Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0x09 | Hacker News Reader

I've gotten myself into a stupid situation where I have purchased something like 4 adapters that don't accomplish what I thought they would when I bought them.

USB-C to DisplayPort -> DisplayPort to HDMI -> Monitor - doesn't work

USB-C to DisplayPort -> DisplayPort to DVI-D -> Monitor - doesn't work

USB-C to Ethernet - doesn't work

I'm actually planning to just go to Best Buy today and try to find anything that will let me plug this into my old monitor here even if it has to be the official USB-C to VGA cable from Apple since I don't have time to wait for shipping at this point.

I suppose this is my own fault but somehow I've never had this kind of problem in ~20 years of using a computer.

Edit: There are also currently very few resources about compatibility between all these new adapters and Apple hasn't done anything to help in their spec info so it's really just a guessing game right now.

View on HN

I think the main source of the confusion is that the connector is called USB-C, but devices that use the connector may not be USB devices at all, since they can fully expect to only be used with devices that support a specific alternate mode (e.g. Thunderbolt). Yes, they all have to support USB at some level to negotiate the alternate mode (i'm not sure if for USB-C this is a passive signaling like sense resistors or something active like an authentication chip), but devices don't have to fall back to USB data modes at all if they don't want to.

If they had called the connector something distinct, like for example "Omnibus", then you could additionally specify the signalling required to make it work. So you could sell a device as being "USB via Omnibus plug", or "Displayport via Omnibus plug". Maybe even come up with little icons for each mode and place them on the host computers and peripherals to help people figure out what is going to work. Really just anything more than what they've done currently would be useful.

Yea, it used to be generally true that "if you can connect them with a cable, they will be compatible." Ports were single-use, and if two ports weren't compatible, then they would be physically incompatible. If you could get a cable to connect two different ports, they would probably be compatible because who would make the cable otherwise, right?

Now we have something like your "omnibus" port in USB-C, so you have potential incompatibility at the port level and at the cable level, and no good way to tell what will work and what won't. The good news is you only have one port, but the bad news is you don't really only have one port.

To be fair, that already hasn't been case with Thunderbolt 1 and 2 which reused the Mini DisplayPort.

True. We have a mixture of Apple's Thunderbolt and Mini-DP displays at work and it confuses the hell out of our Windows users. Some adapters/docking stations work, some don't.

> if two ports weren't compatible, then they would be physically incompatible

they have forgotten about poka-yoke (inadvertent error prevention) which is very remiss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poka-yoke

A problem that Apple used to understand, if you look at their keyboard USB cords:

http://www.mcelhearn.com/images/articles/20060828181525223_1...

I guess the USB-C plug is too small for gimmicks like this, though. Would've been nice to distinguish between USB-C and TB 3.1.

(For context, that is how Apple prevents people from plugging anything but its own keyboard into the extension cord, or daisy-chaining two extension cords.)

There's actually a good number of very weirdly wired serial cables out there (incorrect pin mapping on one side), and if you use a standard cable your device won't work.

Hah, you didn't get the specs quite right. That's:

USB-C to DisplayPort -> DisplayPort++ to HDMI

But a DP++ device in a non-++ port won't work, and I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to know this.

Anyway, Google sells a bunch of high-quality adapters for about half the price of Apple's.

Googling displayport++ returns a bunch of confusing pages - can you summarize what the ++ signifies in your own words and with some examples?

As an owner of a Mac Mini from 5 or 6 years ago, I am fairly confident in guessing that this refers to what Apple calls “Mini DisplayPort with Audio”. My Mac Mini can use a Mini DP to HDMI adapter just fine — but it won’t include audio. Newer Mac Minis do support audio over Mini DP.

>As an owner of a Mac Mini from 5 or 6 years ago, I am fairly confident in guessing that this refers to what Apple calls “Mini DisplayPort with Audio”. My Mac Mini can use a Mini DP to HDMI adapter just fine — but it won’t include audio. Newer Mac Minis do support audio over Mini DP.

your sibling comment said something totally different... (no mention of audio.)

DisplayPort++ means a DisplayPort port that can also use a passive DP-to-HDMI or DP-to-DVI adapter, such as a DP-to-HDMI cable. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#DisplayPort.2B.2B

The graphics chipset will actually detect this and handle it as though you hooked up an HDMI cable.

What a clusterfuck...

The moment where the Hacker News crowd can't even figure this out anymore ... is the moment I have to stop recommending macs for anyone in my family or friends. There were a few mac sales due to my recommendations, but that has to stop now. Good luck, Apple.

