Showing posts with label HD TV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HD TV. Show all posts

August 30, 2018

With 4K displays having failed (so far) to displace 1080p, Samsung has now revealed their 8K displays

I love c|net's headline for this story: "Hello, 8K displays: TV's next must-have feature isn't really a must-have."

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.

January 08, 2017

This is what the end of Moore's Law looks like, part 2

When this year's devices just aren't that much more powerful than last year's devices, or the year's before that, or the year's before that... well, there's just less incentive to replace them, isn't there? That's what we're now seeing in sales figures of devices across the board, and according to some analysts, it's not likely to change much, anytime soon.

From Computerworld:
According to Gartner, which provided Computerworld with its latest device shipment forecast broken out by operating system, in 2016 Windows powered about 260 million devices of the 2.3 billion shipped during the year. Windows accounted for approximately 11.2% of the total devices, which overwhelmingly ran Google's Android.
Meanwhile, iOS and macOS -- the latter was formerly dubbed OS X -- sank to 248 million devices in 2016, a 10% drop from the year prior. The cause: Slackened sales of the iPhone, Apple's dominant device and biggest money maker.
[...]
Gartner's forecast was another gloomy report on almost every device category, with shipments flat this year compared to last and growth not projected until 2018.
"The global devices market is stagnating," said Gartner analyst Ranjit Atwal in a statement Wednesday. Mobile phone shipments are growing only in emerging markets in the Asia and Pacific markets, Atwal added, and noted that, "The PC market is just reaching the bottom of its decline."
The PC industry's troubles have affected Microsoft most of all; Windows is almost entirely dependent on PC shipments, which have been stuck in a protracted slump. Future shipments were further hit when Microsoft walked away from the smartphone business last year.
[...]
PCs will not disappear -- something some pundits fretted about as the sales and shipment downturn extended past earlier records -- but the business has been hard hit: In 2012, for instance, more than 350 million PC-like devices shipped globally.
Gartner is still betting that a PC replacement cycle will boost shipments, even if only slightly. But this week's forecast -- unlike the one in October -- predicted a delayed growth. In October, Gartner had said the PC business would claw its way back into the black in 2017; this month's prognosis is that growth won't occur until 2018.
Now, predictions like this should always be taken with a few grains of salt, and the fact that this prediction amounts to, "not this year, but maybe next year," along with predicting that iOS + MacOS sales numbers will recover and surpass Windows' (but without going into details as to why that should happen, now that consumers have apparently soured on Apple's product line) are both problems. Gartner's also pegged the Enterprise shift to Windows 10, and thus new devices, to 2018... again, without explaining why the trend should start then, and not closer to 2020, when cost-conscious companies can continue to operate just fine for another couple of years using the hardware and software that they've already paid for.

The shift of market share from traditional leaders like Apple and Microsoft to Google and Android is somewhat interesting. The fact that Apple is aggressively dumping features that people use all the time (like standard USB ports and headphone jacks) from their devices is probably not helping the Cupertino crowd, and Microsoft's attempt to push their customers into the cloud may actually be helping Android. Google, after all, has lived in the cloud for a long time, and unlike Microsoft can continue to provide those cloud-based computing services for free (supported by ads, natch, but then Google's always been ad-supported).

Overall, though, we appear to be seeing a continuation of trends that have been evident in device sales numbers for a while now. Apart from PC gamers, early adopters, and other enthusiasts, it seems that everyone is pretty happy with the performance of the devices they already own, only replacing those devices as they wear out... and mostly replacing them with cheaper Android devices, rather than more expensive iOS/MacOS or Windows products. None of the new hardware's "features" are things people really want or need, nor are they particularly impressive as technological achievements in and of themselves. Moore's Law alone simply can't drive the high-tech hardware industry anymore.

Which leaves us with the real question: Now that Moore's Law isn't the driving force behind the hardware business, what happens to the the computer makers and consumer electronics companies who have, for decades, been relying on that rapid pace of development to drive sales? Everything we're seeing, from 3D and 4K TVs, to VR and the Internet of Things, fairly screams of the creeping desperation that these companies must be starting to feel as ongoing decline turns into an inevitable plateau.

