Shared publicly  - 
 
+Jason Perlow & I have at it in a debate over the future of 4K. 
The future of TV is 4K. Steven Vaughan-Nichols I have seen the future of TV and it's 4K. Don't get me wrong I love my 1080p HDTV, but 4K's 3840×2160 pixels, aka Quad Full High Definition (QFHD), blows...
3
1
Benji Stinson's profile photoSteven Vaughan-Nichols's profile photoTRENT PALMER's profile photoJason Perlow's profile photo
8 comments
 
It took Perlow a decade of trying, but he finally wins on this one, +Steven Vaughan-Nichols. I need HD and widescreen for sports broadcasts and movies, but I don't have the house nor the cash to put any more into TV tech.
 
Is it better and less expensive than what I have now? Worth it = yes else no.
 
Sorry to say, I voted pipedream, at least for the US Market. 

The largest hurdle is the file size of a 4k video file. Even using H.265 encoding will result in a 50gb~70gb file.  That's no problem for Internet Download in countries where ISP's actually compete with each other. Counties like South Korea or Japan have reasonable transfer speeds for reasonable prices.

The total bandwidth is a fricking HUGE problem  in the US and other First World Countries  such as the UK, France, and Germany where ISP's routinely spend money everywhere but on their actual networking infrastructure. This is not even accounting for the well documented practices of ISP's over promoting their bandwidth capacity, or for the stunning lack of quote/unquote broadband expansion.  

So, 4k resolution video content over the Internet? For most people, not happening.

* * *

Physical distribution? Well...

Even if we assume that Project Durango  from Microsoft, and Project Orbis  from +Sony are targeted at driving 4k resolution content, keep in mind that the PS3 and Xbox 360 have been on the market for over 6 years now. A large number of the users that send information back along their networks are still using 480i televisions. 

This is where we get to the price  issue. 4K / UDH devices are fricking expensive.  Far out of the price range of most consumers. 

* * *

In the long term then, 4k / UHD content has no real method of consumer adoption, at least within the US and some other international markets. Sony might be pinning their hopes on Orbis driving 4k content sales, but that will only happen if reasonably priced sets get released.

* * *

The game changer for 4k / UHD content, at least in the US, could be +Google Fiber and +Dish Network (assuming that is a legit Dish page). The possibilities that a Google and Dish network infrastructure offer is scaring the crap out of AT&T, Cox, Comcast, Wide Open West, Level 3, and Time Warner beancounters. Reasonable internet speeds for reasonable prices?!?! No, Google and Dish cannot actually give customers value for money!

We know that Google has been buying up quote/unquote Dark Fiber  for years.

We know that Dish and Google are working together on... something.

If their plans work out, the infamous cabal of US ISP's that spend billions on securing exclusive phone contracts and lying to the FTC and FCC... could be forced to... you know... actually upgrade their networks and give consumers reasonable internet speeds for reasonable prices.

The upshot?

Reasonable bandwidth for Reasonable prices will only help 4k / UHD adoption. 70gig download in 20 minutes? Sure, why not. 
 
4K may become the future of home video (it's definitely the future of 3D), it'll probably be the future for computers and game consoles, but not for broadcast.
 
I think that 4K displays are definitely on the way.  I just don't think that TV will exist by the time we get there.  Unless you count YouTube, NetFlix, et al., as TV.
 
it will happen eventually, let's have an oled revolution first please
 
Here's hoping that 4k becomes very affordable in 2 years, the economy of Kansas City takes off like a rocket prompting the rest of the country to get off the snide and roll out Google Fibre en mass.

And the cable tv industry never catches up in time and just goes belly up and evaporates.
Add a comment...