Slashdot Mirror
AMD Intentionally Added Artificial Limitations To Their HDMI Adapters
An anonymous reader writes "NVIDIA was caught removing features from their Linux driver and days later Linux developers have caught and confirmed AMD imposing artificial limitations on their graphics cards in the DVI-to-HDMI adapters that their driver will support. Over years AMD has quietly been adding an extra EEPROM chip to their DVI-to-HDMI adapters that are bundled with Radeon HD graphics cards. Only when these identified adapters are detected via checks in their Windows and Linux Catalyst driver is HDMI audio enabled. If using a third-party DVI-to-HDMI adapter, HDMI audio support is disabled by the Catalyst driver. Open-source Linux developers have found this to be a self-imposed limitation and that the open-source AMD Linux driver will work fine with any DVI-to-HDMI adapter."
Tip of the Iceberg.
Seriously, AMD, Why?
Do they make that much on adaptors that they care?
Since when?
This is why i love software, companies can't trick people that easy, their customers are too smart :)
If only we could do that for all our products...
If companies would dedicate only 1/10th of their let's-screw-with-our-customer-resources to actual improvement of their products, *gasp*, I would be so happy.
It's crazy that companies go through all this trouble to protect a revenue stream from something as inexpensive and generic as a DVI to HDMI adapter.
Really, if they want to make a little more money, why not charge an extra dollar for the card itself and be done with it?
DVI/HDMI don't even carry power, so you can't use the "it might fry the device" excuse that Apple uses with their lightning plugs.
IDDQD (to protect against all flames)
Throw this one in the same bin as all the DRM, freemium games, games that artificially favor nVidia cards over AMD ones, and generally everything the putrid games industry does to screw PC gamers.
Find another hobby!!
It was practically designed by the copyright industry so that they can control everything. I mean they have just about ruined the spec preventing it from being useful. Why does it need an encrypted signal? It kind of ticks me off. I recall troubleshooting and actually putting my amp system into the shop TWICE at the manufacturer's suggestion because they didn't recognize (or admit) that the problem I was experiencing was all about HDMI. (And to think all I wanted to do was play a video game through my amp and to the TV... what copyright interest is there in that?!)
Good thing they open sourced their drivers. Now profitable business decisions can be chastised by the linux community! Everyone boycott AMD!
nVidia should release all their IP as well! That way everyone can shit all over their linux support!
C'mon, hardware companies have been doing this for 50 years. When the customer upgrades, they send out a field guy to remove the limiter.
Some of us even remember something similar done by the phone company to the last mile of copper telephone lines, so we had to pay more to upgrade our 44Kbps modems to get DSL.
Other than request by an outside SW or HW vendor, what purpose does this serve?
I'm really not seeing a benefit here, and that's probably the point.
They are indeed members of the species "homo sapiens". And you're right, no other species on earth would do such a thing. Mostly because no other species on earth builds graphics cards.
Remember back when there was all kinds of competition in the video chipset\card market? 3DFX, Rendition, S3, Matrox, etc... Now we are down to two choices and they are both screwing us over... I guess that's what happens when competition is limited. What to do?
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
this is a normal part of a functional modern consumer capitalism. planned obsolescence, crippled interoperability and limited features are all things corporations adopt in order to drive profit and increase sales yearly. its why your cellphone doesnt have expandable RAM anymore and your game consoles and processors routinely change size, shape, and pin count. The problem is not AMD, its the notion that any economic system constructed on a finite level of resources can questionlessly and consistently achieve percentages of growth regardless of demand. well built, creative and useful products serve no purpose, but are sometimes accidents of fortune in the creation of a product. once its established, each iteration becomes a steady descent into nothing more than a means to achieve what you had, and define yourself based on unrealistic expectations set by advertising and product research teams.
this problem cannot be fixed, because we would have to stop purchasing the product. we cant stop, because the product is the standard by which we esablish our likes and dislikes, as well as our perception of everything from uniqueness to wealth and success. Put your TV on the curb, download a copy of adblock plus, and in six months this entire article will seem the very definition of the hedonistic treadmill.
Good people go to bed earlier.
They are indeed members of the species "homo sapiens". And you're right, no other species on earth would do such a thing. Mostly because no other species on earth builds graphics cards.
Reminds me of Garth Marenghi's Darkplace:
Daglass: I figure the following: Sanch is regressing to Homo neanderthalenus. Right now Sanch you're Homo erectus but who knows how long you’ve got?
Sanchez: I appreciate you being straight with me.
Reed: And you and I are Homo sapiens?
