Sharp Announces 8K Consumer TVs Now That We All Have 4K (theverge.com) 285
Thuy Ong reports via The Verge: Now that you've upgraded to a shiny new 4K TV, Sharp has revealed its latest screen to stoke your fear of missing out: a 70-inch Aquos 8K TV. That 8K (7,680 x 4,320) resolution is 16 times that of your old Full HD (1920 x 1080) TV. Sharp calls it "ultimate reality, with ultra-fine details even the naked eye cannot capture," which doesn't seem like a very good selling point. Keep in mind that having a screen with more pixels doesn't buy you much after a certain point, because those pixels are invisible from a distance -- while an 8K panel would be beneficial as a monitor, where you're sitting close, it won't buy you much when leaning back on the couch watching TV. HDR, however, is something else entirely, and fortunately, Sharp's new 8K set is compatible with Dolby Vision HDR and BDA-HDR (for Blu-ray players). The lack of available 8K HDR content is also a problem. But there is some content floating around. The TV will be rolling out to China and Japan later this year, and then Taiwan in February 2018. Sharp is repurposing its 70-inch 8K TV as an 8K monitor (model LV-70X500E) for Europe, which will be on sale in March. There is no news about a U.S. release.
Like high-end stereo gear... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to wonder what percentage of the population can even detect the difference between 4k and 8k TVs. Seriously... unless they're displaying a test pattern to highlight the sharpness, it's all the same to me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Like high-end stereo gear... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the bright side, though, it might make those "obsolete" 4k TVs cheaper in the not-too-distant future...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you don't work for google, making gender generalizations like that.
In this case, it's accurate - men do have more colour-blindness - 16x as much [nih.gov].
As many as 8 percent of men and 0.5 percent of women with Northern European ancestry have the common form of red-green color blindness.
Men are much more likely to be colorblind than women because the genes responsible for the most common, inherited color blindness are on the X chromosome. Males only have one X chromosome, while females have two X chromosomes. In females, a functional gene on only one of the X chromosomes is enough to compensate for the loss on the other. This kind of inheritance pattern is called X-linked, and primarily affects males. Inherited color blindness can be present at birth, begin in childhood, or not appear until the adult years.
Re: (Score:3)
HERETIC!!!!
The genders are all *EXACTLY* the same in every respect! That is the holy policy! Please report for re-education.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they're smart TVs and they brick them by a firmware update.
Remember that for some products your biggest competitor is your installed base.
Re: (Score:3)
I recently got a 4k TV and while the best material I have is 1080p (above a certain size it's hard not to get a 4k TV anymore at least in the UK) what I really notice is that the interface for all the catchup and Pelx is now super sharp. Way better than a 1080p screen which I also have. So while I don't have an 4k content to play back having used a 4k TV for a couple of months now there is no way I would buy a none 4k TV in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
So while I don't have an 4k content to play back having used a 4k TV for a couple of months now there is no way I would buy a none 4k TV in the future.
That's easy to fix: just go to your favorite torrent site and search for "[movie name] 4k".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As the population ages it will matter less and less. It's not like you can get 8k eye implants.
Re: (Score:3)
That is the dumbest argument ever.
As if we are the last generation of humans and nobody is young.
In case you haven't been keeping tabs, millennials are way poorer than previous generations. Stuck with huge educational debt, having to compete in the rip-off gig economy with its' higher overhead (no employer health insurance, you've got to pay both your income tax and the employer's share, etc) and uncertainty, zero-hour "contracts" from employers who refuse to commit to a minimum number of hours but want them there immediately when called, entry-level and menial jobs being automated | off-shored | total
Re: Like high-end stereo gear... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem on content quality to me. Not image quality!
Re: (Score:2)
and pr0n can be really a turn off in high resolution.
It's a self-correcting problem, because the more you watch, the worse your vision gets.
Re: (Score:2)
Still haven't figured out how porn, even the highest quality (how would you even tell) can ever be as good as sex. About the only advantage is it's available on demand and doesn't come with the baggage of a relationship. But then again, so does a carton of ice cream.
Re:Like high-end stereo gear... (Score:5, Interesting)
8k resolution is close to IMAX for detail. Not quite as good as 70mm film, but close.
