The article that accompanies that bit of pith is almost as pithy:
That's because those supposedly hot TV features eventually faded away.
The latest TV "must have" that you actually don't really need -- at least right now -- has arrived at the IFA electronics show in Berlin. That's 8K, the super-crisp display technology that has four times the resolution of 4K screens. (I know, the math confuses me too.)
[...]
It's the latest "next big feature" from an industry that has hyped advancements with dubious value. It may be a long time -- if ever -- before you'll even consider one. Experts say you'll have to sit really close to the screen, even with huge 85-inch TVs like the Samsung, to notice a difference in the sharpness, and there isn't even content you can watch on it. Also, you can bet these initial TVs won't be cheap. As CNET TV expert David Katzmaier noted in his initial thoughts about Samsung's new TV, "all those pixels might be so much overkill."[One might say exactly the same thing about 4K, too, but I digress.]
But people tend to hold on to their TVs much longer than their phones. The push to get 8K into the market -- when 4K is just starting to become a thing -- underscores the industry's desire to give consumers a reason to upgrade and pay more for a premium product.I'm going to disagree with c|net on one point: 4K hasn't started to become a thing, yet, either. You don't need 4K, for which there's basically no content available, and you definitely don't need 8K, for which there's nothing.
Of course, industry and market analysts are still living in a fantasy world in which good enough isn't good enough, and people with more debt than ever, but no additional disposable income, are somehow expected to be upgrading everything they own at a relentless pace, because reasons. This is why people like NPD analyst Stephen Baker will talk about "the continuation of the upgrade cycle" with a straight face, predicting 40% (or more!) growth this year even though the global consumer electronics market is expected to grow by less than 1% over the same period.
Look, if you're in the market for a new TV, and have the money to buy 4K instead of 1080p, then go for it. The oldest 1080p sets are probably about 10 years old by now, and some of those will be needing replacement. But be honest with yourself about your viewing habits and needs, and your means. Do not take on added debt you can't afford to buy a 4K UHD TV that you don't actually need.
And, really, nobody needs a 4K TV. Don't be fooled by the fact that your local cable company now charges extra for 4K service; with no 4K content, what you'll be getting is 1080p content that will be upscaled at your end. Basically, you'll end up paying more money for the same service you had before.
All of which assumed you're still living in the content consumption dark ages. Have you already cut the cable cord? Are you streaming almost all your video content from the internet? Do you actually need or use a TV at all, anymore? If so, then you're not going to watching much of anything at 4K resolution.
And if you are streaming most or all of your content, the fact that 4K requires 4x as much bandwidth also work against it. Does your "unlimited" internet service actually come with data caps, overage charges, and/or throttling? If so, then you're not going to watching much of anything at 4K resolution.