Daglass: Correct.
Reed: But if we’re all basically Homos, shouldn’t we get along?
I value the freedom to do what I want with what I own so I don't use it. I'm perfectly happy with my DVI displays and will be for years to come.
Stallman, is that you?
Terribly sorry for not RTFA, but when did AMD try to add this to the Linux driver? When was it noticed? When was it corrected? And can I shove this in the face of windows fanboys who say that anyone could submit anything they want to Linux and you don't really know what's in there?
gpl-gpu kickstarter launches tomorrow. A fully LGPL 2D/ 3D graphics accelerator written in Verilog. Currently running in an Arria IIgx. GPLGPU Kickstarter
I wasn't aware that DVI could carry audio. Of course, most of my available DVI output display doesn't have audio. And if I have audio-out with DVI, I probably also have HDMI. So basically the only time that this is a problem would be if I had a DVI only display with audio and I needed audio.
People using HDMI get what they deserve...
Especially on computers. Its a specification designed to layer DRM on top of existing specifications (AKA DVI).
If you want a newer interface on your monitor get DP. After all, nearly every monitor on the market has less resolution than 15 year old DVI can support. I think there are literally less than a half dozen monitors (4k) on the market that cannot be driven with a standard DDVI-D port available on just about every video card with a DVI port produced in the last 10 years.
Plus, it has thumbscrews meaning its probably not going to fall out, when you move the monitor stand around.
this problem cannot be fixed, because we would have to stop purchasing the product. we cant stop, because the product is the standard by which we esablish our likes and dislikes, as well as our perception of everything from uniqueness to wealth and success. Put your TV on the curb, download a copy of adblock plus, and in six months this entire article will seem the very definition of the hedonistic treadmill.
Of course it can be fixed, but not by someone who considers unregulated capitalism to be the only true religion.
Chinas government managed to get the phone manufacturers to use a standard interface for chargers. EU is about to bring cell phone roaming fees down to something reasonable.
The fix is saying: Fine, you can have your monopoly/cartel, but if you behave in a consumer unfriendly way we take half your profits, ktnxbye.
While I didn't try sound over my third-party DVI-HDMI cable, I did have issues with the open source Radeon driver and these cables. Once Linux booted, the monitor would keep dropping the video signal and then re-establishing it. At first I thought X was in a crash loop, but the keyboard and mouse seemed to remain responsive. Rather than mess around with it, I just used a VGA cable, but that definitely left a sour taste in my mouth and had me longing for the days when cables just shoved whatever data was pushed to them.
Put your TV on the curb, download a copy of adblock plus, Ghostery, NoScript, HTTPS Everywhere, TrackMeNot and in six months this entire article will seem the very definition of the hedonistic treadmill.
There, fixed that for you.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Did they affect some of the larger cards with Eyefinity? I had so much trouble with those damn cards and adapters.
What is the output on the back of the video card? A DVI port or an HDMI port?
DVI is normally a video-only connection.
The video portion of HDMI is pretty much identical to the video from DVI, so there are many inexpensive adapters & cables with DVI on one end and HDMI on the other. I have a couple, and they work great, but for video only.
I've never seen or heard of DVI that carries audio. Is there a new DVI audio standard that I haven't heard of?
I guess I'm missing something here. What is the big deal if HDMI audio is turned off when using DVI since DVI doesn't carry an audio signal anyway?
This is exactly what's happening. Reading the summary, my first thought was that it was incorrect and my second thought was that the writer was clueless. After all, DVI doesn't support audio so how can DVI out provide audio to a DVI - HDMI adapter? The answer is; only by breaking the standard.
So, if you break the DVI standard and send audio out what happens? There are no adverse effects, at all, ever, even when the connection is DVI - DVI? It seems to me that they are simply adding a safety feature to their non-standard implementation. 'If we don;t know for absolute certain that the end point is HDMI, don't send audio out the DVI interface.'
Media makers say: We need to you make sure you have DRM or we wont sell to you.
Device Makers can say No, and not get the media makers provide, (giving opportunity to your competitors)
Device Makers can say Yes, and add those DRM restrictions, thus being able to give the media makers media. You sell more products and most of your customers are happy they can get access to the media.
Microsoft, and AMD are willing to give DRM so they they offer the competitive advantage of selling product that will work with more Media.
Sony is a Media maker along with others and still haven't really got a good why to protect their IP without screwing over others, who wants to use their media legally.
I wouldn't blame the technology makers, they are corporations they will do whatever makes them money. If the Media makers stop all their DRM requirements that is one less feature for them to maintain. But the media makers are to blame for pushing this on them.
