The HDMI Forum has rejected our proposal unfortunately. At this time an open source HDMI 2.1 implementation is not possible without running afoul of the HDMI Forum requirements.
I know it's probably for cost cutting. But the monitor does indeed have a DP input option. Maybe the HDMI is included because it has inbuilt speakers and as far as I know those aren't usable thrpugh DP and I don't know if it has a separate audio input.
That also includes money to upgrade, for example, display equipment in virtually every office conference room, classroom, home theater, etc. It took a long time to shake VGA in those settings and now that that's largely been dropped in favor of HDMI it'll be a tall order to chase after the next best thing with no benefit noticeable to 99.9% of people.
It's an older interface than DP and has "better" support for audio (I.e. all of those proprietary passthrough audio formats that home theater setups support) so it became dominant in TVs. Monitors are still DP first but likely have a HDMI port as well.
That kind of makes sense though. I figure they assume you’ll have one computer hooked up and then a bunch of consumer devices that all use HDMI. And if you need a second computer hooked up you can also use HDMI if needed. Probably makes the most sense to the most people as having more DP in place of HDMI would just mean the average user couldn’t hook up as many devices since (almost?) no consumer devices use DP unfortunately.
In my experience, its cause monitors are already over priced, and adding a display port to it seems to add at least another 100 on top of that.
Which is why I prefer HDMI. Less cable headache too, since I only have to keep one type of cable in stock and so i can easily switch for testing/diagnostics/layout change purposes.
I didnt say they did, I said they seem to, since in my experience every monitor that had similar spec, but had a display port, was about 100 dollars on top of whatever the hdmi only one had.