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?
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.
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?!)
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.
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
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
It can't. The complaint is that a non-standard feature is only enabled for known non-standard adapters. The story is flamebait.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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.
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
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
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.