It would be interesting to look at with some evidence, why exactly 3D television sets failed to catch on - with less speculation and more facts. Was it because it required special discs? Was it because it required a different TV? Was it because it added little to the experience? Was it because you had to sit and watch TV with glasses on? Was it because the screen was too small for 3D to have too much effect? Is it because 'normal' TVs were still cheaper? Is it because 'normal' BD players were still cheaper..??
With so many reasons for people not to use/like it, I'd be surprised if it was any one thing.
I don't know. The BBC 'pulled the plug' on 3D last year, so that doesn't spell good news. Locally, 3D was experimented with but never really implemented properly. Anecdotally, I don't know anyone with 3D TVs - at least those that do don't use the 3D feature ever (at least that they'll admit!)
ESPN dropped it's 3D sports channel last year as well. This article has some interesting info from the BBC:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/future-3d-tv-why-espn-568445
"About 20 percent of people find sports matches in 3D simply too long. Twenty-five percent of people are apathetic toward 3D viewing no matter the content. Another 10 percent can’t see 3D because of visual impairments, but arguably up to half the audience for 3D content is put off by having to wear glasses."
So half he audience doesn't think it's worth the trouble, which leaves you with the other half who also have to upgrade their equipment to support it and pay more for the content - in the end it leaves only a small percentage of enthusiasts who think it's worth it.
Realistically though, the majority of people will barely see a difference, and one has to wonder whether there's enough incentive to purchase if you can't even tell the difference in the store 3ft away, let alone at home.
The difference is pretty apparent to me standing about 8 feet from a 60" screen in store. Of course that's running playback from a local device - over the air or downloaded content may end up pretty similar once it's been heavily compressed.
I'm not convinced the general audience will see much of a difference in everyday viewing - I'm no longer surprised when I walk into a friend's house and they're watching SD content zoomed to fill their 50" screen, contrast and saturation cranked up, and 'smoothflow/scan/motion/whatever' making it look like a soap opera.
But that's everyday viewing at home - it's different than when you're comparing sets in the store. Side by side in store there's a pretty clear difference (at least with the right content), so now that the price differential appears to be shrinking dramatically I would expect people will be more likely to choose 4k even if they never really take advantage of it once they've got it home.
In Australia there are very few television stations broadcasting in HD - even Pay/subscription TV only have a few HD TV stations, so there's very little incentive for the 'average Joe' to buy, unless they're 'dead-set' on watching high definition movies.
Things are different here in the US. In most markets there are only a few OTA HD broadcasts, but most people subscribe to cable rather than rely on broadcast. In big cities at least most cable systems have dozens of HD channels available for a small monthly premium - $5-10 over SD. They also have a huge library of HD on demand, and all the premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc) have multiple HD channels which are included with your subscription.
To be honest, until I moved last month I hadn't watched SD television in probably 8 years. I'm in temp housing until the end of the month, so I'm stuck with what came with the apartment for now... I picked up a 32" LCD and even sitting 8-9' from the TV I find I'm missing HD. Of course, I'm a little pickier than the average viewer when it comes to image quality...
IMO, the cloud is a bit of a ways off. In Australia, our internet speeds are simply shockingly low, and it could easily take many hours for a 4k movie to download at any kind of quality . And I would imagine that whilst in other countries speeds are faster, once millions of people start downloading or streaming multiple 4k content, it's going to cause issues. Perhaps infrastructure would need to be upgraded before this could realistically be supported.
In the US, if you get your internet via cable too you generally have enough bandwidth to also get HD from Netflix, Hulu+, Amazon Instant, Youtube, etc. Fiber is also getting more and more available, so in most markets there is plenty of bandwidth available if you want it. And with h.265 in the pipeline it's likely that we'll see 4k not requiring much more bandwidth than current HD - so I don't see much in terms of technical barriers for the US market.
Of course, there's more to it than technical barriers. There's been a battle on for the past few years over net neutrality, and honestly it's not looking good for the customers:
http://consumerist.com/2014/02/11/n...worse-for-comcast-and-verizon-fios-customers/
The biggest providers appear to be throttling data from certain sources - they're denying it, of course, but someone recently got an (unauthorized, likely) admission from verizon's tech support:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/verizon-denies-throttling-netflix-amazon-speeds-texas/
Which has implications beyond television - that guy figured it out only because his own project was running slowly, impacted by their decision to throttle data from Amazon's servers which are used by thousands of companies for their services (including my own). If we can't get some sort of solid neutrality legislation in place it's likely this situation will only get worse as cable and other providers try to protect their own television services by cutting off competitors - or charging them excessive fees for access to their customers.