3D TVs did not become a thing, and while 4K TVs might be out-selling older-model HD TVs lately, they're still not selling nearly as well as HD TVs used to; absent another legislative push from the U.S. Congress, it doesn't look like market forces alone will make 4K into the new standard for TV broadcasts, either. VR still lacks a value proposition which would make it appealing to consumers, as does the Internet of Things -- it's easy to see how companies flogging the hardware would benefit from its widespread adoption, but there's very little advantage on display for the average consumer. And, if this year's tepid coverage of CES's offerings is any kind of guide, it would seem that hype alone isn't enough anymore to sell consumers expensive new tech hardware that they don't actually need, and which isn't actually outperforming the hardware that they already own.

December 17, 2016

Native 4K gaming is not actually a thing

It turns out that Sony and Microsoft have been lying to us. Surprise!

From Pretty Good Gaming:

The Country Caller also has coverage of this story:
4K and HDR are the two buzzwords that have been circulating in the tech world and now, in the gaming world as well. The launch of Xbox One and PlayStation 4 Pro brought those two technologies in to the console space.
Showing the difference introduced by the two standards can be difficult, and Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) acknowledges as such. In a recent podcast with Major Nelson (via SegmentNext), Xbox’s Albert Penello talked about the two standards and how it is challenging to market them simply because showcasing them requires the right display technologies.
[...]
4K presents four times as many pixels as 1080p, but to actually perceive a clear difference, one must own a 4K display first to see all those pixels sharpen up the image as we go from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. High-Dynamic Range (or HDR) is probably even more difficult to showcase, just because the displays until now have been SDR in comparison. HDR improves the range of colors that the TV can produce. For example, if you get 10 shades of gray with a standard TV, you get 50 shades of gray (no pun intended) with an HDR display. You simply get colors that are true to life. The luminosity of the screen can allow dark scenes to show more depth and hidden details, and bright scenes can be brighter.
This is the underlying problem; you cannot show the difference when the tech required to demo isn’t available at the consumer’s end. “You have to fudge things a little bit to show the differences,” said Albert Penello. TV manufacturers have been marketing 4K HDR TVs by ramping up colors and making scenes more pop in comparison shots.
So, basically, they're using bullshots to sell 4K gaming. And why not? They've been using bullshots for years to sell all of their games, so why not their game systems?

4K gaming is not going to be a thing. I mean, it's not actually even available, except on PC, and since PC gamers don't seem to be in any rush to buy $1400 monitors, that means that 4K isn't going to become a widespread phenomenon the way HD did. That's because HD adoption was driven by legislative fiat in the U.S., when every broadcaster in the land was required by law to switch from analog broadcasts to HD broadcasts.

Makers of HD televisions reaped an enormous windfall in when everybody replaced their old, analog TV with an HD TV, but that wasn't a natural result of market forces; everybody in NA did not just wake up and want HD television sets. Everybody in NA, faced with the need for an HD TV if they wanted to keep watching television, bit the bullet and bought one, mostly with borrowed money.

4K does not have an equivalent legislative force pushing it, which means that consumers, almost all of whom have recently bought HD televisions, have no need for 4K, especially since there's almost no native 4K content to display on them. HD TVs are good enough for now, which means that only early adopters, the very wealthy, and those whose HD TVs are needing replacement, are in the market for 4K at all

That's not a recipe for mainstream adoption, and without mainstream adoption, you've got a chicken-and-egg situation again: a small 4K customer base means that it doesn't make sense to make 4K content for them, especially given all the added costs involved; and a lack of 4K content means that there's no real desire on the part of consumers to buy expensive 4K displays.

This is a problem for consumer electronics companies, who need for revenues to go up year after year, and who can't sell huge volumes of HD equipment anymore because everybody has it already. Their solution to this problem is, apparently, lies. I wish I could say that I was surprised, but I'm not surprised.

You don't need a 4K display for gaming. You don't need to buy a new console to drive the 4K gaming experience, especially since those consoles aren't rendering in native 4K anyway. Nobody needs any of this shit, in exactly the same way that we didn't need 3D displays a couple of years back, and don't need VR displays now.

The result, in all three cases? A passionate but very niche market for specialized content which requires the specialized hardware, followed by declining interest, and eventual irrelevancy. It's already happened to 3D displays, of course; it's happening to VR right now, and I predict that it will happen to 4K, too.