why are 4k monitors so much more expensive than 4k TVs?

[Greebo]

It goes like this......

Company selling a product at a wide profit margin, decides to cut profit margin with the aim of selling a higher number of the product. The higher volume at the a lower profit margin is greater than the lower volume at the higher profit margin. Resulting in a greater profit for the company.

Nope I just dont see it. TV sales are falling year on year by 7% and at their peak was 235m units in 2012 and are now well below 200m and still dropping.

PC monitors are around 130m per annum with another 154m of laptop screens per annum. Total number of Computer screens is 50% more than TVs yet TVs are sold for much less, have more features and "seem" much better quality control.

It makes no sense.

And perhaps if pathetic 32" pc monitors which arent even HDR werent £1300 and were perhaps £650 then they would sell a lot, lot more than the 130m a year they are selling now.

And it used to be the case that TV's sold much more the pC screen s many times over but PC screens were relative cheap compared to TVs back then. Explain that?

 

[peterpies]

Nope I just dont see it. TV sales are falling year on year by 7% and at their peak was 235m units in 2012 and are now well below 200m and still dropping.

PC monitors are around 130m per annum with another 154m of laptop screens per annum. Total number of Computer screens is 50% more than TVs yet TVs are sold for much less, have more features and "seem" much better quality control.

It makes no sense.

And perhaps if pathetic 32" pc monitors which arent even HDR werent £1300 and were perhaps £650 then they would sell a lot, lot more than the 130m a year they are selling now.

And it used to be the case that TV's sold much more the pC screen s many times over but PC screens were relative cheap compared to TVs back then. Explain that?

I'm saying that the higher the price gouging the higher the chance of a company cutting their price and going for market share to boost profits. Size of the market does not matter.

 

[peterpies]

Just to be clear. I believe gouging is happening, but just not on the scale others think.

A capitalist market is extremely efficient at delivery goods at a price consumers want, 'if' it can. If gouging was high, someone would step into the void to delivery goods at a lower price.

IMHO of course. Feel free to believe what ever.

 

[Undesirable]

Why are we talking about it if there's no price gouging going on? Let's face it, there's more and more posts about the excessive price of monitors and how much more you get from a TV on these forums than there are actual posts about monitor functionality. The PC monitor market has stalled and they're keeping prices high because we're basically forced to buy them if we want something reasonably sized to fit on our desks. GSync tax is absolutely abhorrent.

 

[4K8KW10]

The PC monitor market has stalled and they're keeping prices high because we're basically forced to buy them if we want something reasonably sized to fit on our desks.

For goodness sake, don't buy the crappy monitors, brothers!

 

[Greebo]

I must admit I have just bought three HP 32" 75hz freesync qhd monitors at work for £299 each and I am impressed by them. Quality seems top notch.

That's how it's meant to be. I would then expect to pay a few hundred more max for 4K and hdr etc and get the same high quality.

 

[jigger]

Because the PC master race like it that way. Expensive monitors that failed quality control FTW.

 

[ajf]

How do you get a 4k TV to connect at 60hz to a pc or laptop?
I’ve been trying with an XP13 which is capable of driving that but the best I can get is 30hz at the max 4096x* resolution.
I am using a USB-C to HDMI adaptor.
It seems from reading that all these only support 30hz.
The only 60hz adaptors I can find for USB-C/Thunderbolt3 are DisplayPort.

 

[FloatingPoint]

Most 4K TV’s and monitors are not even actually 4K (3840 x 2160), DCI 4K is needed for 4K production (4096 x 2160). Benq Eizo and a few others make real 4K displays.

http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/coloredge/cg318-4k/index.html

 

[Greebo]

I miss 16:10 format monitors

 

[FloatingPoint]

I miss 16:10 format monitors

8:5 the golden mean

 

[Vince]

One thing you must take into consideration is that all 4k screens, whether 24" or 65" are 3840x2160

it is my understanding that it is more difficult, and therefore more expensive the higher the pixel density gets - i.e, easier to fit 8.3m pixels in a 65" space than it is to fit it into 24" or 27" space.

the smaller the screen gets the higher the pixel density as you know - this is why a 24" 4k is strangely more expensive than you would expect, but due to the higer pixel density compared to a 27" the image quality looks better side by side (albeit only slightly, but I have seen this in practice)

Although I see your logic this can't be entirely true otherwise the 15" 4k ips panel in my laptop would be really expensive to replace but the replacement panel is only like £120.

