Don't know why you're being downvoted but it's true. Especially when you see that the HDMI standard was developed by the cartel of TV manufacturers and major movie studios[1] when DVI and Display Port already existed but those didn't generate royalties or have DRM.
Despicable standard. There wasn't even a standards "war" like in VHS vs Betamax, or SD vs MemoryStick, or USB vs Fire Wire, to say that HDMI won over DisplayPort, it was simply shoved down consumers' throats since every TV, media player and games console only shipped with that port alone as they were manufactured by the same cartel that developed the HDMI standard.
So much for the so called "free market".
hdmi was not an alternative to display port, display port did not exist yet. it was an alternative to dvi, really hdmi is dvi with a sound channel and drm. And as much as I dislike the hdmi foundation I can see the benefit here.
as to hdmi vs display port... I have no idea why you don't see more display port, VESA has a proven track record as the nicer standards body, display port is a better system. probably just inertia at this point.
Add to that the fact that consumers/users can break the picture/sound in 100 different ways on their devices and you get a veritable support nightmare.
I wish it was just DVI+ but it does so much more.
FWIW: https://www.store.level1techs.com/products/p/5megt2xqmlryafj...
Sadly this is not entirely a HDMI-specific problem either, he has a displayport feeder too. Also DisplayPort had many problems with disconnects/sleep state for many years, especially surrounding EUP Compliance/EUP Deep Sleep mode. I wouldn't say DisplayPort monitors were relatively bulletproof until the GSync Compatible generation finally rolled around in 2019-2020.
People are also looking to USB-C as the next iteration in display connectivity because it does “all of the things” from a consumers perspective.
Microsoft ? RIAA ? MPAA ? Google (AI, books)
Almost all free market fans I have seen think that this should extend to some notion of intellectual property.
Seriously though, this is an oft repeated fallacy, and frankly irrelevant to the discussion.
IP laws are the actual culprit in facilitating the apparatus of the state for the creation of monopolies. Most people seem to embrace this double-think that IP laws are good while monopolies are bad. You simply don't get monopolies without IP laws. IP laws are the ultimate king maker and exclusively exist to perpetuate profits of the IP owner.
If your proposition of regulation is to disband the patent offices and repeal the copyright act, my sincere apologies.
Two things can be true at the same time.
The truth is, if you are in the position to make the step towards becoming a monopolist especially in a new market it is not impossible to do so (and by the rules it should be).
Getting to that position isn't easy tho.
But from a consumer standpoint the only thing that matters is if you have monopolists or not — we don't care how hard it was for them to become one other than it might change the number of monopolists that force their crop down our throats.
Imaginary property laws most certainly encourage and facilitate monopolies and collusion, but they are not necessary to the dynamic. Such laws are essentially just the norms of business that companies would be insisting on from other businesses anyway, for which it's much more lucrative to assent and go along with rather than attempt to defect and go against them.
Another example of this effect is the DMCA - the tech giants aren't merely following its process verbatim, but rather have used it as basis for their own takedown processes with electively expanded scope - eg why we see takedown notices pertaining to "circumvention" code, or the complete unaccountability of Content ID. Google and Microsoft aren't significantly hurting themselves by extralegally shutting down a tiny contingent of their customers, meanwhile the goodwill they garner from other corporations (and possible legal expenses they save) is immense. The loser is of course individual freedom.
