Samsung: 4K Ultra HD television adoption will happen faster than anticipated

[cliffordcooley]

Where 4K makes the most sense are PC monitors, specifically 28-32 inch sizes.

You know I have been looking at this all wrong. I don't need 4K resolutions for anything less than 40 inches. But I would want more than 1080P for greater than 25 inches. That is where a monitor are concerned. As far as TV's, I'd want 4K only with 60 inch or larger screens.

 

[howzz1854]

The executive said Samsung wants to bring more value to televisions so consumers will be tempted to replace their sets every four or five years instead.

I must be a minority, in wanting my TV to last more than 10 years. Whether it does or not is not the point, I still want it to last more than 10 years. If the damn things lasted, they probably wouldn't be replaced as often.

What that comment tells me is they want to engineer a plan of faster obsolescence. Thats right, feed us innovation at a slower rate. Pick our pockets for everything we have as we try to keep something that works.

I do hope I am looking at this all wrong!

you're not a minority, my last LCD tv lasted me 7 years. I tend to buy top of the line, or almost top of the line when it comes to TV, and ride that thing until wheels fall off. that same TV got moved to our bedroom now that the new 60inch LED replaced it last year. but I gotta say, 4K is a pretty big step in terms of quality. I might not be able to hold out for another 7 years this time.

 

[tipstir]

Hold out translucent panels are next. I am not buying into 4K tech for now. I use OTA that's only up to 1080i they have taken so long to get that going. ABC is still using 720p. Other stations like METV uses 480i. There is about 71 DTV channels in OTA. QVC and now HSN are on there too. 4K UHD sets might sell now but 8K translucent HD might be the way to later on.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Whats the word on translucent panels? As far as I'm aware, I've not heard anything about them.

 

[Guest]

Yaaah for 4k Tv. I cant wait. to be able to see all my old movies (casablanca, metroplis,Birds) in glrious 4k it'll be great. Seriously tho .. I've only just (2012) gone over to HD and before that it took me 7 years to get a WS TV. So no, until these mofo's are £300 for 40' quality item then count me out.
Seeing Scowel's face in 4k would make me physically vomit.
But .. flesh tones ?? hmm .. thats another story ..

 

[wiyosaya]

The executive said Samsung wants to bring more value to televisions so consumers will be tempted to replace their sets every four or five years instead.

I must be a minority, in wanting my TV to last more than 10 years. Whether it does or not is not the point, I still want it to last more than 10 years. If the damn things lasted, they probably wouldn't be replaced as often.

What that comment tells me is they want to engineer a plan of faster obsolescence. Thats right, feed us innovation at a slower rate. Pick our pockets for everything we have as we try to keep something that works.

I do hope I am looking at this all wrong!

I am right there with you. If you look beyond all the blather, Samsung simply said "we want to shove a new set down your throat every four to five years" whether you want one or not so that we can keep raking in the money."

What is the price point for me? Perhaps when a 55" OLED 4K is available for $600. That is what I paid last year for my 50" 1080p Plasma TV. I had my 24" Sony Wega for about 13 years.

IMHO 3D was thought to be the thing that would get consumers buying sets faster than manufacturers could make them, however, I really doubt that 4K will offer what consumers perceive as "value" any more than 3D did. The vast majority of the market is not high-end techies who have to have the latest toy that they can show off to their buddies. IMHO, much more of the market is the average consumer who does not have a lot to spend and does not understand the technology.

I'm not saying 4K will not look better in some cases, what I am saying is that people just will not spend the money as fast as manufacturers like Samsung wants because consumers will see little value in it, and I am willing to bet that the vast majority of the consumer market will be unhappy with spending who knows how much after they just spent who knows how much on a 1080p display.

 

[avoidz]

4k is unnecessary for most consumers. Samsung must be high if they think people are ready to upgrade their HD sets... for a format that has barely any content. Most TV is only broadcast in SD where I live, for example.

