4K and 5G face one similar problem: performance advantages are not always able to enable better experience that clearly is perceivable by end users and customers. It is not a new problem.
Speeds and feeds, the measurement of machine tool performance, long has been used in the computing industry as well, touting technical features and performance of processors or networks.
Marketing based on speeds and feeds fell out of favor, however, in part because every supplier was using the same systems and chips, negating the value of such claims. Also, at some point, the rate of improvement slowed, and it also became harder to show how the better performance was reflected in actual experience.
We are likely to see something similar where it comes to the ability of apps, devices or networks to support very-high resolution video such as 4K. Likewise, much-faster mobile and fixed networks face the same problem: the technological advances do not lead to experience advantages.
4K video on small screens has been characterized as offering visual and experience differences somewhere between indistinguishable and non-existent. The reason is the visual acuity of the human eye. Beyond some point, at some distance from any screen, the eye cannot resolve the greater granularity of picture elements. In other words, you cannot see the difference.
Even for younger adults (20s and 30s) with better eyesight than older people, the difference between 2K resolution and 4K on a phone is imperceptible, if perceivable at all, one study found.
On huge screens, relatively close to where an observer is located, the greater resolution does make a difference. Conversely, on small screens or beyond a certain distance, the eye cannot distinguish between 4K and 1080 HDTV.
Also, battery life and processor overhead are reasons--aside from visual clarity--why 4K on a smartphone might arguably be worse than 1080p resolution. If 4K requires more energy, and right now it does, then battery consumption rate is a negative.
Granted, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that 5K will prove an advantage for virtual reality or augmented reality applications. Eyes are very close to screens on VR headsets. That likely will be true for 360-degree 360-degree VR.
But in most other cases, smartphones with 4K displays will not yield an advantage humans can see.
Something like that also will happen with 5G. People sometimes tout the advantage of 5G for video streaming. But streaming services such as Netflix require, by some estimates, only about 5 Mbps to 8 Mbps.
True, Netflix recommends speeds of 25 Mbps for 4K content, so in some cases, 5G might well provide a better experience than 4G. But Amazon Prime says 15 Mbps for 4K content is sufficient.
And if viewers really cannot tell the difference between 1080 resolution and 4K, then 8 Mbps is quite sufficient for viewing streamed content at high-definition quality. In fact, usage allowances are far more important than bandwidth, for most purposes.
Some internet service providers also point out that a connection running at 25 Mbps downstream, and 12.5 Mbps upstream, outperforms a connection offering 100 Mbps downstream and 10 Mbps upstream.
The larger point is that some technological innovations, including 4K video and 5G networks, might not have as much impact on user experience as one might suppose, although some future use cases might well be different.
No comments:
Post a Comment