Asus PG35VQ Price and releasedate in Norway

[Knight77]

6 minutes ago, atomicus said:

 

Oh dear. Whether you think it's doom and gloom isn't really the point... but mass consumerism IS a thing. I am not doom and gloom about that personally, but I recognise that it exists and IS a problem in certain sections of our society. If you choose to bury your head in the sand about that and ignore it, that is of course your right, but you seem to actually be suggesting it doesn't even exist, which is just laughable and ridiculous... despite no real attempt to refute it. And that was all my original post a million years ago was speaking to.

 

Of course the world revolves around money. That's EXACTLY the point, and why we exist in a world where mass consumerism is a thing! Your ignorance on this subject is utterly astounding, because you're referencing the very things that have given rise to mass consumerism over the decades. Unfortunately, you seem to now be stuck in this little bubble looking inwards, where that's ALL you can see, and you think this is how it always has and should be. And that's very sad. Very sad indeed.

You type a lot trying to sound clever but you don’t actually make a point, as in, so what’s the point of what you just wrote?

 

Mass consumerism has good and bad aspects but it does drive innovation and technology trickles down as it gets replaced by newer tech at the high end. 

...

[atomicus]

1 hour ago, Knight77 said:

You type a lot trying to sound clever but you don’t actually make a point, as in, so what’s the point of what you just wrote?

 

Mass consumerism has good and bad aspects but it does drive innovation and technology trickles down as it gets replaced by newer tech at the high end. 

...

 

Again, you're just not grasping the fundamentals. You are lumping generic consumerism in with this... and that has always been a thing, and always will be. Since human civilization began, we have needed to purchase and consume stuff, and this is never going to change. I am not talking about that, nor am I for one second suggesting it's a bad thing. I don't even think you understand what I am talking about though, and the negative impact mass consumerism/mass consumer culture has in the world today... coveting and desiring products for no reason other than the social status they provide, or simply because we must have the new shiny shiny. For many people, how they feel and are defined revolves around their consumption of stuff. They have confused a 'good life' with 'goods', and we certainly no longer live by what we need, rather by what we 'want'. For so many of us, our entire lives centre around working in order to buy these things we want, which will in turn make us happier... at least that's what we're supposed to think.

 

You can dump over this and call it doom and gloom if you want, because there is certainly a side to it that isn't pretty, but it's a categorical fact that we live in a culture of desire.

 

Obviously, there will be economic benefits to this... mostly at the top of the food chain though... company execs, shareholders etc. and sure, some charities benefit, community projects etc., it's not all doom and gloom, but ultimately, it's us that suffers. Numerous studies and research back this up, demonstrating that people who place a priority value on wealth, status and material possession tend to suffer far more with depression and anti-social behaviour. And these numbers aren't decreasing, on the contrary. Again, these are just the facts, but feel free to ignore them.

 

Furthermore, the idea this pushes innovation can absolutely be seen the other way round, and this is a key point that you're missing. Why would a company feel the need to innovate when they KNOW all they need to do is figure out a way to make people WANT something? It doesn't have be what they think they want, and certainly not what they need... they just need to do the bare minimum to make people DESIRE it more than the last thing. Let's take this monitor in question... it's not perfect, plenty of room for improvement. But they know they've got one of the best monitors on the market right now that people will pay a premium for, so they release it. Could they have worked on it another six months... of course. Asus are a billion dollar company, easy, but than that would have meant a delay in profits, and they then couldn't so easily put out a new version in a couple of years with said improvements and charge even more. Because why the hell would they do that when they know people will buy it as it is?

 

Intel did it with CPUs, Nvidia with GPUs, and every monitor manufacturer does it. They are making money hand over fist and the innovation is coming at a snail's pace... and you're in cloud cuckoo land if you honestly think innovation is a priority over Exec bonuses, profits and shareholder satisfaction.

 

Like I say, you seem to think this is the only way, but you aren't even questioning how sustainable this model is. Look at Intel for example... they relied far too long on their brand power, the assumption they could just keep churning out micro improvements and charge more money for them. They obviously had no competition for years, so this stalled any need for the innovation which consumers were crying out for. But people still bought them! It took AMD to shake things up, but if Ryzen had never existed, we'd still be paying stupid money for 4-core CPUs, and you'd be making the same arguments that you're making for this monitor... because those CPUs would still be the best. I'm sure you will argue this proves your point, but AMD actually brought a product to market which CRUSHED Intel on value/performance, and Ryzen 3 is continuing that trend. This is good old fashioned consumerism in action... giving consumers EXACTLY what they want, at the price they want. THAT'S how you do it.

