Advancing any technology is dependent on how people use it, or how they decide to use it, and with things like TV's it's all about CONTENT.
TV/monitor manufacturers are advancing their technologies and their TV's capabilities because they can.
And they are relying on the consumer to want the "newest", "latest", and "greatest" technology, but at the same time they rely on the majority of consumers who don't know that a 4K HD TV is not going to give them a better image over an equal quality 2K HD TV when both are being fed the same content.
Sorry, but those of you who argue the "upconverting" makes a "better" image are having the wrong discussion.
Needing to process a 2K source so that it fits on a 4K screen does not make the image "better", it simply makes the 2K image work on the 4K TV.
Interpolation is a process by which data is added to what is there, and that doesn't necessarily mean that the image is not "better".
There is no question that a 4K source played on a 4K monitor looks amazing, and depending on screen size and distance from the monitor the 4K image on the 4K monitor looks a bit better than a 2K source on a 2K monitor. I have a couple of 2K HD Panasonic Pro AG-HMC150 camcorders that have beautiful HD images and recordings. A year ago we purchased a Blackmagic Design URSA Mini 4K EF mount so that we could use the lenses that we have for our Canon 5D MKIII.
The Canon 5D's HD video is gorgeous. If you don't already know, a major factor of image quality is the lens, perhaps sometimes as much if not more so than the imaging chip.
The Pana 150's HD video is very nice as well and overall it's a much better shoot and run camera as it's a traditional style permanent mount zoom lens with great XLR audio in's.
The Blackmagic's image with the same Canon lenses is stunning as well, but it's a more complicated cinema shooting type camera, so it's part Canon 5K and part Panasonic camcorder.
The straight play image into a 4K monitor from the Blackmagic is gorgeous, rich, vibrant, deep and contrasty.
The Canon 5D's 2K HD image into a 2K monitor is also gorgeous, rich, vibrant, deep and great contrast. IOW, both images are very similar so much so that the difference between the 4K to the 2K using the same lenses is not a "WOW" type thing at all. Yes, the 4K looks a bit crisper, maybe a touch more color shade reproductive, but definitely nothing like the difference between an old digital SD studio camcorder to when we got the Panasonic HD 150's.
The difference between SD and HD is simply astounding, immediate, noticeable, and literally eye opening.
The difference between 2K HD and 4K HD is not that at all, not even close.
So, what's my point on the new 4K TV's fad or here to stay?
Well, obviously 4K, and eventually 8K, is here to stay because TV manufacturers want to sell you a new TV as often as possible.
If they can do that every year with clever marketing and techy sounding verbiage, then they will do their best to do so.
The last thing they want to do is sell you a TV that will keep you out of the market for the next 5 or 10 years.
I bought my first HD TV in 2003. It was a Sony LCD projection HD TV. It has 3 LCD, RGB, and a bright light shown through that setup that hit a mirror and projected a beautiful 60" image.
I LOVED that TV. I kept that TV until last year when I finally decided to get a new and MUCH thinner LCD TV. I replaced the bulb in that Sony once in the 12 years that enjoyed that TV.
It also had great sound as it had a body shell that was something like 15" or 18" deep so it had real speakers and a small sub in it. My new 65" Samsung LCD 2K HD speakers are ok, but don't come close to sounding as good as that old Sony. But then this new 65" Samsung is not even an inch thick.
I wasn't going to replace my Sony except that it started to develop a problem where it would shut off randomly for about 30 seconds. After it would do that once then it might not happen again for a few days, but other times it would do that every hour or two. So, it was time to replace.
I bought at a good time because it seems like last year was the last year the most manufacturers offered up their best 2K HD TV's at their lowest prices.
I paid around $1100, on sale at Costco, for my 2015 65" Samsung LCD, UN65J6300 65-Inch 1080p Smart LED TV.
In 2003 I paid $3100 for the 60" Sony!
I looked at the 4K models and their "up conversion" fakery and was not impressed in the least.
I don't have any 4K content so why do I need a 4K TV? I don't. Some say that there is 4K content on Netflix or other places, but the truth is that that content is 2K HD content that has been upconverted and then sent out, which just increases the amount of data with no resulting increase in quality.
The TV industry invested BILLIONS of dollars to go from the old NTSC SD to the current HD system, and those places are not interested in reinvesting in 4K transmission equipment along with all of the new 4K production equipment needed. Sure, 4K production equipment prices have come down, that's why we bought a Blackmagic 4K. However, shooting in 4K is rather pointless as it requires so much data that its silly for anything except for movie theaters or where the best and most defined image is needed.
As it is right now, and has been for quite some time, nearly every person who has watched HD TV since it started transmitting has never really seen how great actual 2k HD really is. Why? Because the vast majority have only seen HD TV/video from their cable companies coax system, or streamed online. Either way both of those methods are so COMPRESSED that you've never seen real 2K HD such that you think or know you need 4K, which actually requires even more compression to be able to transmit it over that data limited copper coax.
4k and up is here to stay but only because TV makers want to sell more TV's, and not because there is enough content to justify having a 4K TV. Also, 4K content isn't going to magically appear just because the TV's exist. 4K has 4 TIMES the data that 2K uses. Again, 4K has 4 TIMES the data of 2K. You thought your regular HD content quality was compromised with tremendous compression, because it is, well, any 4K content will require even MORE compression, and oh boy won't those color banding artifacts looks so much uglier in 4K than they do in 2K. The best quality can only be achieved and improved when the FULL content is actually shown. Having to compress 4K at an even greater level than with 2K isn't going to improve anything.
The greater and better improvement would be for ATT's Uverse and Verizon's FIOS to actually bring fiber from the head-end all the way into your house so that you can watch ALL of the FULL content and quality of HD. After that, then we will have the bandwidth to fully appreciate and deliver 4K content.