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

By Shawn Knight · 40 replies
Jan 11, 2014
Post New Reply
  1. 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...

    Read more
  2. Jad Chaar

    Jad Chaar Elite Techno Geek Posts: 6,515   +974

    I hope so. 1080P adoption was quite slow.
  3. I will wait for 4K content to arrive before updating.

    Now 4K monitor's are another scenario ;)
    SantistaUSA likes this.
  4. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,715   +3,696

    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!
    xykz likes this.
  5. 9Nails

    9Nails TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,215   +177

    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.
  6. johnehoffman

    johnehoffman TS Enthusiast Posts: 27   +35

    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.
    avoidz likes this.
  7. 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.
    avoidz likes this.
  8. CrisisDog

    CrisisDog TS Booster Posts: 139   +33

    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.
  9. theBest11778

    theBest11778 TS Addict Posts: 296   +125

    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.
    avoidz likes this.
  10. bob333

    bob333 TS Enthusiast Posts: 56   +15

    sad that u can't see the difference, bright movies/shows can show the difference between 720p/1080p easily.
    hahahanoobs likes this.
  11. bob333

    bob333 TS Enthusiast Posts: 56   +15

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

    hahahanoobs TS Evangelist Posts: 2,040   +678

    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.
    SantistaUSA likes this.
  13. m4a4

    m4a4 TS Evangelist Posts: 953   +515

    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)
    SantistaUSA likes this.
  14. davislane1

    davislane1 TS Grand Inquisitor Posts: 4,736   +3,757

    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.
    cliffordcooley likes this.
  15. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,730   +379

    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.
  16. Railman

    Railman TS Booster Posts: 708   +101

    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.
    cliffordcooley likes this.
  17. gkovacs

    gkovacs TS Rookie

    "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.
  18. 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.........
    avoidz likes this.
  19. OliTheG

    OliTheG TS Member Posts: 61   +27


    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?
    avoidz likes this.
  20. Railman

    Railman TS Booster Posts: 708   +101

    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.
  21. Skidmarksdeluxe

    Skidmarksdeluxe TS Evangelist Posts: 8,647   +3,274

    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.
  22. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,715   +3,696

    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.
    avoidz likes this.
  23. Railman

    Railman TS Booster Posts: 708   +101

    Even if I wanted a larger TV my wife would not allow it!
  24. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,715   +3,696

    Lol, Thats why some people have man caves. :)
  25. Blue Falcon

    Blue Falcon TS Addict Posts: 161   +51

    "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.

    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.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...