I am sure this will be fixed in a future iteration. In exhange you never have to flip a USB or HDMI cable around three times (turns out the first direction was right after all :) ) to plug it in, because USB-C can be plugged in either way. Worldwide, this literally saves multiple seconds every year. Have a little faith :)

I'm sure it will. Until then I'll hold on zo my wallet as tightly as I can. Or try out Thinkpads or XPSses with some flavour of Linux but I don't have high hopes for their touchpads and screens / HiDPI software support. You know - the things I actually touch and see the whole time using the damn thing.

Sigh...

I've been watching old SJ presentations (1990-2003) lately and I long back to the time where general purpose personal computers, fully capable of tapping into the machine and creating with it whatever you want, was at the forefront of industry efforts. Updates twice a year. Moore's law in full force. Exiting times those were.

> Or try out Thinkpads or XPSses with some flavour of Linux but I don't have high hopes for their touchpads and screens / HiDPI software support.

Touchpads generally work perfectly out of the box, with any Linux distribution that uses libinput instead of one of the older drivers. HiDPI screens also tend to work perfectly out of the box, though you may wish to tweak them to your tastes. (For instance, I don't want to treat a 1440p screen as 2x 720p, I want to treat it as 1440p with only slightly enlarged fonts.)

I'm curious why Apple's approach of drawing things at 2x or 3x and then downscaling the whole screen hasn't caught on in the Linux world. It seems like scaling the result (a single buffer) should be extremely easy? Laptops and screens targeted at Windows 10 mostly have crappy resolutions for both running at 2x or 1x.

Linux desktop environments do use the 2x/3x scale approach for high-DPI by default. If GNOME detects a high-DPI display, it'll render everything scaled larger by an integer factor.

1440p represents the one case that integer scaling doesn't quite handle right, because you don't typically want it to scale 2x (showing the same amount of information as a 720p screen), you want it to scale roughly 1.33x (showing the same amount of information as a 1080p screen). So, on a 1440p screen, I disable the automatic high-DPI scaling (which does make the display readable, it just shows less information than I'd like), and use other mechanisms to scale by 1.3x.

Linux desktops do the hard part out of the box: scaling everything by an integer factor. But then there is no built-in way to downscale the result to a usable size, which should be relatively easy?

For example, if you need more space on a 5K iMac than the default 1440p@2x, you can have macOS render everything at 1800p@2x off-screen, then downscale it to fill the screen.

The UI looks like this: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202471

I think it can be done with xrandr, but IMHO it should be a built-in option in GTK-based desktops too.

Ah, I see.

I don't think that would work well with Linux expectations for rendering, such as crisp edges for fonts; if you like Apple-style rendering of fonts and other UI elements, it may work better.

I'd rather see everything rendered for the display resolution I have, and just scaled at a non-integer factor.

Well this seems more due to the USB-C to rule them all paradigm that will actually deploy in every PC as well very soon.

People complained continually that Apple had gone USB/lightning/Thunderbolt instead of standard USB-C. Now they implement the standard and people complain that the standard is a clusterfuck...

This whole ranting start to look a bit unfair.

To be fair, I'm facing the same issue with a Dell XPS 13 9350 i bought instead of the new MacBook Pro:

I want to connect it to a 4k monitor at 60Hz via DP or HDMI 2.0. You have to find out how DisplayPort is done on the TB3 port (with USB-C plug) to know which adapter will work. The safest way seems to be to read Amazon reviews.

Thanks Amazon reviewers!

I have the same problem, but since I don't have Amazon here I'm testing different cheap adapters from aliexpress. No luck so far.

I found a USB-C -> HDMI -> DVI-D -> monitor works for that situation. But the HDMI adapter matters. Some Dell adapters we had laying around the office are what worked for me here, but it was flakey (plug in multiple times - plug in multiple monitors in the correct order).

If your monitor supports Displayport then that is the route you want to use. The MBP 2016 supports USB-C displayport alternate mode, and quality cables exist. This is pretty much bulletproof if it's an option to you.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EZH7CKO/ are the cables I bought since they were available next-day, but Monoprice also makes a quality cable.

http://blog.fosketts.net/2016/10/30/2016-macbook-pro-usb-cth... is also a great resource to get started, if you haven't seen it yet.

http://plugable.com/thunderbolt-3/ also has some good info. Apparently there are TB3 adapters which don't work with tbMBPs.

All I want is a single TB3 plug that powers my laptop and hooks up 2x4k displays at 60hz. A USB port or 3 would also be nice. Apparently this does not (can not?) exist.

From the Pluggable site: "Connect two uncompressed 4K 60Hz (4096 x 2160) displays (one via a DisplayPort++ port and the other via the 2nd USB-C port)"

Why can't I just have two real DP++ ports on the dock?

