Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ok-disaster2022 t1_it8nwbj wrote

I'm sorry but should consumers really care? Energy efficiency regulators are trying to impose standards to benefit society. Vendors can either innovate to meet those regulations or just not sell in the marketplace. The world is dying and manufactures want to sell even hotter color boxes.

66

crono141 t1_it8smum wrote

The problem is that the regulations were set and designed around the average 1080p set power draw. 4k requires more power (more pixels, more processing, more power), and many don't fit under the cap. 8k TVs are right out.

So, what's going to end up happening is either

  • stagnation of innovation

  • 4k and 8k TVs no longer being sold in the EU.

25

wavecult t1_it8uw0z wrote

Samsung says its doable and the article also says there are ways to achieve it. It seems it just wasn't on their list of priorities because R&D into true innovation would cost them more.

26

Zironic t1_it8tswc wrote

Or someone innovates and manages to design a high pixel density TV that doesn't consume as much power as an oven.

24

MetaDragon11 t1_it8weq0 wrote

What? My 65 inch 4k tv uses about 250 watts max. The average electric oven uses 2500-3000 watts.

Thats an order of magnitude difference.

24

Zironic t1_it8xw7y wrote

Some of the 85'' 8K TVs have been drawing upwards of 800W so they were getting up there.

21

NelchaelSS t1_it96isd wrote

Doen’t matter. If you need HDR, you need a lot of nits/light, so the TV uses a lot of power. I don’t want to go back to 400nits TVs just because there is a shitty regulation put in place by technical illiterates. Just give it a worse energy rating score and move on.

Freedom to choose is a right.

0

MrMitchWeaver t1_it9b4qc wrote

Freedom to not die of global warming is a bigger right.

Your rights end where mine begin.

3

NelchaelSS t1_it9ii9s wrote

Yeah, keep believing that your green TV with 50W/h less peak power consumption will save the planet. Better yet, stop eating meat & start eating bugs, they’re greener.

The amount of propaganda you guys eat from corporations and billionaires, that YOU as a person are 100% responsable for global warming is unbelievable. They live like kings, 1 polluting like 1 million of us peasants, but we must be held responsible for them.

You guys can live like as you like, but I have only 1 life and I won’t live like a dog.

5

Zironic t1_it9iygx wrote

Imagine typing this rant attached to an article literally written by corporations wanting to sell you more unsustainable crap.

4

NelchaelSS t1_it9l73j wrote

>Imagine typing this rant attached to an article literally written by corporations wanting to sell you more unsustainable crap.

So? What does me being a consumer to a company has to do with the fact that companies/billionaires pollute?

Should we stop buying anything just because the guys we buy from pollute?

And the article says clearly: for the technology we have microLED (which is already very power efficient), we can't reach the EEI, because 8K displays would need to consume as much energy as 4k displays. 33 million pixels can't consume less energy than 8.2 million pixels + that you need a more powerful SoC to process the image.

As easy as that. That's why laws about tech should be passed by walking fossils that are tech illiterates. (and that these kind of laws should be updated regularly)

8

alexxfloo t1_itdc960 wrote

A dog ? If a 4k tv is the difference between a good and a bad life than your life is pathetic

1

skinlo t1_itlbkkk wrote

And when do they get their billions from? From you buying crap to make yourself feel better is the answer. If you think the resolution of your TV defines whether you live like a dog, then I suggest you have bigger problems than that.

1

NelchaelSS t1_itmblhn wrote

You are as stupid as the other guy I responded to, "live like a dog" is a figure of speech about the way you live, not about the TV.

Also, I don't have a problem with them making billions, as long as it's properly taxed and they are held accountable about the amount of pollution they do. Want to cry about billionaires, business owners making more than the guy that washes dishes, etc, go to r/antiwork .

0

MrMitchWeaver t1_it9lnxa wrote

I'm going to have to go sentence by sentence because your comment is laughable.

> less peak power consumption will save the planet.

Partly, yes. Maybe not my TV specifically but billions of them working every day do have an effect.

> Better yet, stop eating meat & start eating bugs, they’re greener.

I try to cut back for sure, but me changing my diet for the rest of my life is absolutely not comparable to you having to wait a few months until the engineering is fixed. Not even a little bit.