 

[Greebo]

Although I see your logic this can't be entirely true otherwise the 15" 4k ips panel in my laptop would be really expensive to replace but the replacement panel is only like £120.

Ssssssshhhhh you can;t go around saying that as it blow holes in monitor's manufacturers justification for charging over £1000 for 32" screens and smaller...........

 

[4K8KW10]

Mhm, how about the cost of those 3840x2160 5.5" panels with PPI over 800?

 

[Greebo]

What I dont understand is what has changed?

It used to be that a 17" HD was much, much more expensive than a 15" with the same res even though the ppi was less as it was harder to make a perfect 17" screen. Now manufacturers are saying its cheaper to make a 55" HDR UltraHD screen than a 32" one because of the ppi. I just don;t get it.

As you get smaller, the theory went that the price got cheaper as you could make a small 5" phone screen which less chance of a fault compared with a 55" screen. That makes sense to me.

And the fact there are very,very good HDR 40" TVs for £500 (lesser ones are even less) just reinforces the fact we are getting shafted.

 

[4K8KW10]

What I dont understand is what has changed?

It used to be that a 17" HD was much, much more expensive than a 15" with the same res even though the ppi was less as it was harder to make a perfect 17" screen. Now manufacturers are saying its cheaper to make a 55" HDR UltraHD screen than a 32" one because of the ppi. I just don;t get it.

As you get smaller, the theory went that the price got cheaper as you could make a small 5" phone screen which less chance of a fault compared with a 55" screen. That makes sense to me.

And the fact there are very,very good HDR 40" TVs for £500 (lesser ones are even less) just reinforces the fact we are getting shafted.

The PPI of a 32" 3840x2160 panel is anything so sophisticated, only 138. The manufacturers are not being honest. For whatever reasons. Might be that they want to destroy their customers' vision before getting to anything more advanced like 8K and 4K?

 

[Hedge]

The return rate from people who want an unrealistically perfect panel also probably keeps prices high.

Understandably we want the best for our money but when I read of some people on their 3rd return I can't help think they have been overly critical.

Backlight bleed is very obvious on a camera but less so to the eye. I think people buy a screen, get the camera out, and send it back lol.

 

[4K8KW10]

The return rate from people who want an unrealistically perfect panel also probably keeps prices high.

Understandably we want the best for our money but when I read of some people on their 3rd return I can't help think they have been overly critical.

Backlight bleed is very obvious on a camera but less so to the eye. I think people buy a screen, get the camera out, and send it back lol.

What is done with the returned ones? In the worst case perhaps refurbished if there is a need to. Perhaps, most of the times, the monitors are just being resold... again.
I see no problem with that, specifically.

 

[Greebo]

The return rate from people who want an unrealistically perfect panel also probably keeps prices high.

Understandably we want the best for our money but when I read of some people on their 3rd return I can't help think they have been overly critical.

Backlight bleed is very obvious on a camera but less so to the eye. I think people buy a screen, get the camera out, and send it back lol.

Nope don't buy that. The only reason the return rate is perhaps higher nowadays is that you are paying over £1000 for a screen so you expect a perfect one. That never seemed to be an issue in the old days as they never came with the faults new screens do. So perhaps it's a vicious cycle. Manufacturers put the price up by 20% to cover the 20% returned and more people return them as when you are paying a premium price you expect s pretty much perfect screen?

I know what you are saying about backlight and cameras and I am sure they are some people who return screens on this basis but all the ones I have returned due to backlight were shocking and didn't need a camera.

Perhaps if I took a camera shot of my current screen it wouldn't be perfect but I never have and I can't see any in day to day use. It's always esp noticeable when watching cinema format filmed with black bars top and bottom. If you can't see it then or it doesn't bother you, no point returning the screen

 

[Greebo]

What is done with the returned ones? In the worst case perhaps refurbished if there is a need to. Perhaps, most of the times, the monitors are just being resold... again.
I see no problem with that, specifically.

Sadly depending on the manufacturer, some won't accept them back and it's the shops loss. Sure somebody from ocuk said once there is a skip full of smashed up high end monitors costing hunderds of pounds each