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

By on January 11, 2014, 4:30 PM
samsung, televisions, 4k, 4k ultra hd

Despite being tempted by a number of great deals on televisions during Black Friday, I’ve already made up my mind that the next set I purchase will be 4K Ultra HD compatible. I get that there isn’t much content available right now and prices are astronomical but according to HS Kim, executive vice president of Samsung's visual display business, pricing will drop and consumer adoption will take off faster than anticipated.

4K Ultra HD televisions are expected to be the next big thing in home entertainment. Unlike the short-lived 3D fad, 4K televisions will deliver real value with four times the resolution of current HD sets that populate the majority of households in the US.

Samsung is leading the way as it has increased its 4K television lineup from just three models last year to 10 this year, ranging in size from 50 inches up to the 110-inch monster that was on display at the Consumer Electronics Show this week. Industry experts predict that just under half a million 4K sets will be sold this year versus just 60,000 during 2013.

Kim noted that people usually change their phones every two years because handset makers add new value but with televisions, that cycle currently sits at six years. 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.

Joe Stinziano, Samsung Electronics America's senior vice president, added that he was unsure when 4K sets will gain widespread adoption but when it starts to happen, it’ll be a rapid transition. Once manufacturers start to hit key price points, old technology will no longer have a purpose in the marketplace.




User Comments: 37

Got something to say? Post a comment
JC713 JC713 said:

I hope so. 1080P adoption was quite slow.

1 person liked this | Gopal Bhat Gopal Bhat said:

I will wait for 4K content to arrive before updating.

Now 4K monitor's are another scenario

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

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!

9Nails, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I hope that he's not planning to make today's TVs obsolete in 4 years. That's just too soon to refresh. Even if I get more value for the same dollar, I'll expect the product to last or be upgradable to extend their use.

1 person liked this | johnehoffman said:

I doubt that 4K will be the success that Samsung is predicting, any more than 3-D was. One problem is that present sets are so good that 4K will not make much difference on anything but the largest sets. The market for the largest sets will not be huge because large sets tend to be expensive and many people do not have room for them. Also, 4K broadcasting will not happen quickly unless there is a way of broadcasting in 4K that is compatible with existing sets. Incompatibility is the reason why adoption of HD was so slow--and there is much less to be gained in quality in switching from HD to 4K than there was in switching from standard definition analog to HD digital.

1 person liked this | Guest said:

Nope. My TV is almost 7 years old and I will use it as long as it will last. Most people don't get a new TV every 6 years. That's just silly to me trying to keep up with all the latest tech , especially as fast as it changes I also keep my phone longer than two years. TV's and phones cost too much money to toss aside just because something newer comes along.. I had rather keep the money in My pocket instead of putting it it in someone else's pocket.

CrisisDog said:

I barely notice the difference between 720p and 1080p from my couch. Why would I get a 4K television then?

A 32-inch 4K monitor may be another story, it would be only 2 feet away from my face.

1 person liked this | theBest11778 theBest11778 said:

I barely notice the difference between 720p and 1080p from my couch. Why would I get a 4K television then?

A 32-inch 4K monitor may be another story, it would be only 2 feet away from my face.

Exactly where I'm at with it. 4K only makes sense on MASSIVE TVs (65+" for a living room setup, however a monitor I'm 3' away from it will be huge.

1 person liked this | bob333 bob333 said:

I barely notice the difference between 720p and 1080p from my couch. Why would I get a 4K television then?

A 32-inch 4K monitor may be another story, it would be only 2 feet away from my face.

sad that u can't see the difference, bright movies/shows can show the difference between 720p/1080p easily.

bob333 bob333 said:

I barely notice the difference between 720p and 1080p from my couch. Why would I get a 4K television then?

A 32-inch 4K monitor may be another story, it would be only 2 feet away from my face.

Exactly where I'm at with it. 4K only makes sense on MASSIVE TVs (65+" for a living room setup, however a monitor I'm 3' away from it will be huge.

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

1 person liked this | hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

LOL@all the people above with no interest in 4K and assuming no one else will have interest either.

Even more LOL@their reasons.

And Even more LOL@the guy thinking one guy/company can make current TV's obsolete in 4 years.

Am I siding with Samsung on the explosion of 4K? Not at all, but some of the reasons I've read here on why it won't are just plain ridiculous.

Thanks for the laughs guys.

1 person liked this | m4a4 m4a4 said:

Unless they are going to give me one for free, I can't see me owning one anytime soon ;P

(Not that I really care)

1 person liked this | davislane1 davislane1 said:

A 47" screen at 4K would enable me to ditch desktop monitors all together. If the price is right in the future, I'll jump on that bandwagon with enthusiasm.

Arris Arris said:

I had my (and still have) fullHD TV for about 6 years before there were any terrestrial broadcasts available in fullHD. Won't be adopting 4k until the content is available.

