size of the laptop.

Please...


If you would've actually done your homework you'd realize the full-size DisplayPort is 4.8mm x 16.1mm (+/- some insignificant fraction of a millimetre), while Apple's Mini DisplayPort is 4.5mm x 7.4mm.

Apple's MDP is less than half the size of DP. It may not make much of a difference on some computers, where you have a few square feet for ports, but on smaller computers like netbooks and ultra-mobiles it could make enough room for some extra ports.

/- Razorfold said,

Oh really? Because the height of the port takes up the ENTIRE width of the macbook.....oh no wait it doesn't and theres empty space on top and below it. Making the port smaller by 0.6mm will not change the width of the laptop at all.

Point proved.

The height isn't the important dimension, it's the width that is significant here.

MioTheGreat said,

0.6mm is about 3% of that space. Hardly significant.

As for the width: Completely irrelevant. There is more than enough room for it in that direction.

THe width is actually extremely relevant... take a look at the ports on the left of the MacBook, see where they line up. If you kept the standard DisplayPort, then you've had to get rid of one of the USB ports or make the laptop about 10~12mm bigger.

Here's a link for you to look at of the internals and how the width is extremely significant as it's the difference between 1 or 2 USB ports: http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/10/16/new.macbook.teardown/.


I'm with you sir,
Is there one thing that I hate on my MacBook is well the damn mDP.
It's useless and it was a pain to pay $40 to plug in my 1080P monitor...

NienorGT said,
I'm with you sir,
Is there one thing that I hate on my MacBook is well the damn mDP.
It's useless and it was a pain to pay $40 to plug in my 1080P monitor...

And why didn't they adopt an already existing standard such as the standard DisplayPort, or even HDMI? Could it be because both are already in use on non-Apple hardware? (My ASUS P5N-EM has integrated graphics with three display-output options - DB-15, DVI-D, and HDMI; DB-15 is always active, with either DVI-D or HDMI jumper-selectable) HDMI on motherboards is not news (DisplayPort has also made appearances on motherboards; like HDMI, it shows up primarily in HTPC/SFF usages); what's more, HDMI-out is much more useful than DisplayPort (or even the previously-ubiquitous DB-15), because if you have *any* recent home theater components, you doubtless have at least one HDMI-HDMI cable in use or laying around, along with a device with HDMI inputs; such usually is not the case with DB-15 or DisplayPort. I have *three* TVs (two 32" and one 42") with at least one HDMI input (the 42" has two). While the 42" is a plasma TV, only one of the 32" is a FP display (the other is a CRT). Also, only the plasma has a DB-15 input (none have DisplayPort inputs). Just in terms of computer displays, if you have an input other than DB-15 or DVI, it's more like to be HDMI than anything else (including DisplayPort). Sounds like Apple is trying the same tactics they used to ensnare IEEE1394 (FireWire, to be all politically-correct and Apple about it).

PGHammer said,

And why didn't they adopt an already existing standard such as the standard DisplayPort, or even HDMI?

HDMI isn't a free standard; in fact it's one of the reasons Intel created the DisplayPort standard.

Yes, the reason Apple is pushing miniDisplayPort is quite simple: they can make a fsckload on cables. $30 for a miniDisplayPort to DVI and $99 for the dual link adapter? Give me a break. This editorial wasn't particularly well written but it's right on point.

Vlad said,

HDMI isn't a free standard; in fact it's one of the reasons Intel created the DisplayPort standard.

Yes, the reason Apple is pushing miniDisplayPort is quite simple: they can make a fsckload on cables. $30 for a miniDisplayPort to DVI and $99 for the dual link adapter? Give me a break. This editorial wasn't particularly well written but it's right on point.


While that's true, since mini Display Port is open any 3rd party can create adapters so you don't have to buy them from Apple so the editorial is really just a load of crap.

The reason they created mini Display Port is so that the MacBook Air would be able to use it. Display Port would be hard to fit in that case.

is apple a company or a cult? the way I've seen things, Jobs will require people to sacrifice everything to show their loyalty someday. /sarcasm

ChrisJ1968 said,
is apple a company or a cult? the way I've seen things, Jobs will require people to sacrifice everything to show their loyalty someday. /sarcasm

Sssshhhhhh!! We're not supposed to ask questions like this! :P


Yes we do need another port. The mini displayport is fantastic. Apples doing us a favor this time around. More advanced then any other port and nice and compact compared to the fullsize port, lets hope this because a standard everyone can use.

Xero said,
Yes we do need another port. The mini displayport is fantastic. Apples doing us a favor this time around. More advanced then any other port and nice and compact compared to the fullsize port, lets hope this because a standard everyone can use.



Do you even know the size difference between the two?

Lets hope not as the original display port is fine and more compact that VGA / DVI. I hope this new port goes nowhere other than Apple products.

bdsams said,
Do you even know the size difference between the two?

A picture is what this article is lacking.

That's the regular DisplayPort. Mini DisplayPort is not pictured. I guess that you realised that regular DisplayPort is small enough without a mini version.

i quite like the display port. Covers all the ports in one. Doesn't bother me that i need a dongle.
Would of thought the newest macs would ship with the dongle included though.

You miss the point that this is not the display port accepted as a new standard by everyone basically , this is the mini port and it is exclusive to Apple.

Beastage said,
You miss the point that this is not the display port accepted as a new standard by everyone basically , this is the mini port and it is exclusive to Apple.

Except it's NOT exclusive. Again, they're offering the technology fee free for open adoption.

McG said,
Except it's NOT exclusive. Again, they're offering the technology fee free for open adoption.

Come on... it is, everyone else already agreed on the new standard, all the big players agreed on one universal port.

The specs are the same, the mini port has no benefits, the size difference is even too small to call it mini in my opinion.

Apple didn't suggest to miniature the displayport , it went and already announced products that use it, in a way working against the decision made to support the displayport itself.

And of course it is free because it goes against the standard already decided upon.

I'm surprised that all the other players didn't agree to block any modification to the standard by a single player without negotiation of some sort.

McG said,
Except it's NOT exclusive. Again, they're offering the technology fee free for open adoption.

thats what apple wants you to think... buy their own dongles...

they could have used the real DisplayPort... but they decided not to.

some_guy said,
thats what apple wants you to think... buy their own dongles...

they could have used the real DisplayPort... but they decided not to.


and since mini Display Port is open any 3rd party can create a dongle for it so you DON'T have to buy a dongle from Apple.

If Microsoft had taken a standard, miniaturized it and opened the standard every one would be applauding them for it.

bdsams said,
before I get railed for hating Apple, I wrote this on my Macbook Pro

Did this post have a point??

Biren said,
Did this post have a point??

Yes, it shows once again how Apple seeks to block competition and capitalize on doing something not just different but also wrong.

From wikipedia "Apple's decision to remove the DVI port from the MacBook Pro in favor of Mini-DisplayPort, and to offer Mini-DisplayPort as the only video connector for the new 24 inch Cinema Display, has raised compatibility concerns. While the DisplayPort signal is an open industry standard, it is currently unclear whether the connector used by Apple is part of the standard or proprietary. Even if it is an open standard, Apple as of yet seems to be the only vendor for adapter cables."

Beastage said,
Yes, it shows how once again Apple seeks to block competition and capitalize on doing something not just different but also wrong.

From wikipedia "Apple's decision to remove the DVI port from the MacBook Pro in favor of Mini-DisplayPort, and to offer Mini-DisplayPort as the only video connector for the new 24 inch Cinema Display, has raised compatibility concerns. While the DisplayPort signal is an open industry standard, it is currently unclear whether the connector used by Apple is part of the standard or proprietary. Even if it is an open standard, Apple as of yet seems to be the only vendor for adapter cables."



beat me to it but thanks!

Beastage said,
Yes, it shows once again how Apple seeks to block competition and capitalize on doing something not just different but also wrong.

From wikipedia "Apple's decision to remove the DVI port from the MacBook Pro in favor of Mini-DisplayPort, and to offer Mini-DisplayPort as the only video connector for the new 24 inch Cinema Display, has raised compatibility concerns. While the DisplayPort signal is an open industry standard, it is currently unclear whether the connector used by Apple is part of the standard or proprietary. Even if it is an open standard, Apple as of yet seems to be the only vendor for adapter cables."


Or if you read further, you'd realize that they opened up the specification and are licensing it for free.

giga said,

Or if you read further, you'd realize that they opened up the specification and are licensing it for free.

Dude where are you?!

anyway I already addressed that in my second comment, display port is an open spec it self, opening a spec is just a bad excuse in this case.

Biren said,
Did this post have a point??

There's too many "writers" trying to create too many posts so much of Neowin these days is just pointless. Quantity over quality.