[Knight77]

15 hours ago, atomicus said:

 

Again, you're just not grasping the fundamentals. You are lumping generic consumerism in with this... and that has always been a thing, and always will be. Since human civilization began, we have needed to purchase and consume stuff, and this is never going to change. I am not talking about that, nor am I for one second suggesting it's a bad thing. I don't even think you understand what I am talking about though, and the negative impact mass consumerism/mass consumer culture has in the world today... coveting and desiring products for no reason other than the social status they provide, or simply because we must have the new shiny shiny. For many people, how they feel and are defined revolves around their consumption of stuff. They have confused a 'good life' with 'goods', and we certainly no longer live by what we need, rather by what we 'want'. For so many of us, our entire lives centre around working in order to buy these things we want, which will in turn make us happier... at least that's what we're supposed to think.

 

You can dump over this and call it doom and gloom if you want, because there is certainly a side to it that isn't pretty, but it's a categorical fact that we live in a culture of desire.

 

Obviously, there will be economic benefits to this... mostly at the top of the food chain though... company execs, shareholders etc. and sure, some charities benefit, community projects etc., it's not all doom and gloom, but ultimately, it's us that suffers. Numerous studies and research back this up, demonstrating that people who place a priority value on wealth, status and material possession tend to suffer far more with depression and anti-social behaviour. And these numbers aren't decreasing, on the contrary. Again, these are just the facts, but feel free to ignore them.

 

Furthermore, the idea this pushes innovation can absolutely be seen the other way round, and this is a key point that you're missing. Why would a company feel the need to innovate when they KNOW all they need to do is figure out a way to make people WANT something? It doesn't have be what they think they want, and certainly not what they need... they just need to do the bare minimum to make people DESIRE it more than the last thing. Let's take this monitor in question... it's not perfect, plenty of room for improvement. But they know they've got one of the best monitors on the market right now that people will pay a premium for, so they release it. Could they have worked on it another six months... of course. Asus are a billion dollar company, easy, but than that would have meant a delay in profits, and they then couldn't so easily put out a new version in a couple of years with said improvements and charge even more. Because why the hell would they do that when they know people will buy it as it is?

 

Intel did it with CPUs, Nvidia with GPUs, and every monitor manufacturer does it. They are making money hand over fist and the innovation is coming at a snail's pace... and you're in cloud cuckoo land if you honestly think innovation is a priority over Exec bonuses, profits and shareholder satisfaction.

 

Like I say, you seem to think this is the only way, but you aren't even questioning how sustainable this model is. Look at Intel for example... they relied far too long on their brand power, the assumption they could just keep churning out micro improvements and charge more money for them. They obviously had no competition for years, so this stalled any need for the innovation which consumers were crying out for. But people still bought them! It took AMD to shake things up, but if Ryzen had never existed, we'd still be paying stupid money for 4-core CPUs, and you'd be making the same arguments that you're making for this monitor... because those CPUs would still be the best. I'm sure you will argue this proves your point, but AMD actually brought a product to market which CRUSHED Intel on value/performance, and Ryzen 3 is continuing that trend. This is good old fashioned consumerism in action... giving consumers EXACTLY what they want, at the price they want. THAT'S how you do it.

Again,

 

You are presuming I don’t understand business, economics, consumerism, capitalism, politics and control of world affairs through money and power. 

I am not here, on a tech website, to debate such issues. 

I am educated in these fields and it’s what I specialise in but my argument has never been about the deep rooted issues. 

I don’t care about branded goods that offer no real value over another. 

Im talking technology, new technology, that didn’t exist before. 

This comes at a price, to have the world first and then the technology drips down to the mid range market and effectively the low end market and then becomes a standard. 

Im not debating on anything else here - it is you bringing up pointless statements about doom and gloom, executive pay, wanting “shiny shiny” and a whole load of nonsense. 

It might make you feel like you know more, sound clever or seen a “realist” or whatever. 

I know how the world works, it’s not the subject at hand here. 