They do make one, but it's windows-only: Thunderbolt 3 DisplayPort Dual-Display Adapter for Windows (Plugable TBT3-DP2X)

Is there something about the new MBPs which prevents them from sending 2 HDMI or DP signals out over a single TB3 port? It seems like a huge step backward to now require a network of dongles, adapters, docks, and special cables just to replicate ports which other normal laptops have.

You can't expect an off-brand USB-C adapter to be able to fully support DisplayPort. USB-C does not natively contain DisplayPort. Also, don't daisy-chain adapters when you don't have to. Use a USB-C to HDMI adapter. Such as this one:

http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MJ1K2AM/A/usb-c-digital-av...

Herein lies the problem. Consumers don't understand or care why these things don't work, they just don't and it's frustrating. "I bought the adapter and plugs in, why doesn't it turn on?" I shouldn't need to explain to my dad why there are two indistinguishable plugs that follow different standards where one works and one doesn't.

"We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works." -Douglas Adams

This is poor advice. I have that exact adapter, and it fails to work with >50% of the HDMI devices (monitors, TVs, projectors) in our office.

This is kind of the point. I have to carry this, plus an offbrand HDMI adapter to hope to have greater than 50% chances of it working.

As far as I'm aware there is no reliable USB-C -> HDMI adapter on the market that works with the MBP 2016. If there is another someone knows about, I'd be happy to buy one for testing and let folks know the results.

Quick question! If we step back from the thunderbolt/displayport/displayport++/usb-c, distinction, which you use on the left-hand side of your arrow... when you wrote:

>"As far as I'm aware there is no reliable USB-C -> HDMI adapter on the market that works with the MBP 2016"

, do you exactly mean the broader statement (I've reworded what I thought you mean) :

>"As far as I am aware there is nothing that plugs into a MBP 2016 that gives a reliable HDMI port that I can connect with a simple HDMI cable to any output device that takes HDMI (screens/projectors/TV's/etc)"?

Is that what you meant? In other words, there is nothing you can carry around, together with an HDMI cable, that let's you plug the MBP 2016 into anything from a TV to a screen to a projector etc (as long as they take an HDMI input) without a chance that it won't work?

Yep, your latter statement is correct. There is no single adapter I can carry around with my laptop (with a HDMI cable and expect it to reliably work with whatever HDMI device the location happens to have.

I couldn't understand why. I found this article echoing your experiences:

http://blog.fosketts.net/2016/11/26/beware-usb-c-hdmi-adapte...

Note that it ends saying "The Good News: DisplayPort Works

I purchased a couple of USB-C to DisplayPort adapters from Monoprice and am pleased to report that they both work just fine. As hoped, these simple adapters natively and passively attach Alternate Mode DisplayPort from the MacBook Pro’s integrated AMD GPU through the Intel Thunderbolt controller and connect perfectly with the monitors I’ve tried."

I then Googled "active displayport hdmi converter" (to find one with a little chip inside, that actively really outputs true HDMI.)

I found this page:

https://www.startech.com/eu/m/AV/Displayport-Converters/Disp...

Which says "Connect an HDMI® monitor to a DisplayPort® Video Source".

Since it's active, the Mac should see it as a DisplayPort device. The device then takes that signal and outputs HDMI. So while the resolution might not be perfect, I would expect this combination to work and let you connect your Mac to any HDMI device, period.

Since it sounds like you have this problem a lot, if you did end up buying that device I'd be keen to know if it worked! (email in my profile.)

Thanks.

The Club 3D USB-C to HDMI 2.0 is perfect. I use it at the office to drive a LG 65" 4K screen at 60HZ for presentations from my MBP 2016: http://amzn.to/2hkM3hK

USB-C does natively support DisplayPort as an alternate mode.

Whether your particular device does is not a given, though. the 12" MacBook definitely does, the specs specifically call out the native support:

http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs/

The specs for the MacBook Pro also purport DisplayPort capability:

http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/

DisplayPort is one of several options, but I wouldn't call them native because you can't rely on any of them being supported.

There is NO first party official Apple DisplayPort adapter. There actually is no first party adapter that would support 4k@60Hz officialy. It gets even more annoying since most 4K monitors made in last year will support 4k@60Hz only over DP, not HDMI.

I went through 2 adapters before I got one that actually worked with the new 2016 MacBook. Which was incredibly annoying.

That's because you don't need an adapter to use DisplayPort with TB3 (on the MBP). Just purchase the correct [1] cable; the MBP implements DP as an alternate mode.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EZH7CKO/

That cable isn't available on this side of the Atlantic, local Apple store only had a faulty DP adapter. For some reason not even the german Amazon had the proper cable in stock or listed.