You also have to remember that even if your eyes can't see individual pixels at that resolution (a good thing), what matters is the Nyquist frequency which is half the sampling frequency. That's why CDs sample at 44.1kHz, even though the human ear can't hear much about 20kHz.
Basically 8k reduces aliasing, which is something that the eye is quite good at spotting and makes the image look artificial. That's why most of the 4k demos you see are careful to select images that avoid aliasing.
8k isn't just resolution. When they start broadcasting in Japan for the 2020 Olympics, it will be 60Hz native format, and with a colour gamut beyond what current TVs can display.
8k isn't just a resolution bump like 4k was, where they mostly used the same equipment and some upgraded but fundamentally the same cameras as HD/2k. For example, manual focus is impossible with 8k. Until recently only extremely specialist, power hungry hardware was able to process an 8k video stream and save it to storage fast enough. NHK, the Japanese national broadcaster, has been working on it since the 90s and skipped over 4k to concentrate on it. It's not just incremental, it's a genuine attempt to make video almost indistinguishable from reality.
Re:Like high-end stereo gear... (Score:5, Funny)
8k isn't just resolution. When they start broadcasting in Japan for the 2020 Olympics, it will be 60Hz native format, and with a colour gamut beyond what current TVs can display.
You'll be able to see the radioactive dust fly into the air :D
Re: (Score:2)
Certain sporting events seem really choppy, such as when an ice skater does a triple axel. It seems like a series of still frames for a fraction of a second...
On a positive note, that at least gives you a little extra time to check out her ass while she is spinning. :D
Re:Like high-end stereo gear... (Score:4, Insightful)
When they start broadcasting in Japan for the 2020 Olympics, it will be 60Hz native format, and with a colour gamut beyond what current TVs can display.
And then it will be compressed into a crappy, ghosting, 30fps, sRGB colorspace mess -- worse for online streaming and transmission by the cable providers and NBC (assuming you actually get to see any non-US medal round content)..
Re: (Score:2)
And then it will be compressed into a crappy, ghosting, 30fps, sRGB colorspace mess -- worse for online streaming and transmission by the cable providers and NBC (assuming you actually get to see any non-US medal round content)..
The Japanese will be able to watch their money wasted in stunning 8k video, and they'll be able to stream it over their fat fiber network. The rest of us will have to watch the waste of money at a lower fidelity.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Broadcast video quality in Japan is vastly superior to anything I've seen in the US or UK. They decided to have a small number of high quality channels instead of a large number of shit quality ones. In Tokyo you can get about six channels over the air.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Australia, mate. Each TV station seems to have one 1080i stream and stacks of 576p. It's pitiful.
There isn't going to be 8K content (Score:5, Interesting)
The lenses that collect the video also have limits and, no surprise, they are similar in spatial frequency resolution to the eye. So at some point, and I can't swear it's at 8K excatly, you just aren't collecting new information.
Thus the anti-aliasing also gets fixed at the collection step as well.
Re:There isn't going to be 8K content (Score:5, Interesting)
The lenses for 8k have been in development since the 1960s when IMAX was introduced. The main challenge was reducing size, power demands and cost of the cameras for use on TV, as well as attaching real-time digital capture/compression tech.
Re:Like high-end stereo gear... (Score:5, Interesting)
8k resolution is close to IMAX for detail. Not quite as good as 70mm film, but close.
You also have to remember that even if your eyes can't see individual pixels at that resolution (a good thing), what matters is the Nyquist frequency which is half the sampling frequency. That's why CDs sample at 44.1kHz, even though the human ear can't hear much about 20kHz.
I would assume it has more to do with the Bayer Filter [wikipedia.org] and demosaicing in particular, than Nyquist, however the point is well taken. At least as far as sampling is concerned. For example, you wouldn't shoot with the intent of displaying on a 1MP display with a 1MP sensor.
Re: (Score:2)
While technically the post is "interesting", it is only so because of how poorly informed the author is.
Without any information regarding viewing angles, no conclusion can be made regarding whether the eye can see individual pixels or not. If it cannot, then it cannot. Aliasing is unrelated to this and is handled upstream of the display. Furthermore, the eye isn't "quite good" at "spotting" aliasing, aliasing appears as false detail, no different than any other detail to the eye.