> The amount of propaganda you guys eat from corporations and billionaires

You are literally defending the 8K lobby right now. They wrote the article that spawned this thread.
Remember when corporations told us that cigarettes didn't cause cancer?
Now they are telling us that they can't make efficient TVs.
Let's talk again in 12 months to see if they were able to decipher this unsolvable challenge.

> YOU as a person are 100% responsable for global warming is unbelievable

They don't say that and I don't believe it. I do believe we are all responsible of making green choices whenever we can by choosing to consume or not consume something, or to encourage or not encourage certain products and businesses. I don't encourage inefficient electronics.

> They live like kings, 1 polluting like 1 million of us pheasants,

I think you meant to say peasants. Yes, they are worse than us.

> but we must be held responsible for them.

No, each person is responsible for their own actions. They for theirs and we for ours.

> You guys can live like as you like,

Thank you for your permission. I will continue trying to not melt the planet.

> I have only 1 life

Fortunately.

> I won’t live like a dog.

So not getting an inefficient TV at an early date equates to "living like a dog." Gotcha. I'm going to try really hard to not die of laughter whenever I think of that.

−3

PineappleLemur t1_itybq22 wrote

Issue is HDR content needing very high brightness display to work properly.

High enough to make you squint when the sun is on screen in a lit room.

So those panels will consume more energy when playing HDR content there's no way around this.

Most of the time it consumes as much as a fridge even for 65" TVs..

1

beleidigtewurst t1_it8w7td wrote

> The problem is that the regulations were set and designed around the average 1080p set power draw.

No, that is absolutely not "the problem" as one would have "upped" the figure otherwise.

It is conscious "we do not want to do that". The same reason why old style inefficient bulbs are banned.

10

Zncon t1_it93o2c wrote

There were a few things lost, but for the most part switching to LED was a neutral move to the consumer. They both create light.

A 1080p and 4k screen are not equivalents.

2

beleidigtewurst t1_it959cv wrote

It doesn't matter.

The goal is (at least for now, it might change if "energy will be abundant" vision turns true) that nobody wants to increase power consumption of an average household, on the opposite.

If that renders some shiny tech that arguably barely anyone on this planet needs, oh well.

−2

nicuramar t1_itbakiy wrote

> So, what’s going to end up happening is either > - stagnation of innovation > > - 4k and 8k TVs no longer being sold in the EU.

Or something else that you didn’t think of.

1

Jv1856 t1_it9jzjn wrote

Yes they should, bc this shit isn’t the problem. The problem is places like my old company that are using 40yo electric motors at 37% more draw than a contemporary motor. It works, so they’ll run it in to the ground. The power that place uses is 200x more than the rest of the town combined. Now think about the fact that there are 11 other manufacturing sites in that town, most (if not all) of which are at least as dated. And they all get a lower rate per kWh than residents. The municipality is just as bad too.

But yeah, focus on the consumers….

7

skinlo t1_itlca6n wrote

And what would be the energy cost of replacing that motor?

In car terms, it is almost always better to run your inefficient car for years until it is falling apart than buy a shiny new Tesla, because of the cost of resource extraction and manufacturing.

1

danielv123 t1_it9sh6t wrote

Why not both?

0

Jv1856 t1_it9xdqe wrote

  1. because it never happens, it’s always targeted at everything BUT Corporations.

  2. if corporations were doing their part, the rest wouldn’t even be needed. This is global, so needs to include China. But the energy consumption of the worlds corporations was collectively reduced even 15%, it would vastly surpass the world’s loftiest goals to reverse climate change.

Same thing with income tax(American): up to 1913, America was funded almost entirely from corporate taxes. In the 40s, it reached another level. Now today it’s almost the inverse, funded mostly by citizens. If corporations were taxed at the pre-war levels, they could fully fund the current post-secondary tuition bill, nationalized healthcare, and enough left over to start paying down the national debt, all with $0 income tax to the individual citizen.

Further, we no longer incentivize investment back into the company as a tax write-off like it was even a decade ago. This is to encourage stock buyback and consolidation, putting more money into billionaires pockets from the hands of the middle class.

  1. China. Full stop. They don’t give a shit and account for something egregious like 88% of all pollution and energy inefficiencies. Nothing is sacred over their except for power, control, and ¥¥¥.

Individuals should fight tooth and nail to resist this to put the onus back where it belongs.

3

soldiernerd t1_itahwh4 wrote

That's because there was no personal income tax until 1913.

