dslreports logo
 story category
Just 17% of Broadband Users Know What 4KTV Is

Back in March I pointed your attention to a study that noted just 30% of all consumers had even heard of 4KTV, and of that 30%, less than a third actually had a 4K set. Four months later and a new study notes that of broadband users, just 17% have any idea what 4KTV is.

Click for full size
Even among users aware of what 4K is, interest appears tepid.

Asked if they would pay $1500 for an HDTV set, just 6% of broadband users showed "moderate or high interest." When that price point was raised to $2000, those interest slid to just 3 percent.

"The industry is counting on 4K/UHD to be the solution for slow television sales and declining unit prices," said TDG president Michael Greeson. "This explicitly quantifies just how poor the demand for 4K/UHD televisions actually is and clearly demonstrates the current prices are too high to stimulate new sales."
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz

Member

60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

Would do it if content is there. Google Fiber is coming out with 2nd gen TV box with HDMI 1.4 support, implying they are prepping for 4K.

why60loss
Premium Member
join:2012-09-20

why60loss

Premium Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

said by existenz:

Would do it if content is there. Google Fiber is coming out with 2nd gen TV box with HDMI 1.4 support, implying they are prepping for 4K.

I got a 55in 4k with HDMI 2 on sale for about 1500 or so. But yes I realize I am on the edge.

I have been watching Netfilx in 4k for the past few days, really looks good but I know it's still really compressed even if it does run at 25mbs. (I know the min is 15mbs, but I think from what I can tell it ramps up to 25mbs if the bandwidth is there.)

Oh and Youtube 4k looks really good even on a 1080p screen because it's not so compressed. I think that's what I like most about 4k right now.

I only got it because I have 105/10, I would never want to use 4k streaming on a 15/1 connection like I had before. Getting 10 times the speed both ways for the same cost is really cool. Though it's still no google fiber.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72

Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

Maybe the TV costs $1500, but if you stream set another $1500 aside to pay for overages

Low Caps will kill 4K...Plain enough.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned) to why60loss

Member

to why60loss

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

Should wait though, you'll want the 60hz @4K capable ones.

why60loss
Premium Member
join:2012-09-20

1 recommendation

why60loss

Premium Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

said by intok:

Should wait though, you'll want the 60hz @4K capable ones.

I did buy one that was 60hz 4k capable with the HDMI 2 spec.
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

1 recommendation

zod5000 to existenz

Member

to existenz
Except you need an 80 inch TV (unless your sitting really close) to benefit from the higher resolution.

This is why I think 4k is a niche product. Unless there's a fundamental shift to people having 80"+ tv's in their living rooms, why are the masses going to upgrade?

HDTV made sense because there was a simultaneous turn to people wanting the new larger thin flatscreen sets, so HDTV and Plasma/LCD walked hand in hand.

People are yearning for 80 inch sets, so how useful is 4k going to be to the masses? I think it'll end up being another 3d. A niche product, rarely used, than ends up being a feature in tv's that isn't used that much.

why60loss
Premium Member
join:2012-09-20

2 recommendations

why60loss

Premium Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

said by zod5000:

Except you need an 80 inch TV (unless your sitting really close) to benefit from the higher resolution.

This is why I think 4k is a niche product. Unless there's a fundamental shift to people having 80"+ tv's in their living rooms, why are the masses going to upgrade?

HDTV made sense because there was a simultaneous turn to people wanting the new larger thin flatscreen sets, so HDTV and Plasma/LCD walked hand in hand.

People are yearning for 80 inch sets, so how useful is 4k going to be to the masses? I think it'll end up being another 3d. A niche product, rarely used, than ends up being a feature in tv's that isn't used that much.

I call BS, I sit 8 FT from the 55in set and 4K looks sharper than HD. I for one think HD looks bad past 50/55in.

How about you own or at lest see 4k content before making statement's about something you never had.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

said by why60loss:

I call BS, I sit 8 FT from the 55in set and 4K looks sharper than HD. I for one think HD looks bad past 50/55in.

How about you own or at lest see 4k content before making statement's about something you never had.

And I sit 12 feet from a 42 inch set because I'm not blind. Who in the fuck sit so close to a TV? If I had a 55 inch TV I wouldn't have it closer than 12 feet and I doubt I see a difference between 1080p and 4K.

duh
join:2008-08-18
Atlanta, GA

1 recommendation

duh

Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

said by 78036364:

And I sit 12 feet from a 42 inch set because I'm not blind. Who in the fuck sit so close to a TV?