Regarding color space, ag
Re:Like high-end stereo gear... (Score:5, Funny)
You have to wonder what percentage of the population can even detect the difference between 4k and 8k TVs.
"Hey, check out the picture on my shiny new 8K TV! It's great, isn't it? Look at that detail! I could never go back to 4K now..."
"You know, it'd look even better if you weren't still using the composite video input..."
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on distance and size of the TV (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but you can eliminate that from the equation because 20/20 vision = one arch-minute (1/60th of a degree) of resolution. So if the TV covers 30 degrees field of vision (FOV), you can see 30*60 = 1800 pixels of resolution (with a perfectly curved screen where you don't have aliasing effects, 3600 if you do). Now most young people have better than 20/20 vision because that's just the threshold we've set for normal, doesn't need correction vision and if you're really enjoying your widescreen you might be
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of those graphs so beloved by economists where one line slops up and the other slopes down.
If those lines are resolution available and what I can detect I think they crossed already.
Doubleplusunyoung.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless there was also a distance calculation involved, I can tell you that you were not correct.
The amount you can see depends on the pixel count, but also the distance from the source.
For most average TVs being watched at an average viewing distance, someone with 20/20 (or even much better) vision is unlikely to even be able to see the difference between HD and 4K, That said, 4K also incorporates things like HDR which are independent of the number of pixels, but improve the image quality and can be seen. I
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Keep in mind that one of the reasons you don't see a difference between 720p and 1080p is likely the content source. I work for a telco that also does IPTV, I talked to our engineers and learned that the streams feeding in to our network from the content providers are all 1080i with the exception of sports that are sent to us in 720p (on fast movement the effective faster refresh of the progressive scan is more important than the extra lines of resolution that you get on 1080) So even though most of our STB
Re: (Score:2)
It must be rough going through life where everything is a blurry mess.
Yes, it is. Until you consider the alternative ...
Re:Like high-end stereo gear... (Score:4, Interesting)
But PPI is an irrelevant metric when you don't count viewing distance. Computers and smartphones need high PPI because they tend to be used within a foot or two of your eyes. TVs tend to sit 10-20 feet away from you. That 70" screen at 68 PPI is probably more pixels than you can possibly see at the viewing distance you're actually watching it from.
You can't actually see the difference between even HD and 4K in the vast majority of home TV setups. The average setup is a 40-50" TV sitting 10-15 feet away from the viewer, at those distances and that size screen, you just can't see it. (I won't even discuss the poor lighting, glare, and viewing angles of your average home TV setup) Now if you actually have a more theatrical type setup where you have a screen that fills most of your field of view, that's a completely different matter, but that's actually somewhat rare in home setups, in those cases the difference from HD to 4K is noticeable (though not as major as you might think) but even there you're unlikely to notice a difference from 4K to 8K.
Now there is one place that 4K really does shine though, and that's computer monitors, a good 4K monitor is great, but that's because you sit so close to it in that application.
Re: (Score:2)
As everyone else has said... it all depends on how close you are sitting to your TV.
Despite the impression you might have gotten from popular culture, we don't build our living spaces around our TVs.
Flight sims (Score:3, Interesting)
In flight simulators, especially in combat flight simulators 4K monitors are said to be below what the naked eye can do in real life. When you have to identify visually a contact at long distance actual screens are not enough.
Re: (Score:2)
"Identify visually contacts at a long distance" on *that*, you spoiled gits.
Re: (Score:2)
The first flight simulators consisted of tricycles with wings:
http://c7.alamy.com/comp/C7BWR... [alamy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very different application from TV though, those monitors are sitting much closer to you than your TV tends to.
Keep in mind that most homes have a TV in the 40-50" range at a viewing distance of 10-20', at those distances, and with those set sizes, you just can't see 4K vs HD, especially if you add the poor lighting, the glare, and the sub-optimal viewing angles often employed. Now people with an actual home theatre type setup may benefit from 4K, but even they're unlikely to see any difference go
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how many average consumers actually care?