In 2021, US Government revenue was 2.04T from personal income tax (50.7%), 1.31T from payroll taxes (32.6%), and 372B (9.2%) from corporate income tax.

50% of payroll taxes (16.3% of federal revenue) are paid by corporations, which means money directly from corporations makes up 25.5% of federal revenue. The other half (another 16.3% of federal revenue) is from employee-paid payroll taxes, which is just money handed from the employer to the employee to the government, so essentially 41.8% of federal revenue comes directly from the employer.

Looking at IRS data from 2018 and 2019 it appears that salaries and wage makes up about 2/3 of reported personal income.

Now that doesn't mean it is the source for 2/3 of the tax revenue of course, as deductions and credits alter that. Notwithstanding, if tax revenue from wages and salaries makes up only 16% of total personal income tax revenue, that would mean 50.0% of federal revenue is derived, directly or indirectly from a company.

The reality is that personal income tax on wage and salaries probably far exceeds 16% of all personal income tax revenue, meaning businesses are likely responsible for well over 50% of federal revenue.

That's without taking into account any other federal revenue streams from companies such as excise duties and customs taxes.

So companies are still a very very large driver of Federal revenue.

2

Jv1856 t1_itaily6 wrote

Payroll tax is not the same as income tax. Crediting corporations for employee-paid portions of payroll tax seems disingenuous to me

2

soldiernerd t1_itajfig wrote

I didn't say it was the same as income tax.

Why is it disingenuous? Where do you think the money is coming from?

0

Jv1856 t1_itajwia wrote

We don’t say that retailers pay 6% of tax on sales. They COLLECT the tax from the purchaser on behalf of the state. It’s the same with an employee’s share of payroll tax. That is money that theoretically would otherwise go to the employee, but the company collects on behalf of the government.

1

soldiernerd t1_itakabq wrote

Sure but the difference is sales tax is money coming from the consumer, with no tie to the collecting company.

Payroll tax is money the company hands to the employee, who immediately hands it to the government. It's money which was created by the company and which the government receives as a direct result of the company's economic activity.

1

danielv123 t1_itbb5ek wrote

Sales tax is avoidable. You can simply not buy anything and put it all in a bank account, so I agree that its something the consumer pays.

You cannot receive income without paying income tax. For that reason you might as well consider the tax part of the payout. Your income is paid by someone, and they are effectively paying your income tax as well.

−1

MrMitchWeaver t1_it9aupb wrote

After hearing for decades of corporation shenanigans trying to avoid environmental standards I have ZERO empathy for them. Make it work, or don't sell it at all. 8K is not a human right FFS.

3

notataco007 t1_it8tzfk wrote

I don't know, probably. I get a feeling 500+ watt PCs are next

2

Starold t1_itbp1i9 wrote

It's consumers that buy hotter color boxes.

1

m4nu3lf t1_it92iib wrote

So what's next? Gaming PCs? If you want to reduce emissions you just tax carbon emissions and let the market adjust. What if I prefer a 8K TV but I don't own some other energy intensive hardware? I think the EU is becoming a joke.

−1

ebonyseraphim t1_it9fkyg wrote

Seems off topic but it really is the same issue as when MLK called out “excessive consumerism” as a main problem he saw in western societies. The entire part of the speech he criticizes that we are forever busy, forever trying to do more business. That our devices and machines are not always time saving devices, nor are they soul saving devices.

When I look at how competitive and specific TV and monitor technology has become, and think about this: what resolution did we enjoy Independence Day (1996) at? The Lion King? I am in tech and have a lot of it myself so I’m not ignorant to what the differences are, but damn…we have to stop pushing forward. Companies push to out new stuff to motivate us to spent more money on stuff we don’t need, but can’t stand that someone else has it better than us (Drum Major Instinct). Eventually reviewers get on board and start educating us on why some spec or tech matters and everyone has to have it.

Do we really need the blackest of black next to bright spots perfectly rendered on our TV? If we actually understand how vision works and just “watch” movies, there is no difference. You have to direct someone’s attention to see a problem with virtually all of the “artifacts” present in lesser TVs.

Same thing for nVidia’s RTX. Sorry, games aren’t really ray tracing an entire scene. Visual effects can easily be faked to achieve results ray tracing can, without extra special hardware to achieve it. That’s how the industry still operates today and RTX is still mostly a checkbox feature gamedevs have to put effort into to make it worth it.

−1