Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourstaff
Its all about economies of scale, given that TVs uses 1080p too its becomes quite hard to beat the cost effectiveness of 1080p.
|
Yeah, but that can change easily. Incredibly easy for LG and Samsung, for example. Shift some 1080p production to more 1440p production, done. No, there's more to it.
Quote:
|
Its all about the QC, support and profits.
|
Profits*. That's it. The problem is not making 1440p available to the masses (and being equally profitable or more in this segment). The problem is that for the time being if they do so, they loose the "premium" market. There's really nothing (currently marketable) above 1440p, they have nothing yet, so releasing afordable (not $300, but $400-500) 1440p monitors right know it means that not only they'd loose that enthusiast bracket, they put their semi-professional ($1000-1500) and professional ($2000-5000) markets at risk too, and THAT would hurt the most. In the consumer market they can find a balance between ASP and volume, that's what they do with 1080p panels every time the price is lower and lower, they do. And they could do it with 1440p too. The problem is the limited enthusiast and professional markets. Any shift from that pro market to good consumer level monitors and their profits would suffer.
But again, you'd think that in a free market at least one of the competitors with a small market share (and maybe a small presence in the pro market) would try to increase it by releasing a cheap quality monitor.
*QC and support is largely similar than with inferior panels, (if you believe in Santa and fairies) it explains the difference between big name brands and no-name brands, but doesbn't explain 1080 vs 1440. 1080p is cheap and gets cheaper, 1440p never seems to, that's what we complain about.