Why aren't monitors getting bigger?

[TehMac]

Aside from a few technical showdowns where a massive 8k monitor/TV is unveiled every so often, why isn't a monitor larger than 30" being rolled out? I would have thought that by now monitors would be increasing past the 30" marker, if not by 5 inches, then at least by 1 or 2.

The 2011 AOC 21.5" LED monitor has a higher resolution (1080P) than my 2005 22" Dell (1680x1050) I mean what the hell?

Why aren't all the big wigs like Dell, Asus, NEC, and HP getting their act together and rolling these bad boys out?

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Most cant afford them?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

^That. Also, I would much rather have 2 (or 3) small monitors than one large one.

 

[Athadeus]

It is because nobody wants neck strain from sitting in front of a monitor so big they have to look around to see the corners. If you are sitting farther back and most likely using wireless devices, then you probably aren't doing productivity work or reading much text so a TV works fine.

As to why the DPI/resolution at the same size isn't increasing, I think that has been discussed more before, though I haven't read why so I won't remark.

 

[gevorg]

People don't want to go blind by staring at TV-size screen.

23/24" is the sweet spot for me. 27" is starting to get discomfortable but bearable. 30" is painful by mid work day.

 

[TehMac]

Most cant afford them?

I remember reading an Anandtech article that made some vague statement along the lines of "if the monitor industry was anything like the CPU industry, there'd be 40" monitors with ~4,000x2560 pixel resolution" which begs the question, why isn't it?

 

[WaTaGuMp]

I remember reading an Anandtech article that made some vague statement along the lines of "if the monitor industry was anything like the CPU industry, there'd be 40" monitors with ~4,000x2560 pixel resolution" which begs the question, why isn't it?

I still say cost is a huge factor. Not only the price of the screen but the video cards it would take to power resolution that high.

 

[Dark Shroud]

Because glass is expensive and until we get past 1080p as the the common res it won't make sense to make bigger monitors. Right now the companies would rather sell is more expensive TVs than monitors.

Personally I'd like to have a 27" 4k resolution OLED monitor. If I'm lucky I'll have it in ten years.

 

[alcoholbob]

Because desks aren't getting cheaper and real estate doesn't grow on trees (volcanoes only show up once a while).

 

[velis]

Must say I don't understand the question. Since the prevailing top res is 1080p, just buy a TV - as large as you want.
Or are you expecting from a large "monitor" something a large "TV" doesn't have?

 

[nitromullet]

Must say I don't understand the question. Since the prevailing top res is 1080p, just buy a TV - as large as you want.
Or are you expecting from a large "monitor" something a large "TV" doesn't have?

1920x1080 is only the prevailing top resolution for TVs, not PC monitors. The OP wants a display larger than 30" with a higher resolution than 2560x1600, which has been around for years.

 

[Madcatatlas]

Yes, i think he does and that its resolution.

I imagine that if you had double the space (resolution) of a current 30" monitor, you could simply enable a game on half the screen and use the rest as real estate for other purposes and wants.

Yes it would take some power, but we have power in abundance in current tech. Both gpu and cpu and multi setups of these could and easily do handle such res.

 

[velis]

I and others have talked about higher resolutions in multiple threads here, but that doesn't change the fact that 98% of the monitors sold today are 1080p or less.
Laptops went down from 1680 and higher resolutions to 720p.

That said, I'd love to have a 3840x2400 120Hz RGB LED IPS 24" monitor

 

[TehMac]

Because desks aren't getting cheaper and real estate doesn't grow on trees (volcanoes only show up once a while).

I wasn't aware volcanoes were involved in the creation process of monitors.


And really, 10 years til we see larger resolutions/monitor sizes? Do most people live in closets or something?

 

[crisium]

To many consumers bigger isn't better. 21.5" 1080 is sometimes considered a bit too tiny, but many are quite happy with 23" or 24" with 1920x1080. If you get too many pixels in a small screen you have to damn near squint to read text (like the above mentioned 3840x2400 at 24"). Or if it gets too big you have to sit 10 miles away and/or have a giant desk (anything greater than 30").

 

[pw38]

What I'd like to see is monitors getting wider. There's a small but growing market for 2.35:1 tvs out there; I'd like the monitor industry to follow.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Not enough people would buy them. 20-24" is big enough for most buyers, 30" or multiple displays is enough for most of the fraction left over.

Design and manufacturing costs are too high to make it profitable to cater to a tiny market for 40" desktop displays.

 

[notty22]

The most recent Steam survey's show there are slow changes happening. 1920x1080 is now the most popular desktop resolution. If you go back 18 months, 1680x led by a large margin.
IMO, most of the PC sellers note that nobody wants to spend more than 250-300 dollars for a PC monitor.
Products like the 27" Imac at Best Buy (for its monitor, first impression) has to intrigue some, and hopefully more monitors that size/resolution are made.

 

[OCGuy]

Because they have done the research and the market is too small for them to turn a profit.


There arent many people who want to game/read email above 30" I would imagine.

 

[Dark Shroud]

There aren't many people who want to game/read email above 30" I would imagine.

More like there aren't many people who will pay to game & read email on 30" screens. I would pay around $500 for one if it had a high resolution right now that's just not happening. It's going to take a few more years and probably a ramp up in Gorilla Glass production.

 

[Voo]

2 24" monitors are WAY better for productivity than 1 30" in my experience - so for businesses there's no real argument to get down that route (although we could decide which setup we wanted in the job and at least one guy went for the 30" one; so I'm sure there are people who prefer one larger monitor). And even then for the vast majority of businesses giving your workers large monitors isn't an especially important factor and doesn't increase productivity much (ah lucky me for being in the right line of business )

For most home users the price for a 30" monitor is prohibitive and not to forget: It's not just the price of the monitor, for gamers that also means a bigger GPU which also adds up.

 

[themodernlife]

i use a dell 24" ips and 46" panasonic 3d plasma when i need serious room. I think that's the real answer. Monitors over 30" are so cost prohibitive i don't think any vendor would ever really put many out. You can get like 60" HD sets these days for < 1000$. Dell 30" will set you back over 1k.

 

[SHAQ]

I'm waiting for the 40" 5120x3200 screen.

 

[SonicIce]

bring back 4:3

 

[TehMac]

I'm waiting for the 40" 5120x3200 screen.

you and me both brotha. Btw, grats on your retirement.