People who like to pretend that they're in a movie theater all the time. The solution to that existed decades ago: video projectors.
said by 78036364:

If I had a 55 inch TV I wouldn't have it closer than 12 feet and I doubt I see a difference between 1080p and 4K.

I can see the difference between 1080 and 4k, but I simply don't have the need to see the inside of each of Aaron Paul's individual pores.

I'm still watching most media from sources less than 500 pixels in the vertical, the rest 720, and perfectly happy with that, even if I am capable of seeing more resolution. I just happen to have a little more control over my wallet.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

In home projectors are crap. Too expensive, bulbs are exspensive to replace, can't have the lights on or you wash it out, consumer grade models have rainbowing and color blending problems.

Just get the big multi zone LED backlit panel.
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home

smcallah to 78036364

Member

to 78036364
There are optimal HDTV viewing distances.

For a 20 degree viewing angle, the farthest recommended, you should be at 105 inches away for a 42 inch TV. That is the recommendation of manufacturers, it is 2.5x the diagonal of the TV.

The SMPTE recommended viewing range is 30 degrees at 1.6 x Diagonal. The 4k specification was actually designed with SMPTE 30 in mind.

And THX recommended is 1.2x the Diagonal to give a 40 degree viewing angle. It is the maximum horizontal viewing angle based on average human vision.

So why60loss is at a good range from his TV. And you are out of these ranges, but within RCA's recommendation of 5'5" - 15'10" for 42 inches.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow to why60loss

Premium Member

to why60loss
I am not sure I want to see every skin pore and makeup brush stroke when they do a normal head shot. For some reason that has started to bother me on my 46in LED TV.
As long as this set lasts I will use it. When it dies I may try a 4K. People like me may be the problem with new technology. We wait a few years until the bugs get worked out and the price drops. By then they have added some advanced bells and whistles at a cheaper price..
firedrakes
join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

firedrakes to why60loss

Member

to why60loss
hate to brake this to you but 1080p content is. on a video compression (file has been compress and not full size anymore) meaning your not getting full raw footage . i have seen real 4k set ups by ILM which with using raw footage and on a 2 store screen looks insane. otherwise. what your getting on 4k now is a finer detail due. to less compression in video format

why60loss
Premium Member
join:2012-09-20

why60loss

Premium Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

said by firedrakes:

hate to brake this to you but 1080p content is. on a video compression (file has been compress and not full size anymore) meaning your not getting full raw footage . i have seen real 4k set ups by ILM which with using raw footage and on a 2 store screen looks insane. otherwise. what your getting on 4k now is a finer detail due. to less compression in video format

Yes I realize that, I know Video steams are very compressed and true raw 4k looks a lot better. I have seen raw before so I know what it looks like.
firedrakes
join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

firedrakes

Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

ok. most poeple have no clue with that. so that's why i said that. i have seen 4k tv set up. really only thing i see is more detail . due to less compression . still those tv are way over price
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

Wrong, theres MORE compression in a 4K video feed, but since theres 4x as many pixels to work with the artifacting becomes far less noticeable.
floydb1982
join:2004-08-25
Kent, WA

floydb1982 to why60loss

Member

to why60loss
I have both a 47" 1080/60Hz CFL LCD HDTV and a 55" 1080p/120Hz LED LCD HDTV. With a 2 Blu-ray hooked to each and it does a pretty good job of displaying 1080p/20Hz HD. Why would I want to go 4K anyhow. U would need at least 100" HDTV to really get the true benefits of 4K 2160p or to see a difference between 1080p and 2160p video quality. Besides I live in a double wide mobile home and I would need to buy a house with walls make of steel and iron to hold up to the weight of a 100" HDTV. The TVs I currently have would cause the paper thin walls to claps under there own weight if I huge those TVs on the wall. Besides 1080p does me just fine for watching HD cable broadcast and Blu-ray.
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

zod5000 to why60loss

Member

to why60loss
And what content are you comparing? Are you comparing a high bit rate bluray to a comporable 4k image, or are you comparing a 1080p netflix feed, or 1080i cable feed to 4k? High Quality 1080p looks fine on a TV up to 80inch. The problem is that aside from Bluray most HD titles dont take full advantage of 1080p and thus aren't a good comparison to 4k.
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz

Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

The conversation of how 4K vs 1080 looks becomes moot when economies of scale for the higher end tech reaches point of being the same or better than older tech. There will soon be a point where it doesn't make sense to make 1080 displays just as it makes no economic sense to make SD displays from manufacturing perspective.

