Totally wrong.
2K or even FHD for 27 inch monitors are still standard for professional uses. Do you even work for photo and video production? I work at e-comm and production studios and the resolution was never the problem cause we care more about the quality such as color, brightness, contrast ratio, and more. Besides, having high resolutions gives more headache than functions.
What you are saying is totally nonsense who never worked as a professional.
…Don’t attempt weak ad hominem fallacies; it’s a terrible and reckless thing to do with complete strangers on the internet that means and proves little being purely anecdotal:
I’ve done stuff for the likes of athletes, creative agencies, learning platforms, government entities, and big tech companies for over a decade.
I again literally sync and discuss modern panel matters with VESA members and reps of monitor manufacturers.
Heck my university has programs honoring cinema legends of Steven Spielberg in which I helped the next generation of creatives to not be as incorrect about HCI Computer Science as you as a TA and alum making hundreds of thousands with my expertise (and making sure they do as well).
You’re defying once again academia common knowledge on the matter of the importance of PPI over resolution in which 4K and below are ill-equipped to provide a sharp image optimal for reading and seeing visual on true 27” and 32” moniitors.
As far as content production being allegedly a peer…
Settling for not ideal resolutions does not make ideal nor good. At best passable and inconvenient limitation in your content production pipelines to reduce costs.
Settling and making do with 2K instead of 8K+ raw footoage is no different than using pure rasterizarion instead of ray-tracing.
The bottlenecks in many pipelines towards downgrading to 2K and non-high-refresh-rates (non-HFR) is the constraints of VFX team’s work and budget
To make ideal premium content making the lives of every professional in a content pipeline of any medium, it has always been ideal and best to have raw footage from higher resolutions (and ideally higher aspect ratios) than the consumer.
That is a factor why 8K+ hasn't taken off as many creatives don't have the budget or hardware to work well/efficiently with higher resolutions.
That has particularly bottlenecked domestic 3D and spatial content taking off as you need much higher baseline resolutions and refresh rates than what tradional content production has been able to get away with.
Like budget gamers making due with suboptimal 1080p and 1440p screnes, not every content production has the benefit of using 8K+ RED Cameras and more ideal working resolutions by the studios hiring themand provisioning their hardware.
Consumer market allows them to get away with it similar to gamers willing to play games at abysmal PPI and resolutions horrible for everything else you want to do on a computer monitor such as read text and view images.
Some are content doing that only well on retina Macbooks and phones.
That said, a meaningful amount of people use monitors a lot in a given day and are not trying to downgrade in readability and sharpness of images/video when they sit down on a desk to use a monitor.
It’s inefficient and not ideal from a content production standpoint as well.
4K is once more not high enough of a resolution to use for true 27” (florian compromise now is 24.5” panels marketed as 27”) and 32” monitors for a high PPI image.
4K loses its high PPI capabilities for monitor use at ergonomically recommended for monitor iss (not to be mistaken with distances for TVs) dramatically after 24”.
Subpar PPI being common isn’t that relevant for those who want to a good, great, and ideal experience for the things they most often do, want to do, and what pays the bills.
Especially creatives making premium content adding longevity, accessibility, and optimal holistic value to their work outputting it in the best ways modern tech enables than the bare minimum.
