[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tv/ - Television & Film


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: hq720 (1).jpg (59 KB, 686x386)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
Netflix said 4k lossless streaming will be here by 2030, blu-ray will be obsolete in 5 years
>>
Sure it would buddy. A lossless audio track is like 5 gigs itself.
>>
>>214659668
>5 gigs itself
Pittance.
>>
>>214659567
It isn't a difference worth paying for, but I'm more than sure they'll pass that tax onto the consumer
>>
What? They could offer it right now, who the fuck doesn't have 100Mbit? They won't, of course. It's a waste of server space and bandwidth, unless they're going to make a premium version of the service that costs a lot more a month for a miniscule benefit 99% of people are incapable of viewing.
>>
>>214659567
Netflix can kiss my ass. Physical media 4 life.
>>
>>214659567
How would this make bluray obsolete? I own movies I buy you dolt.
>>
>>214659567
these are different markets altogether. i don't even see the point of comparing them. the movies people buy on disk are the ones they want to be able to re-watch without them being removed from the library.
>>
>>214659567
You think people buy blu-ray for the better quality?



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.