I don't think that was his main argument.
The main ones, in my opinion, are the file sizes and the fact that 99.87% of people don't care and can't tell.
It's a marginal improvement in quality at best, but the increase in associated costs is an order of magnitude.
The main ones, in my opinion, are the file sizes [...] an order of magnitude
And he wildly overstates that. He makes is sound like it's two orders of magnitude.
He also seems to claim that video quality doesn't matter if you don't conciously see every single pixel in every frame. But in my experience higher resolution is a lot less tiring. And in fast placed games, 60 FPS is better fencepost than what movies use. Sure some people say it doesn't feel "cinematic" since TV shows use 50 and movies mostly 24 or 25.
I disagree with so many of the points he's making, I'm not going to list them. But his main argument is you're sitting far away from the screen, which might be true for TVs, but not for computer screens. Sure I might be one of the early adopters he mentions, but if you spend several hours in front of a screen, resolution and frame rate matters.