Streaming content on the Internet, specially at 1080P, is highly compressed and won't touch the quality for the same movie on a Blu-ray disc. Digital video technology allows Internet streaming providers to compress the picture to make it less demanding on bandwidth, but boy do you loose on PQ! This is the same situation we saw with the DVD versus satellite TV or the digital cable TV era all over again, the resolutions may have been the same but the PQ sucked compared to DVD, big time!

A friend of mine uses a HTPC to watch Blu-rays and my Oppo BDP-83 or any other BD player simply puts his HTPC to shame on his 55-inch Samsung LCD HDTV. I don't know of any HTPCs that are cheaper than a very good quality $200 Blu-ray player that can also stream all kinds of services through the Internet and DLNA.

Since when did SACD get outdated? Have you ever listened to a good quality hi-res SACD, DVD-Audio or Blu-ray Audio recording on a decent or good quality stereo or multichannel system? New SACD releases are coming out every week. Up to date, there have been over 7800 titles released on SACD, up from around 7000 one year ago. This market for audiophiles is far from dead. I've yet to see any multichannel high resolution audio download or streaming service, they're all stereo.

A computer monitor and an HDTV are two different display devices targeting different needs. When you work on a computer monitor, ideally you'd like to have the largest possible resolution (within reason) as this gives you a larger virtual desktop upon which you can open and display more documents simultaneously to work more efficiently and increase productivity, specially on a modern multitasking OS environment. Furthermore, you sit very close to a computer display allowing your eyes to resolve the finer details that a larger resolution like 2560x1600 or greater yields.

However when watching TV, normal people prefer watching at much greater viewing distances than when looking at a computer display as they relax comfortably on their sofas. Studies have shown that the average HDTV viewing distance in US homes is about 9 feet (2.74 meters). The human eye for 20/20 visual acuity can resolve details in the order of 1/60th of a degree (or 1 arc-minute). At that 9-foot viewing distance, the optimum screen size for a 1080P HDTV is 69 inches, smaller than that and you gradually begin to loose details as your screen size decreases. Other studies point out that most consumers buy HDTVs that are too small in size for their eyes to be capable to resolve all the detail shown by the 1080P HDTV they purchase because their viewing distance is too far with respect to the screen size at a 1920x1080 resolution.

When you move onto 4K (4096x2160P) territory, the issue is further compounded. At that resolution and when watching from 9 feet away, your eyes begin to see the benefits of 4K at about 83 inches in screen size and only realize the full potential at around 144 inches, i.e. a 12-foot screen size! At this point, you might as well get yourself a projector. Most consumers don't have the room and available wall space to accommodate a projector, that's why consumers buy mostly screen sizes in the 55-inch category. Watching a 55-inch 4K display at 9 feet won't add much to your viewing pleasure other than that provided by the increased color space that is used in 4K displays. No doubt 4K screens are on their way, some are already available in the form of projectors and some LCDs may come out by year's end, but until the prices drop down significantly for very large displays, the benefits will be marginal, unless you sit like 5 feet away.

As for 4K video content, I can guarantee you that this content will be available on physical media before streaming services. A consortium of Japanese companies has developed the Holographic Versatile Disc (HVD) that can support capacities of several terabytes. We don't even know yet if the movie studios will go along as they're very paranoid about the possibility of having their very high resolution content like 4K being pirated. It's difficult enough to stream 1080P content properly with it's bandwidth requirements and for consumers to have affordable bandwidth to support it. Now imagine the demands for 4K that will be over 4 times greater.

One last comment, if you were to argue that DVD's resolution isn't adequate, I think that's a very defendable viewpoint. However, you state that 1080P isn't good resolution when it actually has 6 times more resolution than DVD. I find this a very narrow-minded and jaded opinion. Have you ever seen a well mastered 1080P Blu-ray movie on a quality display like a Pioneer Kuro, a good quality plasma or any good quality LCD screen? I suspect that you've being watching compressed streamed 1080P content on a small low quality LCD screen or computer display. Resolution isn't the only criterion for PQ and in the calibration industry, it's considered to be less important than certain others. ISF for instance considers that the most important criteria for picture quality are - in the following order - the contrast ratio, the color saturation, the color accuracy, resolution, followed by others. So there are three other aspects of PQ that are deemed to be more important than resolution in regards to PQ.