 

[tipstir]

4k is unnecessary for most consumers. Samsung must be high if they think people are ready to upgrade their HD sets... for a format that has barely any content. Most TV is only broadcast in SD where I live, for example.

Your right there. Can't follow them all I see no point. 1080p is what I have here. I am not going after what Samsung and the others are pushing us all to do. 720p and 1080p now 4K. 1080p sets will run until they don't they I'll consider what to get next if the market is still using 1080p then stick with that.

 

[howzz1854]

5

I am right there with you. If you look beyond all the blather, Samsung simply said "we want to shove a new set down your throat every four to five years" whether you want one or not so that we can keep raking in the money."

What is the price point for me? Perhaps when a 55" OLED 4K is available for $600. That is what I paid last year for my 50" 1080p Plasma TV. I had my 24" Sony Wega for about 13 years.

IMHO 3D was thought to be the thing that would get consumers buying sets faster than manufacturers could make them, however, I really doubt that 4K will offer what consumers perceive as "value" any more than 3D did. The vast majority of the market is not high-end techies who have to have the latest toy that they can show off to their buddies. IMHO, much more of the market is the average consumer who does not have a lot to spend and does not understand the technology.

I'm not saying 4K will not look better in some cases, what I am saying is that people just will not spend the money as fast as manufacturers like Samsung wants because consumers will see little value in it, and I am willing to bet that the vast majority of the consumer market will be unhappy with spending who knows how much after they just spent who knows how much on a 1080p display.

years? try every one year. that's why they came out with the evo kit. they want you to buy the Evo kit every year so you can get the new features of new model every year. in reality, at least from last year model speaking, I was just better user interfacce and added another core. biggest waste of money.

 

[Guest]

They were most likely feeding a 1080p signal through both TVs and the marginal gain you've seen was coming from the 4K set being a display of higher quality and performance. The reason why you're not seeing a 4K video on the 4K tv and 1080p on the 1080o screen is because they're all using the same video feed which needs to be compatible with all the TVs in the store. We currently run a 720p signal through all our TVs because we sell 720p only sets that can't run a 1080p signal .

Works in Electronics at BJ's

 

[Blue Falcon]

The problem is at normal living viewing distances you need a TV the size of 84 inches to start resolving all of the 4K details. What about 8K? Sounds like an even bigger waste of pixels. I would much rather the manufacturers focused on next generation panel tech, rather than pixels. The other day I watched a movie on a Samsung plasma and it blows away all LEDs I've ever seen; and I know the Sammy isn't even as good as the best Pioneer KURO 60" or some of the flagship Panasonic plasmas. They are applying 4K and 8K tech to inferior technology in the first place which puts more pixels on a screen but fixes none of the problems of backlist LEDs such as inferior viewing angles, black levels, color reproduction and much much slower response time than plasma tech.

 

[Kevin82485]

Vizio's 4K TV's will start at $1,000 for a 50". That's pretty tempting considering that's what I paid for my current 1080p 3D TV. I play PC games through my TV, so the resolution increases would be insane in the games I play. I probably won't get one right away, but it is tempting.

 

[Capaill]

As noted above, most current graphics cards can manage 1920x1080 resolution but can your card manage 3840x2160?

It is very tempting for a gaming system but the current problem (besides the cost of the TV and space to put it) is the GPU.

 

[Guest]

I find SD so good on my Samsung 55" SMART TV in the UK from SKY that I do not even bother with HD which is more tiring on the eyes. I can not see 4K ever taking off just like 3D whilst good SD is still available.

 

[theBest11778]

people will be swimming if they bought HUGE tv for their small to normal sized room.

I prefer 100% field of view, or as much as possible, to be filled up while gaming/watching movies. Why would I want to see anything else then what I'm trying to watch/play?

 

[theBest11778]

I find SD so good on my Samsung 55" SMART TV in the UK from SKY that I do not even bother with HD which is more tiring on the eyes. I can not see 4K ever taking off just like 3D whilst good SD is still available.

Sit 6' away, or less, from that 55" TV and tell me HD doesn't looking infinitely better.