A potentially surprisingly large set of the same people who buy those big books about warships and bombs and whatnot play flightsims. My father was Marine ATC in Korea, he was into Hornet and Comanche.
Re: Flight sims (Score:2)
So, not a very large market.
Re: (Score:2)
So, not a very large market.
Sure. But who wouldn't like to have more pixels? I just don't want to pay for them. That's why I'm still using the same 25.5", 1920x1200 display I've been using for ages. It's adequate. I actually have one with Adobe RGB (~120% sRGB gamut) but it has persistence issues which are annoying.
yes we "all" have 4K tvs *sarcasm* (Score:5, Informative)
"Now we all have 4K". Eh, no.
Only 16% of people own a 4K TV.
https://www.cedmagazine.com/data-focus/2017/05/cta-survey-shows-4k-uhd-tv-ownership-rise-united-states
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. I just upgraded my TV and computer monitor to 1080P HD in 2014! I am not getting 4K and 8K for several years or more.
Re: (Score:2)
The media really doesn't understand middle class and under lifestyle.
Those making under 6 figures who need to make decisions which tradeoffs they want for their recreational purchases.
But they all talk to their wealthy counterparts who all have 4K TV. Also if you are starting to live on your own, and need to get new stuff a 4K tv may be on the list.
I am still on a 1080p tv and I am not willing to upgrade yet because I don't see the point.
Nope (Score:2)
There's just a few things on 2k.
I won't ever replace my full HD TV!
Zero F.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly "we all have 4k" - is bullshit.
Now, why buy 8k when:
4k broadcast content (satellite/cable/DVB-T): Minimal, if at all
4k streaming content: None on most providers, a little on Netflix/youtube/maybe some others
4k optical: A tiny amount. Hard to find at retail, the rest is order-able online.
8k content: Virtually none.
Zero fucks, yo. Let the early adopters pay through the nose, someones got to to make it eventually affordable. The switch from 1080p to 4k is still in progress, 4k is not even close to widely adopted. I'll come back again and laugh in a few years when the situation has hardly changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, why buy 8k when: 8k content: Virtually none.
In case you are into space sims: Elite:Dangerous supports 8K [alpha-orbital.com].
Do we? (Score:4, Informative)
We All Have 4K
News to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I only got a 1080p Blu-Ray player like a year ago, and I have a whopping two discs. Mostly I stream. The quality is so vastly much better than the VHS I grew up with that I'm still perfectly happy with 1080p even at reduced bitrates. The only time I can even tell is when there's a lot of black on screen, sure it comes up, but who cares?
It's not that I wouldn't like 8k, it's that HOLY GOD MY WALLET
High res TVs don't interest me... (Score:5, Insightful)
... but dumb TVs do.
Seriously. Look around. If you're looking at large TVs, or TVs with ultra high definition, what do you see? "Smart" TVs. Meaning: TVs with embedded computers. Meaning: security risks. Meaning: do the manufacturers keep these things patched and up to date when security problems are found?
The economics of it all means that my bet is... they don't.
So forget this "smart" TV thing. I want a bog standard, every day, dumb TV, with no smarts built in. If I need those smarts, I'll get an Apple TV, or a Roku, or a Chromecast, or something. At least that way, if I have to ditch the device because it isn't being updated and has a known security problem, I'm only out a couple of hundred bucks - instead of several thousand for some of those high end disasters waiting to happen.
Else I guess I'll just end up getting a large computer monitor and a set of speakers, do it the "hard" way...
Re: (Score:2)
I would mod you up +1 Insightful, but I've already commented in this discussion.
Personally, I feel the same way about washing machines, and many other major household appliances. I would pay a premium price for a new washing machine that has the old-fashioned mechanical timer dial instead of membrane switches and an LCD.
Re: (Score:2)
I would pay a premium price for a new washing machine that has the old-fashioned mechanical timer dial instead of membrane switches and an LCD.
I broke one of those once by simply turning the dial too quickly. One of the little metal fingers in the timer broke off, and the whole timer module had to be replaced. I don't want internet-connected appliances, but I do enjoy electronics over mechanical systems in most cases. You're not slashdotting from a relay-based computer, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Must have been a while back if anything could be replaced (except maybe seals and drivebelts).
