Why are 3440 x 1440 monitors more expensive than 4K monitors?

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

Title says it all. I just noticed this. The cheapest 3440 x 1440 display I could find on PCPartPicker is $540, while the cheapest 4K monitors (I'm not counting <24" panels) are around $300. 

[Enderman]

Ultrawide is a niche market and therefore has more expensive products.

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Ultrawide is a niche market and therefore has more expensive products.

Hmm. Hadn't thought of that lol

[riferaft]

supply and demand, more people want an ultra wide there for retailers raise the price  

[Sauron]

Because it's a marketing fad, you pay a premium for the "ultrawide" swag. To be fair, generally they're good panels, but they're still too expensive compared to 16:9 4k monitors.

[dizmo]

You're forgetting the most obvious reason. They're bigger.

 

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

2 minutes ago, dizmo said:

You're forgetting the most obvious reason. They're bigger.

 

No, some 60Hz Ultrawides are more expensive than top-tier 40" 4K panels. 

[xsimplyjosh]

ultrawide is a want... not a need. if i can put it in words easily. it serves a niche purpose for the small percentage of those who want that ultrawide benefit a general widescreen monitor can't give them [IMMERSION]...

also if i recall harder to design a 3440x1440p panel where as 3840x2160 [4k] panels are so mainstream [eg look at bright tvs]

 

then extras; people want 100Hz/144Hz in ultrawide 1440p panels... whos gonna design these? only a small number of manufacturers would. hence they are supplying this product for a niche market and hence they are expensive. because not everyone uses ultrawide [21:9] but more of the conventional 16:9 widescreen monitor.

 

think of it as a visual shortage. [3440x1440p panels] vs a visual surplus [4k panels] its a bit like that almost if not.