I assume that you mean that we as consumers may not be ready to pay for the higher cost, but speaking in terms of feature set: I am speaking for myself, bring it on, I would like to see even more submerssive video for movies and gamming. Refresh rate and resolution will forever persue our desired to replace reality.
Yes, is this technology related to the new USB3.0 or Thunderbolt standards as to how the resolution is delivered to a laptop (can it be done)? Also, current video streaming on the internet is usually not very clear so it would be awesome to see 3D and more HD content in the mainstream there.
I think that the numbers are very impressive, I wonder if instead of going big (Quad Full HD video resolutions of up to 4,096 x 2,160 pixels) could this be as effective on current resolution level video (1080, 60fps)? While I really enjoy my 1080 HD TV much more than the old analog monster I replaced, most cable content is not at the higher resolutions yet anyway so it does not make much difference on the whole.
With our lifestyle so much dependant on video whether live or recorded, I guess more compression and better video quality would be welcome. We already see issues of bandwidth restrictions in today's video on demand. But the key is do we need new decoders also?
This looks very interesting. I'm not sure if the consumer is really ready for that level of resolution in the living room, but it should also mean less bandwidth required to stream wireless HD around the home which would be a great improvement.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.