The TV manufacturers are drawing a blank on upgrade impetus, their products have long refresh cycles (I've had my TV 4+ years, no other tech has lasted that long with me) aren't as exciting as mobile phones, tablets, laptops, etc so they aren't getting Joe Public's cash. 3D is a gimmick, lacks content and looks a bit oddly unreal to many people, not to mention the silly glasses. "Smart" TVs are mostly anything but with terrible interfaces - anyone who is serious can do far better by attaching a PC, laptop or tablet to their TV, it's a lot 'smarter'. They push 4K because they want to sell more TVs, but without mass 4K content it's as doomed as 3D to be a gimmick. Lets face it most of our broadcast TV is still not even in 720p never mind anything better and it will be like this probably at least another 1, maybe 2 refresh cycles for the average consumer's TV.
I set up a quad monitor config at work this week and it dawned on me that it was equivalent to a 43" 4K TV (4x 21.5" monitors, 2x2 grid), this is monitors that someone will sit about 3-5ft away from. I couldn't see much pixellation on those screens when I was setting up. I'd say 4K is only useful if you want to sit very close to a very large screen, say you want to be really immersed in your 3D film in your tiny living room. According to this (http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Article/Ho...ould-I-Sit.php) I could be buying a 65"+ TV in my living room where I'm about 10ft from the screen, but this assumes I'm watching 1080p content, what about broadcast TV which is most of my watching? Well we all know SD will look utterly pants on a 65" TV... looking at their chart on the bottom I would then be more looking towards a 37-42", maybe up to 50" if I watch mostly from the 720p Freeview HD channels... So would a 4K TV benefit me? Hell no, I'd never get a 65"+ screen (what I'd need to buy to need 4K over 1080p) past the Mrs and even then 95% of everything I watch would look utterly crap.