I don't have any problem with 4K. It looks fantastic. And after I upgrade a camcorder or two to 4K, after the industry speaks on the delivery formats, etc. I will probably buy a 4K television. I upgraded from a 71" DLP to a 70" LCD/LED last Spring, with "passive" stereoscopic display (aka "3D"). It's a great TV... and this kind of illustrates why 4K might not win. After all, I'm one of the few customers who understands this (as are many here, I'm sure) and knows it's something I want and can use. Though I'd probably want 80-85" in my current media room. That'll fit just dandy, but the only 4K model I saw at 85" ran about $25,000.
As in many things, "good enough" is the enemy of excellent. It's been pretty well established that most consumers don't give a damn about better-then-CD quality audio. Both DVD-Audio and SACD failed to deliver anything but niche products and media. No, the format war didn't help. Blu-ray Audio could eventually do better, but mostly by not being anything fundamentally different than regular Blu-ray.. both earlier formats required new players to really deliver the promised improvements. And the simple fact was that most consumers didn't have good enough audio systems for CD. Meanwhile, the lower-than-CD-quality MP3 player took off like nothing else before.
Here's the problem with the TV industry... television had one major change from its introduction until HDTV... it went to color. That didn't force anyone to upgrade, though eventually folks did; tube TVs didn't last forever. And sure, there were tweaks to the technology, but regular consumers didn't know they now had active comb filters or whatever... SDTV was still just SDTV.
Then HDTV came along. Many didn't buy a first generation HDTV, but I did. A big, expensive, 3-CRT back projection model, $4K+ and 600lbs, analog inputs only. Of course, HDTV came along at the same time everyone realized the CRT was leaving us but not settled on the successor. Most of the early-adopter types upgraded from their analog HDTVs to all-digital HDTVs at more or less the same time the general population was upgrading. That's when I got my 71" DLP... it was the winner in a price-performance shootout with a Pioneer Plasma and a Sony LCOS display... your main choices for large screens in 2005-2006. So this second round did great things for the TV makers... rather than get upgrades as the old devices failed, they had people upgrading after 5-7 years. Pretty sweet.
So naturally, they sought to keep that momentum going. What could do that? Stereo! Or as they dubbed it, 3D. Blame "Avatar", maybe, but they model from Samsung one year after my DLP came with a 3D sync output, the idea being support of 3D games, much as folks like nVidia were already playing around with on PCs. Why? That output cost them all of $0.50 to implement (eg, routing a known signal to the outside world, and that price is assuming a buffer). Mature 3DTV was nearly as cheap. The active systems added virtually no cost to the display, some LED or Bluetooth circuit for frame sync, rather than the RCA jack, but not substantial, under $2.00. The glasses were certainly more, but they're getting $100 retail for replacements, and at one point got substantially more for the television. The passive system needs an accurately registered alternate-line circular polarizer, but that's just replacing the usual LCD polarizer, so maybe a little more expensive, but not even an extra part. And the glasses are much the same as the "throw away" RealD glasses you get at the movies... essentially, they're sunglasses. These all commanded a higher profit margin in a very competitive industry (Samsung's sales in CE is about half of their sales in Mobile; the profits in CE are tiny compared to Mobile, and Samsung's the world's largest TV maker). For awhile.. today, the price is settled where CE prices always settle... cheap. 3D is just another expected feature on higher-end TVs, just as Blu-ray has become an expected feature of any DVD player over $50.
So now everyone who might even consider 4K has a fairly newish HDTV they're fairly happy with. There is a Blu-ray committee working on a possible Profile for 4K on Blu-ray, but no news yet. There's HDMI 2.0, what you need for non-insane 4K connections (the current 4K televisions use 2 to 4 individual HDMI connections for 4K input). There's HEVC and BD-XL, in place, depending on which place they'd like to put 4K... or the proprietary eyeIO CODEC, which is claimed to be pretty good for 4K at today's Blu-ray rates, if HEVC can't cut it. So, all the piece in place... for a real introduction, maybe, in 4-6 years. There's an ATSC 3.0 committee planning to consider 4K broadcast... for rollout next decade. Some streaming outlets Netflix claim they'll do 4K, but Netflix is claiming 15Mb/s, and even a sustained 15Mb/s will require many if not most broadband users to upgrade to a faster system without monthly data caps.
4K itself may not be doomed, but this jump to 4K today is more premature than the jump to analog HDTV was in the late 1990s. Maybe it merges with the mainstream enough to ensure every higher-end TV is a 4K TV at some point... PC users could push this, given that TV and computer panels are essentially the same thing. But it might also just flop. There's only so much consumer tolerance for such compressed upgrade cycles... even this time, I'm sticking it out for all the standards to be in place before I jump. Except maybe on that camera. 4K shooting would be useful even for 2K delivery.