And on the recording end, even low end tablets will soon be recording in 4K...
»www.pcworld.com/article/ ··· .rss_all
ScottNJ
join:2003-04-13
Hackensack, NJ

ScottNJ to why60loss

Member

to why60loss
He's absolutely correct. I've seen quiet a few 4K TV's. You have to get pretty close to see a real difference for anything 55" and smaller, and the average person own cheap HDTV's that barely surpass 55"'s in size.

aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium Member
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA

aztecnology to zod5000

Premium Member

to zod5000

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

said by zod5000:

Except you need an 80 inch TV (unless your sitting really close) to benefit from the higher resolution.

This is why I think 4k is a niche product. Unless there's a fundamental shift to people having 80"+ tv's in their living rooms, why are the masses going to upgrade?

HDTV made sense because there was a simultaneous turn to people wanting the new larger thin flatscreen sets, so HDTV and Plasma/LCD walked hand in hand.

People are yearning for 80 inch sets, so how useful is 4k going to be to the masses? I think it'll end up being another 3d. A niche product, rarely used, than ends up being a feature in tv's that isn't used that much.

I have a 70" Vizio ($1500 Superbowl 2013) in my living room that I'm just about ready to move to my bedroom. I'll be looking to to go 80"-90" in my living room and will probably stick with HD for another gen before I go 4K, unless I get a really good deal on a 4k set...

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi

Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

70 inch in your bedroom??? You're not going to like those huge butt holes looking at you. I've been told there's 3D porn so it might be interesting to see a 10 inch on a 70 inch???

cork1958
Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26

cork1958 to zod5000

Premium Member

to zod5000

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

said by zod5000:

Except you need an 80 inch TV (unless your sitting really close) to benefit from the higher resolution.

This is why I think 4k is a niche product. Unless there's a fundamental shift to people having 80"+ tv's in their living rooms, why are the masses going to upgrade?

Exactly!

"Just 17% of Broadband Users Know What 4KTV Is"

I had heard of it but could care less about it!

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to existenz

Member

to existenz
I've got a 55" 1080 HD TV in my den that's fine for now. When more content is available I'll retire that TV to the bed room and move that TV out to my workshop.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned) to existenz

Member

to existenz
said by existenz:

Would do it if content is there.

except is not an won't be for at least a decade if at all. So why not wait?
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home

1 recommendation

smcallah

Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

There is already 4k content, so a decade went by fast, huh? Netflix has some of its original shows in 4k, Sony has 4k content, and YouTube has 4k videos.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned) to 78036364

Member

to 78036364
Youtube and Netflix already have the content way ahead of the industry.
Albert71292
join:2004-10-31
West Monroe, LA

Albert71292

Member

I'm Aware, However...

I know about 4K, but unless I ever get anything faster than my current 6Mbps DSL, it'll be a non-starter for me.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: I'm Aware, However...

You don't have cable?

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: I'm Aware, However...

there are places that don't get cable yes
Albert71292
join:2004-10-31
West Monroe, LA

Albert71292 to BiggA

Member

to BiggA
said by BiggA:

You don't have cable?

Nope.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: I'm Aware, However...

That sucks.
devolved
join:2012-07-11
Rapid City, SD
Ooma Telo

devolved to BiggA

Member

to BiggA
I used to live in an area that didn't have cable or DSL. Yeah, those places still exist.

The ISP's in this country sit around with their thumbs up their backsides collecting all the money from their customers who are stuck surfing at 100Mbps, while the rest of the world surfs the internet faster and faster.
David_K
join:2014-05-02

David_K

Member

Re: I'm Aware, However...

Not sure if it's a typo but 100mbps is pretty blazing fast, fast enough for 4k anyway. I'd actually be more than happy if my connection was 100mbps down, as is I'm at around 25mbps.

fiosultimate
join:2014-06-09
San Antonio, TX

fiosultimate

Member

fad

4k the new 3d, with no broadcast support, will last half as long as 3D till infinity5 comes along

•••
kxrm
join:2002-07-18
Fort Worth, TX

1 recommendation

kxrm

Member

From my perspective...

...the issue of 4K adoption is a tough sell. 4K, has no real definition improvement for most people unless you are either sitting extremely close to your HD TV or you buy a 80" screen or larger. This situation puts us in the realm of the ridiculous. Certainly some will have interest in 4K because either A) they have to have the latest technology or B) they have watching conditions that meet the above.

