It's because a smaller screen with the same (high) resolution means higher pixel density and smaller pixel size. It's something noticeably more expensive to manufacture.
>It's because a smaller screen with the same (high) resolution means higher pixel density and smaller pixel size. It's something noticeably more expensive to manufacture.
That's a fair point but I don't think it applies at these scales. Even a 8K 32" has a very low pixel density compared to a cellphone screen for example.
Acer has a 16" portable 4K screen for around 600 USD which they presumably sell at a nice profit, 4 of them would make a 8K 32".
Anyway, pricing aside the main problem is that the products don't exist in the first place. A monitor that's simply 4x 27" 4k screens (available from 300 usd) combined would be perfect for a programmer, data analyst etc even if it isn't strictly "retina".
The manufacturers don't make monitors like this for one reason or another. I think it's a marketing/economic strategy more than anything else.
My pessimistic take is that LG and Samsung etc have tons of investments in old tech and want to keep selling old tech to consumers for as long as they can because that's where they get the highest margins.
A slightly less pessimistic take is that monitor makers don't believe that there is a market for really large screens because when you do a survey most people think 32" is "big" and anything larger is absurd.