When it comes to tech, competition is good, new tech is good as is world firsts. 

The subject at hand is a monitor that does this. 

And it comes at a price - at first - but that will reduce as time goes on and competition catches up. 

[atomicus]

10 hours ago, Knight77 said:

Again,

 

You are presuming I don’t understand business, economics, consumerism, capitalism, politics and control of world affairs through money and power. 

I am not here, on a tech website, to debate such issues. 

I am educated in these fields and it’s what I specialise in but my argument has never been about the deep rooted issues. 

I don’t care about branded goods that offer no real value over another. 

Im talking technology, new technology, that didn’t exist before. 

This comes at a price, to have the world first and then the technology drips down to the mid range market and effectively the low end market and then becomes a standard. 

Im not debating on anything else here - it is you bringing up pointless statements about doom and gloom, executive pay, wanting “shiny shiny” and a whole load of nonsense. 

It might make you feel like you know more, sound clever or seen a “realist” or whatever. 

I know how the world works, it’s not the subject at hand here. 

When it comes to tech, competition is good, new tech is good as is world firsts. 

The subject at hand is a monitor that does this. 

And it comes at a price - at first - but that will reduce as time goes on and competition catches up. 

 

I'm not presuming that... it's obvious you don't by your use of phrases such as "doom and gloom", and calling my facts "pointless statements" and "nonsense", when not only do they answer the very question you posed in your previous post (i.e what my point was), but also speak precisely to what I said in my very first post.

 

You'd have saved us both a lot of time if you just said you didn't care in the first place and kept your head stuck in the sand. Nothing I've said is wrong, so there's not even a debate to be had... you just don't like it. I don't feel like I know more... I clearly do, and it has nothing to do with being a 'realist', but even if I were, is that such a bad thing? The world and our society is what it is... make of it what you will, and if that reality depresses you such that you choose to see it a different way, or ignore aspects of it entirely, that is of course your right. But it doesn't change what's ACTUALLY going on outside your head.

 

The subject at hand has NEVER been what this monitor does, nor is it even about why YOU decided to buy it. Not once has that been the topic of our discussion since my very first post. You WANT it to be, because that's all you're capable of arguing for, and all your blinkered view is capable of comprehending... why YOU do things and why YOU bought this monitor. And that is utterly irrelevant to a single thing I've said.

 

But let's actually pick up on the innovation aspect in respect to the PG35VQ... because there is nothing truly innovative about this monitor, which really shouldn't be surprising given it was announced over 2-years ago, and the spec hasn't changed since then. The only innovative aspect is that it's a conglomeration of now relatively antiquated and flawed/imperfect/end-of-life technologies. That's the only innovation, and kudos to Asus for pulling this off and releasing a monitor that's using years old tech and convincing people like you that they're 'innovating'. Pure genius.

 

FALD and HDR... done better in cheaper TV's, 512-zones isn't enough and has been around for years, but certainly won't be for that much longer. 144Hz, it's fine, but has been around forever... OC to 200hz comes with colour compromise and other issues.... VA panel tech, same inherent issues it's always had, nothing innovative here either, but at least it doesn't make it any worse... size and resolution, been there done that at less than half the price. This adds 1"... OHMAGAWD!!! Yeah, right, OK. None of this means it's a bad monitor... that isn't what I'm saying before you start putting words in my mouth, but it isn't true innovation... innovative idea and marketing though, sure.

 

No true enthusiast who appreciates genuine innovative technology wants ANY of this to "trickle down"... it all needs to be done BETTER, because singularly, there is nothing here that is uniquely innovative and new, and that cannot (and arguably shouldn't already have been) improved upon by now. This monitor is going to be an antique in a year or two, and that's another topic you clearly don't want to go anywhere near... VALUE, because regardless how much anyone wants this and is willing to pay, the actual value/performance/lifespan is an absolute joke. And don't pretend that doesn't matter, even if it doesn't to you... this kind of business model is simply unsustainable for reasons I've already mentioned. The truly innovative monitors in the years ahead won't carry forward anything of the PG35VQ... the future is Micro-LED, more dimming zones, faster native panels and obviously higher res. This monitor innovates NOTHING, but making you think otherwise is exactly what Asus knows gets chumps to pay this price for it. It's a cash grab, pure and simple.