| ▲ | snailmailman 8 days ago |
| Interesting. I saw some of their video about this the other day. The video gives the impression that Nintendo is intentionally not supporting external monitors that aren’t the official switch dock. But the conclusion on this article seems to lean more towards that it could be a mistake or bug. I guess that might be the case - didn’t they screw up USB-C on the switch 1? I know it’s an incredibly complex standard. I guess the only way to know if it’s intentional or a bug, is if Nintendo updates the switch to fix it. As Linus said in his video, the Nintendo USB isn’t very “universal”. |
|
| ▲ | Gigachad 8 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The Switch 1 had more of an excuse since it was released just as USB-C, particularly the more advanced parts like video out and PD were still very new. And the hardware was likely designed long beforehand. The Switch 2 came out in a world with widespread standards compliant USB-C. |
| |
| ▲ | dagmx 8 days ago | parent [-] | | I feel like that’s a significant retcon. Switch 1 was released in 2017. PD 1.0 was 2013 , and display port out was 2014. Both were supported by numerous devices by the time the switch 1 was out. Granted they really wanted hdmi alt mode which was 2016 but the switch 1 doesn’t even support display port out which could have been coupled with a converter in the dock. The simpler reason is that Nintendo both cheaps out on parts and has no incentive to increase compatibility. The number of users who care is not worth it for Nintendo to care, and they’re not afoul of any regulations. | | |
| ▲ | ignaloidas 8 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Don't ever mention PD 1.0, it's a cursed standard that was never actually used and that nobody should ever use. USB PD started with PD 2.0, and we shall never speak of the stillborn child that is 1.0 | |
| ▲ | Gigachad 8 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Displayport would have been fairly useless. I've never once seen a TV with Displayport inputs. They really should have had 9v PD working but at least 5v worked. | | |
| ▲ | ThatPlayer 8 days ago | parent | next [-] | | While technically true, there's no devices that do HDMI protocol over USB-C. Most USB-C adapters to HDMI have a built-in DP > HDMI converter. There was a standard for HDMI over USB, but no devices used it and it died: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/01/hdmi-to-usb-c-spec-a... Pretty sure the Switch (1) Dock used a similar HDMI adapter. Even the PS4 had a DP > HDMI adapter internally for some reason. | | |
| ▲ | avianlyric 8 days ago | parent | next [-] | | DP has a HDMI compatibility mode that allows a DP output to output a HDMI signal, but at the wrong voltage. The external adapters are just level shifters to bring the signal voltages into compliance with HDMI, but their entirety passive devices. > Even the PS4 had a DP > HDMI adapter internally for some reason. DP is far more than just an external display protocol. Its biggest use case is internal display signals, so it’s used to power pretty much every laptop screen. As a result standard PC hardware (which is what the PS4 is) has defacto support for DP, because is the standard display transport between embedded video components. As a result it’s a lot easier and cheaper to build a device that outputs DP, and then slap a HDMI converter on it, than it is to build a device that uses HDMI natively. | | |
| ▲ | felurx 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > DP has a HDMI compatibility mode that allows a DP output to output a HDMI signal, but at the wrong voltage. The external adapters are just level shifters to bring the signal voltages into compliance with HDMI, but their entirety passive devices. That's DP++, which is not supported on all DP outputs, and notably is not supported by the USB-C DP AltMode. | | |
| ▲ | ThatPlayer 4 days ago | parent [-] | | DP++ seemed to work fine on my Samsung S24 phone when I tried it after seeing that comment and was curious. I've got a pile of passive adapters because I have an esoteric device that has broken DP audio but HDMI audio using DP++ works fine. |
|
| |
| ▲ | consp 8 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Isn't the reason dp has higher per pair throughout than hdmi giving you more bandwidth with less wires? (I'm not entirely sure though) |
| |
| ▲ | dagmx 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you were to read the entirety of my comment, you’d see that I mention HDMI alt mode as well as the possibility of including a signal converter in the dock to get it to hdmi prior to hdmi alt mode existing. Display port would have still allowed for a standardized format for other docks to provide conversion, or for connection to computer monitors. | |
| ▲ | jwr 8 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Displayport would have been fairly useless Please do not generalize like this. DP over USB-C is essential for devices like Xreal One and One Pro — these work great with the Switch 1 and do not work at all with the Switch 2. It's a complete showstopper at the moment for people who would like to play games displaying them on those glasses. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | hsbauauvhabzb 8 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The ltt video didn’t suggest it was intentional, it was careful not to. But Nintendo were certainly aware of it before release. |
| |
| ▲ | snailmailman 8 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It was certainly heavily implied to be intentional. With the title referencing "Nintendo’s greed"[0] and in the first minute they call it “locking down a product, not for a good reason, but just because [nintendo] can, or […] because <bleep> you” It’s not until much further in the video that they backtrack a bit and call it “tactical laziness” by Nintendo. Honestly, I did not get that far on my first watch. [0] YouTube now confusingly shows different titles randomly. I’m seeing “Nintendo’s Greed could Change the Tech Industry” but that may not be its real title for all I know. | | |
| ▲ | Gigachad 8 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Modern youtube has uploaders submit multiple thumbnails and headlines, then it AB tests them and selects the one that performed best. Pretty much every news website seems to do the same thing these days too. | |
| ▲ | avianlyric 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The early comments are all clearly qualified as their opinions, rather than factual statements. The final conclusions are factual statements, with conclusions that avoid at cost saying anything could be considered libel. | |
| ▲ | Barbing 8 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | re: [0], that’ll likely be the uploader modifying the title - they test titles and thumbnails until one grabs attention See Tom Scott video, “this video has 74 million views“ (quantity subject to change in future) |
| |
| ▲ | masklinn 8 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The video did very much suggest it was intentional but did so implicitly. It explicitly stopped short of explicitly suggesting it due to a lack of evidence. |
|