Re: (Score:2)
Get a projector (Score:2)
Because of the inherent nature of projectors, almost none of them seem to come with the smart TV nonsense. They are just dedicated to display, some adding tiny speakers as an afterthought.
On top of that you'll get a much more massive display than any standard TV you could buy.
1080p projectors are getting really cheap now, but there are a lot of nice 4k projector options at this point for around $2k.
4K Suckers! (Score:3)
I'm still on NTSC CRT with a fine tuning knob!
Re: (Score:2)
You should upgrade straight to Virtuall Reality with brain impants. Leap frog all the suckers who bought 4K, 8K, 16K and 32K.
Re: (Score:2)
He is probably waiting for his TV to break.
That is why I upgraded my TV to 1080p because my CRT died.
If there is anything I would like to upgrade on my TV is a better sound system. More than a higher resolution screen.
Cart, meet Horse. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The lack of available 8K HDR content is also a problem. But there is some content floating around."
Uh, just for the record, we're still saying this shit about 4K.
As we put the cart before the horse again, keep in mind that it'll probably be years before you can actually start using your obscenely expensive 8K set on a regular basis.
The good news is you can enjoy those $75 Invisible-To-The-Naked-Eye HD movies on a $2000 disc player in the meantime. Yeah, I know, movie theaters are such a ripoff these days...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm looking forward to affordable 8k computer monitors. 4k is okay up to about 24", but the pixels are visible above that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's where all these excessive meg
"we all"??? (Score:2)
How many times resolution??? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Too Big (Score:2)
I get that it's easier to build a big 8K than a small 8K because of density, but I am damn close to finally getting the 40" 8K monitor I've had set as my target dream display since the early 90's. Yay, future. Looks like it'll be here before 2020, which beats the extrapolated guess from 25 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even see why it should be all that effing difficult. A 200dpi phone screen is super low resolution now. it's hard to imagine that one of those techs (AMOLED, perchance?) couldn't be upscaled to an 8k, or a 4k tall x 12k wide, curved screen with older tech.
We don't all have 4k (Score:2, Informative)
If you check for 4k TV penetration in 2017 it sits at about 15-18% of the US and around 20% worldwide. Hardly "all" and not even a majority
Hey it goes to 9000! (Score:3)
Broadcasting is still at 720 (Score:4, Interesting)
And heavily compressed to boot. Keep your money people.
Drive market price down (Score:2)
Keep your money people.
Nononono ! Actually let them buy this marketing crap.
Them buying the newer TV helps driving the price of the pannels down.
Meaning that soon, you'll be able to have affordable prices on 7 680 x 4 320 PC monitors,
on which you'll be able to plug your huge multi-GFX-cards/multi-CPU workstation to get actual 4320p content.
(And as a bonus, you'll save on your winter heating bill once you turn your monster-computer on).
Re: (Score:2)
I am already using a 45 inch 4K TV as a monitor. You don't need quite so much space for IntelliJ, but sides are great for e-mail, calendar, IM, browser with documentation... And did I say you can also watch TV on it?
Depends on the usage (Score:2)
FullHD it is not enough to display music pdf files. The problem is that music has thin horizontal lines located in analogous defined positions, and sometimes, they just are not in the screen. 1080 it is not enough.
So, it is important to go up, although it is also very difficult to find a good monitor that be able to "replace" printed music, with the right size, weight and resolution. Just think about having two letter size pieces on paper in front of you, with 4K resolution.
But here we are talking a
Futurama clip about very high HD (Score:2)
Emperor's New Clothes - Tech division (Score:2)
Sharp calls it “ultimate reality, with ultra-fine details even the naked eye cannot capture,”
I can see the difference immediately, can't all of you?
16K (Score:2)
I'm holding out for 16K . . .
Re: (Score:3)
Stats (Score:2)
So what exactly is the point?
Needs to be smaller, needs to be wider (Score:2)
44" is the 8K I want. If I could get a 4320 px tall screen in a 2.35:1 ratio - curved, preferably, for a 1m viewing distance, that would be ideal. I just want a true 200 dpi desktop monitor (yes, I have a big desk).
