• thejevans@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am asking for specifications to be released without patents or have patents signed over to an organization like VESA. Whether it becomes popular or not is another story.

    • beefcat@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      i don’t think adc was encumbered by patents, at least not in any way that prevented other manufacturers from making use of it. it wasn’t locked down behind special handshakes and a certification program like lightning is. it used the same signaling protocol that dvi ended up using, which is why passive adapters like the belkin one above were possible. the additional pins on the connector were used for power and usb. the specifications were freely available, and monitors, gpus, and kvms were released that used the connector in the late '90s and early '00s.

      the problem people are haivng is that this connector did not see wide use, so cables and adapters are hard to come by 25 years after the fact.

      putting vesa in charge wouldn’t change anything here unless vesa decided to ditch dvi and push this connector instead. however, that probably wouldn’t have happened, because their constituents (most wintel pc makers) would have preferred the cheaper solution of not bundling video, power, and usb in a single cable.

      • deegeese
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re missing the point that if Apple had just given it to VESA, it would have become the de-facto standard instead of DVI because other companies would rather reuse ADC than design DVI from scratch.

        • beefcat@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          i think i laid out exactly why that most likely wouldn’t have happened

          i don’t think there is any reason vesa couldn’t have adopted it if they wanted, the connectors are already extremely similar. the problem is they didn’t want a connector that also handles power and usb, because that would have raised costs for pc manufacturers

          • deegeese
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            As a consumer, would have been pretty cool if DVI carried USB too.

            Instead, almost every monitor bundles a USB hub that needs an extra cable. Not sure how that saved manufacturers money.

            • beefcat@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              you have to remember this was 1998, and apple was the first company going all-in on usb for peripherals, using it to replace the aging apple desktop bus.

              the cost concern also has more to do with low end machines in that time frame. if the connector included it, then any devices that used it would need usb support. at a time when usb was still brand new, and most pcs that had it shipped with controllers that only supported one or two ports.

        • anlumo@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          ADC is incredibly inconvientient, because it doesn’t support hotplugging. It also requires the computer to contain a power supply for the screen.

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        i don’t think adc was encumbered by patents

        25 years after the fact.

        If it were, they’d likely be expired by now.

        I wonder if an adapter could be made some “DIY” way, if it needs to be active, it could be a fun project for someone into FPGAs.

        • beefcat@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          the adapter is passive since both connectors use the same signaling protocol

          the problem is that designing tooling to manufacture a custom connector at scale is expensive, so nobody is going to do that until they know there is enough demand to at least cover the upfront cost of designing that tooling and manufacturing a bunch of these.