Why HDMI-DVI adapter instead of MDP-DVI? — $!

[LeeTom]

I'm surprised that the Mac Mini comes with an HDMI-DVI adapter and not a MiniDisplayPort-DVI adapter. The latter would allow you to use monitors that support all resolutions the Mini can produce, whereas the former is limited to 1920-by-1200. Even if you use a monitor within the bounds of 1920-by-1200 resolution, you would need to get a MDP-DVI adapter to use a TV at the same time.
The ONLY logical reason that exists for Apple to do this is that they will make more money this way.

More people will have to buy the MDP-DVI adapter than the other way around. If people merely want to use a TV, they will have to buy an HDMI cable AND a MDP-DVI adapter, leaving the current adapter sitting in a drawer, whereas if Apple had supplied a MDP-DVI adapter, the person would probably just buy an HDMI cable, and probably not from Apple.

I think this is the same reason why they had an iPhone power adapter "recall" back in 2007 right after the iPhone came out — it sure brought a lot of people to The Apple Store to buy accessories!

Lee Tom

 

[Hellhammer]

The Mini DisplayPort to DVI is single-link thus only supports up to 1920x1200. For greater resolution you need Mini DisplayPort to dual-link DVI which has never been included with Mini.

 

[gianly1985]

I'm surprised that the Mac Mini comes with an HDMI-DVI adapter and not a MiniDisplayPort-DVI adapter. The latter would allow you to use monitors that support all resolutions the Mini can produce, whereas the former is limited to 1920-by-1200. Even if you use a monitor within the bounds of 1920-by-1200 resolution, you would need to get a MDP-DVI adapter to use a TV at the same time.
The ONLY logical reason that exists for Apple to do this is that they will make more money this way.

No.

The "simple" 29$ MDP-DVI dongle is SINGLE LINK, so including it you'd just get 1920x1200 anyway, BUT you would have WASTED a precious 2560x1600-capable port to do a dumb job (1920x1200). You're thinking of the huge 99$ DUAL LINK adapter, but that sure can't be included in the package.

So including the HDMI to DVI sounds just the RIGHT idea. Why?
1) people using ONE 1920x1200 DISPLAY ----> HDMI-DVI up to 1920x1200 included

2) people using ONE DISPLAY (2560x1600) ---> cheap Mini-DP to regular DP cable (or no cable at all with the next Apple Cinema Display 27" 2560x1440)

3) people wanting TWO displays (1920x1200 + 2560x1600) ----> included HDMI-DVI dongle + cheap Mini-DP to regular DP cable

Imagine if they included the Mini-DP to DVI. People in option 3 would have need to buy ANOTHER dongle (HDMI to DVI) and TRASH the included dongle (Mini-DP to DVI) because it would be useless for them.

So I agree with Apple: use the HDMI port for 1920x1200 people and leave the best port FREE so you can easily ADD a 2560x1600 display to the setup. No need to waste a powerful DP port to do DVI single link stuff.

 

[indg]

@gianly1985,

i think what the OP was trying to say was:
many people have an lcd monitor with dvi port and a tv with hdmi. so it would've been easier for them had apple included a mini-dp to dvi adapter. that way they could utilize both ports out of the box.

i understand what you're saying that it's a waste to use the mini-dp port to single-link dvi, but the fact is most people aren't going to drop $900 on an apple cinema display which has a mini-dp, or other third party displayport monitors (which would still require a mini-dp to dp adapter). maybe this is apple's way of nudging people to buy their cinema displays.

 

[animatedude]

but the 24'' cinema display supports 1920x1200 only,aye?

 

[gianly1985]

@gianly1985,

i think what the OP was trying to say was:
many people have an lcd monitor with dvi port and a tv with hdmi. so it would've been easier for them had apple included a mini-dp to dvi adapter. that way they could utilize both ports out of the box.

Mmmh, I didn't think of the LCD + HDTV setup...you sure have a point....in that case, you're forced to buy another adapter.....although I don't think this scenario is SO common that the OP is allowed to build a "conspirational plot" around it....most people will simply use the DVI or the HDMI port....but at least the HDMI/DVI port is "maxed out" by the included adaptor...that's the best you can get from that port, ever. Whereas, a Mini-DP to DVI could become useless sometime.

i understand what you're saying that it's a waste to use the mini-dp port to single-link dvi, but the fact is most people aren't going to drop $900 on an apple cinema display which has a mini-dp, or other third party displayport monitors .

Today.
But in 3-5 years we'll be surrounded by display port monitors and maybe "over 1920x1200" resolutions will have caught on (more).
Apple is forward thinking and future proofing in this, most PCs still don't have a Display Port, whereas every Mac has that since 2008.
So maybe they were forward thinking also in choosing the adapter to include.

(which would still require a mini-dp to dp adapter)

No, just a cheap cable:

http://img.skitch.com/20100617-g7sr85yks63pugs4amhn86p571.jpg

maybe this is apple's way of nudging people to buy their cinema displays.

Again, I'm not very much into this kind of "plots" built on stuff that concern just a low percentage of users.
Most users will just take it out of the box and connect it to a dvi OR hdmi display....

 

[gianly1985]

but the 24'' cinema display supports 1920x1200 only,aye?

Yes, the current one is a 16:10 1920x1200.

But the next one (codenamed "K59") will probably be a 16:9 27" 2560x1440:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...h_led_cinema_display_dodeca_core_mac_pro.html

 

[ADent]

I would guess because the HDMI to DVI cable is common item and cheaper to source, build, buy.

I would think it would be better in more cases to include a miniDP to DVI, but including more RAM would also be better, but cost Apple more money.

 

[sdv5]

HDMI 1.4 should be capable of much higher resolution than 1920x1200. Older versions were most commonly associated with 1920x1080 not 1920x1200. Do we actually know for sure that Apple has cripled the HDMI port to display only 1920x1080 resolution?

 

[gianly1985]

HDMI 1.4 should be capable of much higher resolution than 1920x1200. Older versions were most commonly associated with 1920x1080 not 1920x1200. Do we actually know for sure that Apple has cripled the HDMI port to display only 1920x1080 resolution?

Do we actually know for sure that Apple has cripled the HDMI port to display only 1920x1080 resolution?

It's not a matter of crippling.
Going over 1920x1200 with HDMI is like a unicorn. There are no computer displays that support it. You still don't see 4k/2k HDTVs in stores.
So it may be supported by the standard 1.4, but don't you even consider it something belonging to the "computer space". I dare you find someone who watched an HDMI port going over 1920x1200 with a computer monitor.

So the whole "hdmi can do better than 1920x1200" it's just an argument for Mini-DP haters. There's no such thing in the computer space. There's no such thing in the real world today. You don't have 30" displays which do that, they're all DVI-Dual Link and Display Port and they're "crippled" to 1920x1200 if you hook them via HDMI.

So, in the computer space, just consider HDMI being 1920x1200.
In the home cinema space, its extra bandwith is used for 3D and in the future for 4k/2k resolutions.

 

[sdv5]

OK, thanks for the clarification. I like MDP. However, it would have been very nice if HDMI port on the Mini supported higher resolutions. The included DVI adapter would have been much more useful. The dual link MDP-DVI adapter is just too expensive.

 

[gianly1985]

The dual link MDP-DVI adapter is just too expensive.

Well but that's only for OLD displays.

Every 2560x1600/2560x1440 display bought today (and from now on) has got a Display Port, so you just need a cheap Mini-DP to DP cable: