Yes? Someone in my group connects to our work TV pretty much every day for our morning meeting, and I connect to a monitor at home and at work multiple times every day. Yeah, I guess you could ensure that every TV supports streaming and have a USB-C hub at every desk, but that sounds odd compared to just adding an HDMI port or something.
You use HDMI for all those use cases? Seems like Thunderbolt is a much better dock for workstations, and DisplayPort is generally better for computer monitors and the resolution/refresh rates useful for that kind of work. The broad support of cables and HDMI displays is for HDMI 2.0, which caps at 4k60. By the time HDMI 2.1 hit the market, Thunderbolt and DisplayPort Alt mode had been out for a few years, so it would’ve made more sense to just upgrade to Thunderbolt rather than getting an all new HDMI lineup.
Yep!
Thunderbolt only works for workstations if the monitor supports it, and none of my monitors at home do. My gaming PC doesn’t have USB-C out on the GPU, so even if my monitors supported it, I couldn’t use it. I do use DisplayPort for my gaming PC, but the monitor for my home office doesn’t have it.
I do have Thunderbolt at work, but it’s super finicky (sometimes have to unplug/replug a few times for it to register) and I’d honestly rather just use HDMI because it pretty much always works for me.
DisplayPort is only better than HDMI if your monitor sends more data than HDMI can support, and HDMI can support all resolutions and refresh rates that I use (basically, the only thing it doesn’t support are high res ultra-wide screens, or high res high refresh screens). I don’t need high refresh for my work computer (I just use 1080p/60; I’m just dealing w/ text), so I’m well within that range. At work, I use a high res ultra-wide, which is nice I guess, and I use Thunderbolt there. My coworkers, however, use HDMI w/ a dongle just fine on similar screens (the ones that don’t support Thunderbolt).
just upgrade to Thunderbolt
Yeah, I’m not going to throw out perfectly good hardware just to unify cables somewhat.
Adding an HDMI port really isn’t a big deal. Apple did that with the M-series chips after having USB-C only on the previous gen, so HDMI isn’t obsolete in any way. I only ever use 2 USB-C at a time anyway, and I’d honestly rather have a USB-A and HDMI on the other side than more USB-C ports. Variety > quantity IMO.
Yeah, I’m not going to throw out perfectly good hardware just to unify cables somewhat.
I was referring to the replacement of HDMI 2.0 stuff with 2.1 stuff - not seeing an advantage to choosing HDMI 2.1 over Thunderbolt. And then there’s the support hell of intermingled HDMI 2.0 and 2.1 stuff, including cables and ports and dongles and adapters.
Either way, I’m still stuck on the idea of direct HDMI use as being so ubiquitous that it warrants being built into a non-gaming laptop that already has Thunderbolt and DP (and USB-PD) support through the preexisting USB-C ports.
Thunderbolt only works for workstations if the monitor supports it
Even if driving multiple monitors over HDMI or DVI or DP or VGA or whatever, the dock that actually connects directly to the laptop is best served with Thunderbolt over USB-C, since we’d expect the monitors and docking station (and power cords and an external keyboard/mouse and maybe even ethernet) to all remain stationary. That particular link in the chain is better served as a single Thunderbolt connection, rather than hooking up multiple cables representing display signal data, other signal data, and power. And this tech is older than HDMI 2.1!
So I’m not seeing that type of HDMI use as a significant percentage of users, enough to justify including on literally every 14" or 16" Macbook Pro with their integrated GPUs. At least not in workplaces.
