Okay, I know this is the Printers and Papers forum, and there are other forums where this topic might fit. But I feel like this group has the most vested interest in this topic, so I'm putting it here in order to get the best opinions.
My theory is that the next few generations of LCDs are going to start obviating the need for paper prints.
Let me expound in both directions so you know where I'm coming from. I've been shooting and printing, almost purely for my own fun, for about a decade now. I've got one of those iPF beasts, and I have my handful of papers I like, and I generally print and frame or go send off the results to be face-mounted to acrylic. I calculate my cost, not including my time, at something like $300-$500 per print, when all is said and done. That includes the amortization of the equipment over the final prints, the ink, the materials, the outsourced work, shipping, frames, and so on. That does not include lighting modifications I have occasionally made in my home. I love big, detailed prints... the kind that suck you, such that you can't help but walking up and putting your nose on them.
At the same time, I have a finite number of walls where I can display my work. I have many more images than I have space to display. In fact, I have a stack of framed prints in my basement, gathering dust. I am now at the point where I am hesitant to invest further in prints, since I'll be taking one down every time.
I'd give all this up if there were a thin, non-invasive, energy-efficient display technology that approximate the qualities we like in large paper prints. I think we are getting very close in many dimensions now. Certainly, the LCDs have broad gamuts and much greater dynamic range than our lowly paper. The newest models have enough ppi to rival what we can do with ink, and I expect this will improve by another factor of 2 in the next three or four years. (Let's hope the prices will improve by a couple of those factors of two, too!)
I don't think we're really there on energy efficiency, and indeed these may still be an ugly black rectangle when not powered up. It may be hard or impossible to enframe them such that they don't look like an ugly TV. And we are probably stuck with 16:9 aspect, which might be the worst drawback of all. There will still be issues with clarity in some lighting conditions, although on the other hand old-fashioned paper has this problem at the other end of the range. Tonal fidelity and stability, especially in monochrome works, will no doubt be a challenge for a while.
But... there would be no more printing. I could reclaim that space and time and energy. I could show as many images as I wanted, even slowly alternating them over the course of an evening. The sizes are already close to exceeding what can be done practically in flimsy media. The technology is conveniently incremental, too -- one could start phasing it in in one room or two and then gradually add displays in other areas as prices come down and quality continues to go up.
A part of me does not want to "give up" the mostly-fun that is large-format printing. (However, I could do without drivers, profiling, and paper alignment issues.) But another part of me thinks that this transformation is going to be unavoidably enticing -- eventually, from both a direct economic perspective and an aesthetic one.
I'd love to hear what you think.
p.s. If you've not had a chance to see one of these new 4K displays, or at least a retina display on a laptop, you owe it to yourself to find one and have a gander.