Yeah TVs typically don't have DP, because extra HDMI ports are usually more valuable in a home theater setting. Game consoles, receivers, video players all have HDMI and don't have DisplayPort, meanwhile every graphics card and laptop usually supports both, so having an extra HDMI port ends up being more versatile.

There is supposed to be some sort of conspiracy where the HDMI consortium actively tries to keep display port off of TV's.

Not sure if I buy it, how would that even work? lower licensing fees when no display port? I suspect the real answer is that HDMI managed to capture the market for digital video links and while display port is better it is not enough better for people to want to make the incompatibility jump.

But.... Conversely it does almost make sense. because finding DP on a TV is super rare, nobody is even trying. Historically you would find all sorts of rareish connectors on TV's(component video, s-video) so.. conspiracy... perhaps.

DisplayPort is missing a lot of features that are meaningless in a desktop setup but important in a home theater setup. That's the only reason.

Aren't pretty much all TV manufacturers on the HDMI consortium? You don't really need any more conspiracy than that to keep DP off TVs.

> they tend to be cheaper at a "price to size" level

Make sure you are not comparing apples to oranges, unless size is really the only thing that matters to you.