1 person liked this | Railman said:

I did get to see a 4k TV just before Christmas showing UHD. The picture quality is very good but I also saw a HD Panasonic TV with excellent picture quality and I felt the difference was minimal. If I needed a new TV I would have gone for the 40" Panasonic especially as it had built in Satellite and Terrestrial receiver. 40" is a more sensible size than 50" in my living room and the cost far more reasonable.

gkovacs gkovacs said:

"Unlike the short-lived 3D fad, 4K televisions will deliver real value..."

I guess the real value is for the manufacturers, because at the common TV and living room sizes already no one is able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, let alone the much smaller one between 1080p and 4K.

4K - just like 3D - is a showroom fad. You go up to the screen, you marvel at the unstoppable advance of technology, and you convince yourself to buy into the next generation that you don't really need.

But at least with 3D, there was some effect (even if nauseating and overrated) that you could see with your own eyes. With 4K, the only discernible effect is on your credit card bill.

1 person liked this | Guest said:

Your not alone. I want my t.v to last a 10 year cycle as well. We had a floor model t.v growing up, it lasted 16 years. They don't make them like that anymore. Every thing is made cheap and will break within 3 to 5 years anyway, so Samsung will get what they want. I have had 3 lcd flat panel t.v, all Samsung and and out of the 3, one is still working. I got 3 years out of the other 2. After dropping over 500 per tv, I just don't want to do that every 5 years. They also have 8K tvs coming, so when you get a 4k, a few years later....oh now you need a 8k tv. Good for the companies, bad for your wallet. Just because it's the latest, doesn't make it the greatest. Miss that old floor model tv.........

1 person liked this | OliTheG OliTheG said:

What?

Considering that 1080p is still not the standard for TV, I don't think we will be seeing all channels 1080p, then current "HD" channels 4K for at least 10 more years.

How can we replace something that is still only about 5% phased in, that has taken 5 years to phase in already?

Railman said:

Your not alone. I want my t.v to last a 10 year cycle as well. We had a floor model t.v growing up, it lasted 16 years. They don't make them like that anymore. Every thing is made cheap and will break within 3 to 5 years anyway, so Samsung will get what they want. I have had 3 lcd flat panel t.v, all Samsung and and out of the 3, one is still working. I got 3 years out of the other 2. After dropping over 500 per tv, I just don't want to do that every 5 years. They also have 8K tvs coming, so when you get a 4k, a few years later....oh now you need a 8k tv. Good for the companies, bad for your wallet. Just because it's the latest, doesn't make it the greatest. Miss that old floor model tv.........
Quite a few consumer items are made from poor quality components. When I bought my TV I paid extra for quality. Five years on it is still working fine. About a year ago our washing machine finally broke down and we bought a new one with a 10 year guarantee. The previous one lasted 16 years. You can still get quality well made items provided you dont mind paying extra.

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

I barely notice the difference between 720p and 1080p from my couch. Why would I get a 4K television then?

A 32-inch 4K monitor may be another story, it would be only 2 feet away from my face.

sad that u can't see the difference, bright movies/shows can show the difference between 720p/1080p easily.

Being able to see the difference isn't enough for me to wanna rush out and waste money on a new TV. The only time I buy a new TV is when the one I'm using breaks down and costs more to repair than replace.

1 person liked this | cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

40" is a more sensible size than 50" in my living room and the cost far more reasonable.
I feel the same way. And in those sizes, I don't see a need for a 4K TV to be viewed from across the room.

Railman said:

40" is a more sensible size than 50" in my living room and the cost far more reasonable.
I feel the same way. And in those sizes, I don't see a need for a 4K TV to be viewed from across the room.
Even if I wanted a larger TV my wife would not allow it!

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Lol, Thats why some people have man caves.

Blue Falcon said:

"4K only makes sense on MASSIVE TVs (65+" for a living room setup, however a monitor I'm 3' away from it will be huge."

It's worse. You need a TV with a diagonal of at least 84" to start to seriously notice a difference between 1080p and 4K at normal living room viewing distances.

[link]

Where 4K makes the most sense are PC monitors, specifically 28-32 inch sizes. The problem is Windows at the moment has horrendous native PPI scaling. It'll make reading text very uncomfortable for most people. The second problem is in current titles, even 780Ti in SLI gets crushed at 4K. That entails a very expensive GPU sub-system to actually take advantage of 4K. I think it's still 4-5 years away even if 30 inch 4K PC monitors come out at $1000 soon, not many people will want to keep buying $600-700 GPUs in SLI to keep up with such a demanding resolution.

1 person liked this | cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

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 said:

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 tipstir, TS Ambassador, said:

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 cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

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

Guest said:

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 said:

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 avoidz said:

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 tipstir, TS Ambassador, said:

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 said:

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 said:

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 said:

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 Kevin82485 said:

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 said:

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.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.