hence, nothing will happen, unless monitors get more popular than TVs. because tvs are the majority bought display device period. The reason is because more people are willing to both spend more on tvs, and often are more willing to replace them, while people who use monitors hold onto them for extended periods of time. Thats why monitor tech is always a step behind both mobile and TV when it comes to the screen quality (e.g Monitors didn't get OLED till LG released its gen 2 WOLED, and Samsung decided to drop QDOLED gen 1, while phones of course had oled/amoled for a long time, and OLED tvs have existed for years before it touched hte monitor space)

Yes, theres no technial reason why display port CANT do it, but the problem is HDMI forum has the market. the market doesnt suddenly shift unless you give it a good reason to, which would basically require the VESA foundation producing a featureset so significantly better than HDMI, that it invalidates TVs to the consumer mind.

I don't think it's the best user experience when you get a new product neither do I think they are foolproof.

It still be cheaper than paying for the licensing.

Except it’s not. HDMI licensing (for high volume) is a $10,000 flat fee, plus $0.04 per unit if you use HDCP. So if you were to sell 100,000 units that would be $14,000 ($10K base plus $0.04 x 100K).

Based on those numbers you would have to find a way to include a physical adapter for $0.14/unit. I don’t think you’re gonna find anything that cheap with any amount of quality.

I've not got one for testing right now. But some googling does seem to indicate this is a sticking point for gaming, and why GPU makers put the latest HDMI ports on their cards and ponied up the licensing fees.