Sure some companies can say no. However if they do, they will get a few customers who really care, but most want the media and not worry about what they are giving up.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I am still using my Dad's CRT TV in the garage, it must be at least 30 years old. Starts acting up, take it outside take the back off wash it down with paraffin leave it the sun for a couple hours to dry, put the back on and voila, right as rain for he next 5 years. In that time I have gone through 3 LCD TV's. (Well one was stolen, but still).
The don't build things to last anymore, it's bad for business.
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
Well at least I know now my next GPU upgrade will be Nvidia.
An automobile maker cannot require that only their own brand of gasoline (or, say, tires) is to be used by their cars.
Haven't they realized by now that one tiny little reason to make a customer buy their competitor's products will cause them to do so? Here it is. Mandatory, proprietary, overpriced crap is why Dell fell off a cliff in the business world. Why buy that $3 replacement fan when you can get a $40 one from dell because one one little plastic tab? Customers gave them a big, fat "fuck it, we're buying Lenovo" and jumped off that train like it was on fire. Good luck with that one, AMD.
Do people really think this is to screw with their customers? AMD makes pretty much zero off their adapters. They clearly aren't doing this to protect revenue streams. It's obviously some workaround hack for something, or some end case that wasn't initially considered in the design, or conforming to the dvi spec somehow. I'm really not sure why people think this is malicious. Really? THIS is what's going to make you not buy AMD?
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
Try finding an HDMI to component adapter, or HDMI to SDI. They're out there, but they're not cheap, and the recording industry keeps trying to get them shut down.
AMD's motto, sadly, is that the customer ALWAYS comes last. To explain, this means when an industry group wants AMD to artificially restrict what its hardware can do, even when there is no issue in law, AMD will meet the needs of big business over their paying customers.
AN EXAMPLE: Back in the early days of multi-monitor use of Windows, AMD supported dual output at a time when Microsoft most certainly did NOT want ordinary users using such a facility. What was Microsoft's problem? Well, at the time, MS was in mortal fear of households beginning to use their desktop PC like mini-computers of old, with multiple simultaneous users on one desktop machine. The desktop PC was getting way more powerful than the needs of any one user, and hanging two keyboards, two mice and two monitors off one machine had become possible at the hardware level.
MS was damned if one copy of Windows was going to support two people at the same time. So Microsoft DEMANDED that functionality of the second video output be severely crippled. At the time, AMD had hardware acceleration (for video playback) on both outputs, but after MS contacted them, AMD switched this functionality OFF in their drivers for years afterwards. People who would buy the so-called 'media' versions of AMD cards at the time flooded forums with complaints about how driver support was non-existent. AMD would lie, promise to fix the problems, but keep true to their pact with Microsoft.
Today, the issue over multiple monitors is long forgotten, and MS has properly supported this feature long enough for most sheeple to forget (if they ever even knew) how far Microsoft went to sabotage multiple monitors in the past.
AN EXAMPLE: people who do video editing want access to accelerated video DECODE hardware in the GPU chips, so the editing can happen faster. AMD specifically REFUSED to allow users to have access to the output of hardware video-decode blocks, stating that their agreements with media producers limited these functions to the on-screen playback of video only. We are NOT talking about DRM here. We are talking about AMD refusing to allow you to use the hardware you have paid for in the ways you need.
AN EXAMPLE: AMD has been selling the so-called Bonaire GPU chip for many months now, in a card called the 7790. It turns out that the chip has a hardware sound-processing function that AMD refused to activate for buyers.
AN EXAMPLE: AMD has had video ENCODE hardware blocks in its graphics cards for a few generations now. It REFUSES to activate this functionality for users. Likewise, AMD refuses to activate the hardware JPG decode/encode blocks in the same chips.
In fairness, AMD is getting better. After having been battered in the marketplace by Nvidia and Intel for years now, and having seen both Nvidia and Intel respond to their users far far better than AMD, AMD has finally figured that maybe putting their customers first might be good for business. Sadly, this is a slow process. The TRUEAUDIO outrage in the 7790 boards is disgusting. This HDMI adaptor nonsense is disgusting.
AMD has fantastic technology coming in the very near future, but if it cleaves to its customer-hating old ways, it will minimise the impact of its hardware advantages.
If AMD put HDMI ports on their video card, they'd have to pay licensing/royalty fees to HDMI Licensing, LLC. By only putting DVI connectors on their video cards, ATI doesn't have to pay the fee. But for the small percentage of customers who *want* HDMI, they sell the adapter and pay for the licensing costs with that instead. Since they sell far fewer adapters than cards obviously, the overall license fees paid become much less.