I want ONE CABLE for everything. That was the promise, I thought. I want 2x4k@60hz + power + 3 USB3 with one connector going to the tbMBP. Apparently this is not possible.

Instead you have 4 identical ports that all do the same things poorly.

I'm not sure how it compares, but I recently went 4k@60Hz with a Dell XPS 15 + docking station.(Dell WD15) + Vizio D40u-D1 (40"). That uses Displayport out of the dock, and a Plugable active DP to HDMI adapter before going into the TV as HDMI as 4k@60Hz. I find it surprising that the monitors, which likely cost 2-3 times what that TV cost ($400) don't support it over HDMI (but then again, the TV doesn't even have DP).

That said, Dell did have a USB-C dock, the TB15, which was plagued by a lot of the same things I hear about USB-C from the Macbooks with USB-C. Wifi and other components stop working intermittently, and on the dock, it flickered intermittently when connected at 4k[1]. Dell just released a new dock, the TB16, and there's a BIOS update for my XPS 15 that says it fixes some docking issues.

1: I seem to recall someone mentioning this was related to the firmware in some connected peripheral, but I'm not sure.

The reason 4k monitors only support displayport is because current HDMI can only do 4k at 30hz. DP is a better cable with more bandwidth. Expect DP to overtake HDMI in the future.

I have a Vizio P55-c1 on my desk and with a GTX1080 and a BlueJeans HDMI cable, it works fine at 1080p@120hz or 4K@60hz. It's HDMI 2.0, so another case where just because it plugs in doesn't mean it'll work: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_2.0

  > "You can't expect an off-brand USB-C adapter"

Surely that's the point of standards: I don't have to purchase an Apple USB-C connector; I can purchase any USB-C connector, and it will perform correctly?

As an educated techie I understand that this isn't true because:

  - Some cables may be counterfeit/non-compliant
  - The nomenclature "USB-C" encompasses a multitude of differing standards
  - The differing standards are rarely identified or clearly explained at point-of-sale.

But this is, essentially, a consumer clusterf*ck.

Also, the following does not work:

USB-C to HDMI -> HDMI to VGA -> Monitor

This forced me to buy a separate "USB-C to VGA" adapter. But with that, I cannot connect my USD laserpointer any more. It's a mess.

That may be because the HDMI to VGA adapter either doesn't work in general (there are so many cheap adapters on Amazon, and HDMI to VGA requires active circuitry, that I'd expect some of them to be fakes) or its pulling too much power over the HDMI port. I wouldn't trust any HDMI to VGA adapter that doesn't require external power.

Also, why does your laser pointer need to be connected to your laptop. If you mean USB presentation remote, you need more than one USB port.

And I suppose Apple has also made a healthy profit, either directly or through licensing on each of the purchases?

Apple receives licensing fees on USB Type C?

You suppose wrongly. It's clear from context that the user wasn't buying Apple adapters, and no, Apple doesn't get any licensing fees here either.

I get that the chinese manufacturers reverse-engineer everything, but you're saying that you can use "thunderbolt" on your packaging without paying some licensing fee to apple?

I mean, a bunch that just have the no-name plastic-bag packaging probably slip by on Amazon, but I would assume the lawyers wouldn't let you brand your cable "thunderbolt" without some official licensing fee process.

Apple doesn't own Thunderbolt: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/trademarks/thunderbol...

Apple does however control which Thunderbolt devices work with Apple hardware and software. Which means, for example, that Thunderbolt 3 hardware released prior to the launch of the new Macbook Pro is effectively Windows-only: http://plugable.com/thunderbolt-3 This appears to be an entirely artificial software block done to force manufacturers to go through their certification program and presumably give then a cut; there's a hack out there that bypasses it.

That's not true. First, for example Dell's dock works fine with the Mac, second the chip is not Apple's but from Texas Instruments and the non functioning devices are not compatible with this chip. So Apple blocks nothing and devices don't have to go through any Apple certification program.

But these devices work with the new MBP in Bootcamp/Windows just not in Sierra...

>presumably give them a cut.

You just made this up. As already clarified in this thread, Apple doesn't own Thunderbolt and Apple gets zero (0) licensing fees. There is no "cut".

Apple doesn't own Bluetooth either and yet they have strict control over which accessories (gamepads) can be used with iOS and charge for the privilege. Headphones with the old 3.5mm jack are also available in more expensive variants with the MFi certification.

Even when there's no money in it, Apple uses whitelists in some places, like which SSDs get TRIM and which displays work and get the HiDPI checkbox:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT206587

Who owns a standard doesn't seem to matter at this point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com