Based on this I believe adoption will be extremely slow and probably feel worse to salesman than the 3D TV novelty.

••••••••
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

zod5000

Member

I don't think 4k is going to take off.....

It's an interesting technology but it really only benefits people with big TV's. I think you need somewhere around an 80" set to start benefiting from the technology (assuming you aren't sitting super close to the tv). Most people I know are still buying 50" to 60" TV's. There's not a lot of benefit on those sizes.

Cable (and satellite) companies still struggle with 1080i with most of their broadcasting. i'm not sure there in a near term position to change to 4k (especially if they can't handle 1080p yet).

Netflix still compresses their 1080p feeds a fair bit (even with the new Ultra setting).

Unless people decided to adopt big ass TV's in massive quantities I don't see how 4k would take off. It reminds of my old 42" TV. It could do 1080p, but the quality difference between 720p and 1080p on a TV of that size was marginable.

Bigger TV's need bigger resolution. Do people have the room (or want) bigger tv's?

I wish cableco's/netflix would optimize 1080p first... as i don't think the world is near ready for 4k.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: I don't think 4k is going to take off.....

the technology is there, they choose not to upgrade to it.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned) to zod5000

Member

to zod5000
The content already exists and the prices are cheap unlike 3D.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman

Premium Member

4K awareness.

The recession is still ongoing. A small percentage of people are considering the purchase of a better HDTV. Better may mean going from 720p to 1080p. It may mean getting a larger 1080p TV. It may mean getting a smart TV in 1080p to replace or supplement a non-smart HDTV. Some people may be spending money to cancel cable pay TV service and install OTA antennas. Some people may be spending money to get and use a higher data transfer internet service in order to cancel pay TV and go internet/OTA only. I know some who want to get a 70 inch or 80 inch 1080p HDTV as a step up from a 55 inch 1080p TV set. Some who have a 55 inch 1080p HDTV have said they do not want to step down to a 42 inch 4K UHDTV. They are content to wait for larger UHDTVs.

I see 4K as doing much better than 3D. 3D needed the expensive and easily broken glasses. 3D required sitting in a certain area in front of the TV set. 3D was not good for large group entertaining, such as a Super Bowl party. 4K can provide an improved visual experience while retaining the same wide viewing angles as the good HDTVs of today. The LCD UHDTVs I have seen look as good as some of the best DLP front projector viewing experiences I have had.

•••
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Content is King.

HDTV only really took off when there was more content than sports to make it worth while. Once you had it across most channels and on streaming and physical media sources along with HDTV panels becoming cheap it no longer made sense to not own an HDTV.

4K or marketing speak "UltraHD" will need lots of content and low prices.

To me though the biggest gain if 4k becomes popular will be lots of higher resolution computer screens becoming the norm. 1080p is the norm in computing because those are the cheapest panels right now.
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home

smcallah

Member

Re: Content is King.

said by Kearnstd:

4K or marketing speak "UltraHD" will need lots of content and low prices.

You have that backwards, UltraHD or UHD is what the ITU calls the spec.

4k is the marketing speak.
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Plano, TX

DMS1

Member

Re: Content is King.

The reason it isn't officially called 4k (or 4K if you want to get the units wrong) is that there is already a 4k movie standard - hence the correct term is UHD. I don't know why they didn't just call it 2160p so that everyone understood its relationship to current 1080p.

Kuro
@75.151.50.x

Kuro

Anon

4k the new 3D

So this is the new thing that they are pushing to convince people that they need a new TV? I might buy one when the price goes down and my current set dies but there is little to no content. I'd be all for 4K streaming content but I have datacaps to worry about and using HD/Super HD screws me already.

davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN

davidc502

Member

4k -- I'm not impressed

Studies have shown people can't tell the different between 4k and 1080p whist watching a 100" flat screen.. I forget the distance they stood back.

4k has been rolled out too early in the flat screen era.
Happydude32
Premium Member
join:2005-07-16

Happydude32

Premium Member

Re: 4k -- I'm not impressed

Have you actually seen Ultra HD in person, or are you just going by what some bullshit 'study' says?

