HDMI 2.2 is set to debut at CES 2025

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

HDMI 2.2, expected to debut at CES 2025, is prompting questions about why the ecosystem needs yet another higher-bandwidth HDMI revision when DisplayPort 2.1 already offers similar capabilities. Commenters highlight how HDMI’s closed, DRM-centric and royalty-bearing model clashes with open-source drivers and pushes PC hardware toward DisplayPort (often via USB‑C), even as TVs remain locked into HDMI for features like CEC and eARC and for business reasons. Many also criticize the broader mess of video and USB standards—opaque licensing, inconsistent feature support, confusing cable capabilities, and poor user experience around mode switching and port behavior.

Linux / FOSS and HDMI licensing

  • Discussion centers on HDMI’s closed, consortium-controlled nature and mandatory DRM, which clashes with fully open-source drivers.
  • The HDMI Forum blocking an open-source HDMI 2.1 driver for AMD is cited as an example of this control.
  • Several comments frame HDMI as a rent-seeking standard with per-port/implementation fees, contrasted with royalty‑free DisplayPort.
  • Some note analogous “black box” control elements (Intel ME, AMD PSP) on CPUs, but HDMI is seen as especially hostile to FOSS.
  • At least one commenter rejects HDMI 2.2 outright if Linux support remains uncertain.

HDMI vs DisplayPort vs USB‑C

  • Many ask why a new HDMI revision is needed when DisplayPort 2.1 already offers similar or better capabilities.
  • Common view: HDMI dominates TVs and home entertainment; DisplayPort dominates PCs, monitors, and internal laptop panels (eDP).
  • HDMI advantages for TVs: CEC (single remote controlling multiple devices) and eARC (audio return to receivers). DisplayPort lacks direct equivalents, though AUX and MST offer different strengths.
  • Several argue DisplayPort has “spiritually” won via USB‑C alt mode and as the internal display protocol, even if consumers only see USB‑C or HDMI connectors.
  • Others claim DisplayPort “lost” in consumer perception: TVs never ship DP, and most laptops expose HDMI externally.
  • Lack of USB‑C/DP on TVs is attributed to cost, expectations of charging/USB hub features, DRM preferences, and possibly protecting monitor margins.

Bandwidth, cables, and real‑world adoption

  • Cable length is a concern at higher bitrates (DP, Thunderbolt, future HDMI 2.2), with short copper runs and expensive active/fiber solutions.
  • Commenters note HDMI 2.1 is still poorly and inconsistently implemented (e.g., ports with half-bandwidth, few full‑fat ports on TVs), raising skepticism about HDMI 2.2’s near‑term usefulness.
  • High‑end use cases needing more bandwidth include VR (dual high‑refresh displays) and 4K120+ HDR gaming.

User experience and ecosystem frustrations

  • Mode switching remains poor: black screens, long delays, and unreliable CEC behavior (random input switching, audio routed to wrong speakers).
  • Some want Quick Media Switching mandated and extended to cover resolution and HDR changes, plus fast (<100 ms) input detection.
  • Others lament confusing branding and capabilities across HDMI and especially USB‑C/USB4/Thunderbolt, arguing standards bodies are failing consumers.