I think the 1080p craze is driven by consumer demand. For the average consumer (not a gamer, not a power user), the ultimate visual experience is an HD movie. There is no need for better quality than HD (1080p), because you won't find a source better than that, so the most sensible thing for a hardware provider is to deliver 1080p at the cheapest point possible. Or to improve on other areas than purely pixel count (colour accuracy, brightness, viewing angle...)

It's hard to keep in mind, but the majority of buyers, and therefore the majority of income, may not be like you.

Computer monitors are useful for much more than just full screen video. Even average users, working say a browser side by side with Word, would appreciate the extra real estate. Notice that Apple's monitors are now 2560x1440.

You're half right. But there's more to the story.

In the consumer's mind, there is no better quality than HD because it doesn't exist. Look at the way marketing speaks to the average consumer. In marketing, perception is reality.

You may know what 1080p means, but most consumers have no clue what the '1080' or the 'p' means, or how it relates to their viewing experience.

I think a lot of is placebo, too. I bet people convince themselves they're enjoying things more because they consciously know they're getting "higher quality". It would be interesting to do a double blind study to see how many consumers could tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.

At the distance from the screen which people generally watch TV, better resolution than HD makes no perceptible difference - it would be pointless and wasteful. At closer distances, such as those involved in using computers, higher resolutions are perceptible and so not irrelevant. Hence they exist for computers and not TVs. Sorry, no reference right now, may add one later

> I think the 1080p craze is driven by consumer demand.

That's bullshit.

> For the average consumer (not a gamer, not a power user), the ultimate visual experience is an HD movie.

You get the same ultimate experience with the previous 16/10 resolution for this size: 1920*1200. Oh look, even more pixels.

> so the most sensible thing for a hardware provider is to deliver 1080p at the cheapest point possible.

Right, it has nothing whatsoever to do with consumers, it's just hardware providers lowering their costs by using TV resolutions on computer screens.

> Or to improve on other areas than purely pixel count (colour accuracy, brightness, viewing angle...)

Which definitely is not happening.

I'm just glad the days of 0.36 dot pitch 15" is over. My first one was part of a "Packard Bell" system. Damn, I'm old.(1) It was so round and so blurry, it was like looking out the portal of a submarine.

(1) Take your 1080p and get the hell off my lawn.

How long did that thing last? I remember Packard Bells. They tended to be busted before even leaving the store.

I actually worked at one of those little mom and pop computer repair stores that sprung up everywhere in the early 90's. My computer was made of the detritus of Pack-Bell systems that came in not worthy of repair. Their dismal quality worked in my favor. An endless stream of zombie boxes to frankenstein into free stuff for me.

Generally desktop operating systems are not ready for high dpi displays. Mobile was able to move faster in this area, but I expect the next OS generation will facilitate decoupling content size from dpi, particularly for windows.

I'm not sure what you are referring to about monitors. Two of the main players in higher end monitors, Dell and Apple, make their large monitors in higher resolutions than 1080p, such as 2560 x 1440.

I have the Dell U2711 and I love it, but I would be hard-pressed to call either of these monitors costing around $1000 anything but luxury items. Most of the "standard" 21"-24" monitors in the $150-$300 price range are 1080p.