It does feel a bit... short term.

We all know 4K is next, we know that clearly there'll be something afterwards, it would be good if the next hardware we buy planned for that.

Thunderbolt, BTW, has similar limits: http://superuser.com/questions/441395/what-is-the-maximum-re...

If his math is correct then 8k, which is 4x the pixels of 4k, would need 4x that bandwidth, and even Intel's Thunderbolt 2.0 is "barely" at 20 gibabit/s, which means we can't go much further yet. It will be a while until we reach 80 gigabit/s.

8k is also an OUTRAGEOUS amount of pixels to throw around. Unless you're eyeball to eyeball with a 40" display, your eye can't distinguish between 4k and 8k.

I like how they tell you to watch the 8k demo video in 1080p "to get the full effect".

I am glad it does not have 8K support. That would be over-engineering.

"Yeah, this hardware will cost more, but it has to support a bandwidth level that won't be in use anywhere in the world in the next two years."

Seems totally reasonable to have a version in step with the emerging generation, rather than future experiments.

> Seems totally reasonable to have a version in step with the emerging generation, rather than future experiments.

The current MBP retina display, if used on a 27 inch monitor, is more than 4K.

Conveniently, however, it's less than 8K - as is a 32 inch retina monitor.

I'm not sure I understand the need for 8k. If you want to watch your TV at an optimal viewing angle of 20%~40% then 4k is more than enough to achieve "retina display" at the required viewing distance.