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
Asus RT-AC3100
(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

Packeteers to davidc502

Premium Member

to davidc502
the same has been said by the 720 vs 1080 camp on smaller screens. I've seen various 1080 and 2160 screens on demo, and would not buy a 2160 to watch movies,
only to increase gaming screen real estate (essentially to simulate 4x1080 without any bezel interruptions). 1080 is already far more movie detail than i care to see.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx

Member

The real use

The REAL use for a 4K TV is a computer monitor. Problem is, HDMI 1.4 only supports 30Hz refresh rate. 3840x2160 on a 40" monitor would be much nicer than the current 2560x1600 I get on my 30". Sure, the "tv" will only be 4' away from me, and yes, it requires a VERY good video card, but I'd replace my 2x30" with 2x50" 4K "monitors" in a heartbeat. AND, they are much cheaper per inch than the 30" (mine were about $1500.00 each 2 years ago). The 50" 4K TV's can be had for less than $1000.00

alchav
join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT

1 edit

alchav

Member

4K Then 8K

I think it's the next logical step for Video, especially the Movie Industry. Unlike 3D, you will just get more detail and a fantastic viewing experience. I haven't heard of any 4K Media, so Streaming and Broadcast will be the only source. You do need a Big Screen TV to take full advantage, but I think the majority of the people now have TV's 55" and below. I've had my 62" Mitsubishi for over 10 years, it's way over time for me to upgrade. So for the rest of the people, there is a lot of room to grow and catch up.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

Re: 4K Then 8K

yes I am really wanting to see the individual pores on actors faces.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: 4K Then 8K

porn would be so much better

ev
@74.140.91.x

ev

Anon

Eh

Something something 80 inch screens
biochemistry
Premium Member
join:2003-05-09
92361

biochemistry

Premium Member

Can't wait

Personally I can't wait for 4k to become mainstream. The picture improvement is striking. I will wait however to ensure that whatever disc format replaces bluray is compatible with my TV.

•••••
GraysonPeddi
Grayson Peddie
join:2010-06-28
Tallahassee, FL
Ubiquiti EdgeRouter PoE
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC

GraysonPeddi

Member

Samsung 40" 4KTV

I see that Samsung UN40HU6950 40" 4KTV is available in Amazon which will allow me to take advantage of GNOME Shell's HiDPI mode (Ubuntu GNOME 14.04). Even if 1920x1080 resolution is perfect for my vision at 39",

I can see pixels pretty easily by about 4 inches away from the screen unless I switch to 3840x2160 and scale everything by two. Images in web pages will look the same, but the text will be a lot smoother and clearer, even at half the font size (I will have to be less than 2 inches from the screen in order to read it). However, that 40" TV cost $1K and I'm going to wait for more 40" TVs to become available next year. I want to see 4K TVs with full-array LED TV with local dimming available at any retail stores next year. I currently have Vizio E390-B0 without local dimming as I'm way too skeptical to see what it looks like and a couple of months ago, Best Buy did not have Vizio E-based televisions with local dimming at all in Tallahassee. I also cannot trust edge-lit TVs with local dimming in them (previously LG 47LM7600).

(Sigh) I'm a guy who yearns for the old days of CRT televisions with deepest blacks and whitest whites but I can't use a Plasma TV as a PC monitor.
JBT
Premium Member
join:2002-12-06
Odessa, FL

JBT

Premium Member

I'd buy a 4K if I was in the market for a new primary set.

The fact of the matter is I'm not. 1080p for a decent size and price are more important to me. I'd rather save 500-800 for something else.

aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA

aaronwt

Premium Member

I thought it was called...

Ultra HD or UHD? Not 4KTV.

•••
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

A lot of other people live under a rock

Otherwise they would know what 4K is...

NO to ESPN
@98.198.200.x

NO to ESPN

Anon

I am Looking

I have seen the Sony 4K TVs at their store in Houston and can tell the difference. The telling change is the color fidelity and depth. I have a 15 year old Sony XBR HD tube TV and it is ready to be retired due to no HDMI inputs. Right now I am considering the XBR 65X950B. Hopefully it will be good for 15 years. Right now we are figuring out how to fit the thing in our den without hanging it on the wall.

In my opinion it is worth the money for I can see the difference.
AmericanMan
Premium Member
join:2013-12-28
united state

AmericanMan

Premium Member

Remember 1080i TVs?

That's what these early 4K TVs sound like to me. Before the format goes "mainstream" I expect there to be some big shift or transition in it, just like there was from 1080i to 1080p.

And just like I didn't want to be one of those early adopters stuck with a 1080i TV, I don't want to be one of the ones stuck with the early 4K TVs.

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi

Member

I doubt it

MY eyes aren't 4k so that's a problem. LOL.

Most people to not have rooms capable of putting a 60 inch or so TV in.

•••
page: 1 · 2 · next