Presumably the EEPROM is in there because the HDMI Licensing lawyers aren't complete idiots, and required the card to make sure the adapter is licensed. Tossing a 10-cent 24LC01 or something in there with a magic byte on it probably didn't break the bank.
Sure some companies can say no. However if they do, they will get a few customers who really care, but most want the media and not worry about what they are giving up.
Or they will simply go to TPB instead and not give up anything at all. It's so by far the easiest way to get content that will play any time, anywhere, in any format you want on any device with any software capable for all time without any restrictions. It's not like there's two opposing sides here, there's the people who need DRM-approved gear because they need it to play their DRM'd content and there's the people who don't care because their content is "liberated". And a handful of principled idealists who fit within the margin of error.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Congratulations. This is the first response I see that makes sense (in so far as anything dealing with such legal issues makes sense).
Why do I keep thinking about Dr. Strangelove every time I see a comment like yours?
Rethinking email
Right. OpenCL is DRM infected DRM trash, and a brand of CPU where you get an IOMMU regardless of which model you buy is a shitty brand. That's really sensible of you.
When I upgraded to a more recent version of the Catalyst Control Center, I was advised that I was no longer able to use HDMI audio as I was using an "incompatible" DVI -> HDMI adapter. Given that I wasn't even using a DVI -> HDMI adapter ANYWHERE within the chain and was—in fact—leveraging the HDMI port soldered onto the card itself, well, I'd say this was a pretty massive fuckup. Now I think I get it: AMD probably just tacked the same sort of circuitry one would see in an DVI -> HDMI adapter on the board but neglected that EEPROM and now that the drivers are updated, I was fucked. AMD's stereoscopic HDMI does not work, even with the third-party $25-50 drivers one has to buy because they're too cheap to write their own or license them. AMD response? "We don't provide support for 3rd-party software." Buck passing. I have yet to find any solution that enables the card to produce a stereoscopic HDMI signal, yet my PS3 has no difficulty. I rolled back.
I have made a promise not to upgrade any equipment for 10 years.
I browse the internet once a day tops.
And I just purchased a new stand up tuna stick.
See ya's on the water.
I've had all kinds of issues with my home theater and TVs with devices getting out of sync and content not moving from one to the other.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
If it is, he's recently suffered brain damage. I mean look at that post... "because moar expensive." Moar? It's a fucking 12 year old for FSM's sake! Or a crack head (hmm... considering his user name...)
So ATI put this in because DVI does not carry audio. Period. It's not part of the spec.
Now, if you use an HDMI-DVI adapter it _can_ carry it in a nonstandard way. But since your video card doesn't know if you're connected to a DVI device or an HDMI adapter, what the fuck happens?
Maybe nothing. Or maybe it completely fucks your video connection to some DVI devices. I suppose these whining bitches complaining about this didn't bother to test that though. "Well, works fine! I mean I get audio with my HDMI-DVI cable on my device I'm using, so there can be no reason other than shenanigans that AMD did this!".
Fucking tools.
The thing is, you can complain about all this encroaching DRM and stuff, but as a consumer you're stuck with it. There are new televisions that have only HDMI and composite inputs, no way to get DVI (some of which don't have HDCP). So the consumer market has completely accepted this DRM but mostly through ignorance since they just want the latest thing that sounds high tech. Manufacturers are now stuck because they need to support the whole scheme of DRM or they won't sell many products or get licensed to use HDMI. The DRM battle is almost lost as far as video goes, and I suspect in ten years it will be lost everywhere since no one cares anymore.
Both companies have done things that help and hinder open software.
If mandatory take-back laws were passed and enforced, I think we'd quickly see manufacturers designing more reliable and durable products. Alas that Europe is so far ahead of 'Merkah in so many respects.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
Does it have this restriction? I have not used it yet since I don't own a HDTV yet.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
never to buy from AMD again...
The fork of the Linux kernel maintained by Linus Torvalds contains non-free software. The Linux kernel fork maintained by the Linux Libre team is based on that kernel and "remov[es] software that is included without source code, with obfuscated or obscured source code, under non-Free Software licenses, that do not permit you to change the software so that it does what you wish, and that induces or requires you to install additional pieces of non-Free Software".
So you could point anyone running non-free software to the FSF's list of free GNU/Linux system distributions and to the guidelines where one can understand how the FSF decides what to put on that list.
Digital Citizen