It's not been mentioned here how much of the 4K/8K content will have to be edited at the source production line and at output from the cable/Netflix-online pipelines in order cram that much redundant data to reach those high rez screens. Improved upsampling, compression, sharpening algorithms may not be able to do it justice. It seems unnecessary technology for mass consumption IMO.
That's often a problem, Tim, but really a separate issue. Even if there is a very slow transition to full 4k broadcasting because of bandwidth restrictions, I'd still like a large, 4k OLED screen for displaying my own stills, and perhaps experimenting with a new camera that boasts 4k video capability, such as the Samsung NX1.
The issue is fundamentally one of screen size and cost. This has always been the issue. I remember well the days before HD transmission was introduced. The argument was constantly raised that the average size of the (then) current TV sets was too small to result in any benefits from HD. Sizes ranged from 14" to an impressive 36" using the old CRT technology. At normal viewing distances, HD did not make much sense.
However, within a few years 55" and 65" screens became affordable, employing the new LCD and Plasma technology, and the issue then became, for those who were interested, a concern that most so-called HD transmissions were not full HD. Many were just standard definition interpolated. At best they were 720p or 1080i at source. Only certain Blu-ray recordings exploited the full benefits of HD resolution, using 1080p.
With the introduction of 4k video, we are now back to square one. The current screen sizes suitable for full HD viewing are too small for UHD or 4k. However, I expect that in a few years, the 110" screen will become fairly common and affordable for many of us. By then, the largest screens, that only the rich will be able to afford, will probably be 140- 200 inches diagonal, which will begin to make sense for 8k video and stills.