Still no daisy chaining though, unlike with DisplayPort which uses packeted data. Why isn't DP replacing it faster? Is it too expensive to become ubiquitous?
It's a matter of targeted use case. DP is for PCs, while HDMI is for point-to-point AV. There aren't many non-PC HDMI sources that support multiple displays (mirroring or expanding), and this is by design. Chaining makes no sense in the home theater nor building video dist use cases.
The point is, DP offers a superset of functionality and is also supposedly free of license fees (from what I've heard), while HDMI requires the manufacturer to pay for the license. So why isn't everyone ditching HDMI for DisplayPort which is better on all accounts? May be manufacturing cost plays a role, but I have no idea.
