Why did they choose to go with copper wires for HDMI?

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Fiber is more fragile than copper although for consumer applications you can usually put a jacket on it that's stiff enough to prevent it from happening (remember that the actual fiber itself has a radius that's much smaller than 1 mm).

As Spidey has mentioned, while the fiber itself is cheap the rest of the equipment is definitely not and can easily cost hundreds of dollars even for a setup with relatively modest performance (see FTTH costs, for example). At the moment, fiber is really only worth it when you need either long reach or very high performance, it'll be a while before it can compete with copper for short runs/low perf applications like HDMI.

Toslink is virtually indesctructable mainly because the tolerances are so high - with such a large core the damage is already done, bending it will just lead to loss. And at the short distances it doesn't impact much. You can probably tie it in knots and still be fine.

Compare this to "real" fiber where you literally have a 1 - 2 db loss from bending sharply.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Fiber is more fragile than copper although for consumer applications you can usually put a jacket on it that's stiff enough to prevent it from happening (remember that the actual fiber itself has a radius that's much smaller than 1 mm).

As Spidey has mentioned, while the fiber itself is cheap the rest of the equipment is definitely not and can easily cost hundreds of dollars even for a setup with relatively modest performance (see FTTH costs, for example). At the moment, fiber is really only worth it when you need either long reach or very high performance, it'll be a while before it can compete with copper for short runs/low perf applications like HDMI.

Toslink is virtually indesctructable mainly because the tolerances are so high - with such a large core the damage is already done, bending it will just lead to loss. And at the short distances it doesn't impact much. You can probably tie it in knots and still be fine.

Compare this to "real" fiber where you literally have a 1 - 2 db loss from bending sharply.

I've ruined two Toslink cables just from snaking them around my furniture.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB

A Super-Speed (3.0) rate of 4.8 Gbit/s (600 MB/s). The USB 3.0 specification will be released by Intel and its partners in mid 2008 according to early reports from CNET news. According to Intel, bus speeds will be 10 times faster than USB 2.0 due to the inclusion of a fiber optic link that works with traditional copper connectors. Products using the 3.0 specification are likely to arrive in 2009 or 2010.

 

[TheStu]

As others have iterated already, cost is probably the primary limiter here. My basic understanding has always been (and this is specifically in reference to digital audio in home electronics) that a cheap but high quality copper cable is much easier to produce as compared to fiber. A $10 digital coaxial cable can be made at a much higher standard than a $10 fiber optic TOSLINK cable.

As i said those, that is just my basic understanding, and the price included is simply for illustration, and not necessarily real-world numbers.

 

[gsellis]

Because the distances are considered short (under 25') and the optical transceivers are more expensive. Copper is well suited for the short distances at a lower cost. Now if it required anything that said Monster Cable on it, fiber would be the obvious choice