Devil is in the details with these purchases (Score:2)
Has the industry settled on an HDR standard yet? What about bandwidth? Will this TV launch with HDMI 2.1 or will the viewer have to compromise on color sampling and/or refresh rate. What about HDCP? Any chance those fuckers are going to change that again?
Just curious if the industry learned anything from the 4K roll out.
Re: (Score:3)
Has the industry settled on an HDR standard yet? What about bandwidth? Will this TV launch with HDMI 2.1 or will the viewer have to compromise on color sampling and/or refresh rate. What about HDCP? Any chance those fuckers are going to change that again?
Just curious if the industry learned anything from the 4K roll out.
You mean like "Dolby Vision" which does require HDMI 2.1. Very few, if any TVs and receivers support HDMI 2.1 today. Practically all manufacturers will have ti next year (2018).
I just finished upgrading my entertainment system and computer monitors to 4K.
I'll move to 8K when my 4K stuff dies, in about 8 to 10 years. By then, 8K prices will be affordable and perhaps there will be 8K content. In addition, a single NVIDIA GTX 1080 TI struggles to render high end games at 60fps @ 4K. I'm thinking that it w
Now that you've upgraded to a shiny new 4K TV (Score:2)
Who exactly do they mean by "you"? Not me, surely, nor (as far as I can tell) any of my friends, family, or coworkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Not me either. Still using a 1920x1080 computer LCD display connected to a Netflix-streaming box.
The programs that we can watch suck however. (Score:2)
Does it come with the latest spyware? (Score:2)
Is it preloaded with the latest NSA room bug spyware? Or does that have to be downloaded after you install it?
Is the built-in camera also of correspondingly high resolution? Then the facial recognition could work solidly at across-the-room distances. Maybe good enough for lip-reading apps. Or to read text from a distance as well.
Are the graphics processors good enough to do OCR and voice recognition on the platform? Then the upload bandwidth could be economized by doing that processing locally. Keyphr
Has anyone checked? (Score:2)
I have to wonder if anyone has actually calculated, based on the effective resolution of the human eye with 20/20 vision, how big the screen has to be for this resolution to be appreciably better than 4K? I can barely differentiate the difference between 1080P and 4K on a 50" screen from 10 feet away, but I am getting old.
For example, can the average person even tell the difference between 4K and 8K looking at a 70" screen from a reasonable viewing distance (say 10 feet)? I bought a 4K 40" TV to use as my
I'm holding out for 16K (Score:2)
Not everyone. (Score:2)
I have a 50 inch plasma that pretends to be 1080 but I'm pretty sure it's only 720. And yet cable looks at best OK most of the time. Some content is spectacular, but very little makes that grade. Lots of it is so highly compressed that anything that is not static has a lot of blocky artifacts. (It's Comcastic!) Blu-Ray looks better.
I'm sure if I were to buy a TV today I'd probably get a 4K model. My son bought a new TV a couple years ago and went with 4K because FHD models were feature poor.
I haven't looked
Re: (Score:2)
Weakest link is compression not display resolution (Score:3)
To a comical degree actual display quality is limited by compression that dominate most Internet/Satellite/Cable/OTA distribution channels in the name of saving money and cramming more stations into limited bandwidth.
So far marketeers seem to be getting away with suckering people into giving a shit about meaningless things like display resolution when those who care about quality are best served spending their time demanding content distribution providers quit turning content compression dial up to 11. They will always seek to turn that knob as far as they can possibly get away with.
The reality for consumers:
2k is overkill.
4k is worthless.
8k is comically worthless.
HDR and more efficient codecs (HVEC) are what will actually drive perceptible improvements that actually matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television [theonion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Caitlyn Jenner.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like one of those Hitler spoof videos...
Re: (Score:2)
As for the original article, it came out before Gillette launched the Fusion razor which *did* have five blades. The fact that the parody became a reality doesn't make it any less ridiculous; on the contrary, it shows that Gillette's razor blades have become so ludicrous and marketing-led that no-one above the age of sixteen should be able to take them seriously any more...
I mean, I thought the fifth blade on the back for "hard to re
Re: (Score:2)
Because they ruined the US market for themselves: Sharp To Americans: You Don't Want to Buy a Sharp-Brand TV [slashdot.org]