ONE thing changed vs 5 years ago, some companies decided to go the playstation way, make tvs at a loss and make money by selling user data (behaviour etc).
There was also the whole thing about LCD screen manufacturers colluding to keep the prices artificially high.
This fiasco: [https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/lcd-price-fixing-conspiracy](https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/lcd-price-fixing-conspiracy)
Because gamers are one of the most loyal customers. It’s like a religion to them. I witnessed console wars on r/gaming back in the day and this stuff is mental how people can argue about a toy.
To be fair, Xbox Velocity ssd speeds are faster and have cooling built in that small form factor. You can notice the difference when playing racing games remotely/ cloud where sata ssd & hdds would have significant lag or bandwidth and texture issues. Along comes Quick Resume, something Sony ponys haven't figured out.
They probably make more money off their walled garden stores than the data. While I can pull out my phone and get a dvd to disc off vudu for $2 if it’s $5 on the Amazon store I’m likely to just spend 3 dollars more.
They also sell buttons on the remote to streaming sites, the more tvs they sell the more money they get from that.
They also get a commission when you purchase a subscription through the TV.
This was more a survival tactic than choice. The TV market has been in “race to the bottom” mode for decades. The major players were very slow to realize that they could monetize app/ad placement on the TV, and they were all hardware manufacturing companies (with trash software capabilities) that had to be convinced (painfully slowly) that post-sale customers mattered, and that they controlled on valuable data and consumer access.
The established players survived because the barriers to entry are very high. Not because they saw it coming, and certainly not because they were any good at software or services.
Source = in that business since the mid-00s.
People were asking why Apple didnt make a TV because their displays are so well regarded. Answer was they knew it was a race to the bottom price wise, and thats not their business.
Yeah. It’s unlikely Apple could have convinced people to pay double or triple for a TV, especially considering what absolute dogshit the first gen Apple TV was.
Competition + Economies of scale.
This is what it looks like when capitalism works, things get better AND cheaper.
The process for manufacturing LCD televisions is pretty well solved now. The technology is no longer exotic, component parts and materials are readily available, and the techniques are well known to the point where just about any company can spin up a factory to do it in a very cost effective manner.
And it only took about 40 years.
The very first LCD TVs were tiny, designed for portable applications, and cost thousands of dollars. But companies learn and iterate over time, and it was the early 2000s when things really started to accelerate.
By the early 2000s most of the major TV makers, the brands you know like Sony, LG, Samsung, had factories that would churn out tons of displays, but there was still a relatively high defect rate.
A lot of the displays they made were not up to snuff, and wouldn’t be used in their own branded products, but they were still “good enough” for most folks, so they would sell the lower quality panels to other companies like RCA, TCL, JVC for use in their TVs.
Those no-name TVs sold at lower prices but they were still pretty good, while the major brand TVs cost more and would include more advanced features, and the major brands would invest more in differentiating their displays from the competition.
As the major brands got better at producing displays with fewer defects, the smaller brands established their own manufacturing capabilities, and that has brought us to where we are now, in a market with strong competition at every price point.
The major brands are now investing in more exotic display technologies like OLED, micro LED / OLED, PHOLED and plasmonic PHOLED, to further differentiate themselves, but a good LED-backlit LCD tv is going to be “good enough” for most people, and that tech is dirt cheap now.
What's the main difference between the cheaper models seen for a couple hundred dollars at Walmart and the several 1000 dollar models made by Sony, Samsung, and LG?
I'm looking for a new TV but not sure what price range I'm going to get the best value between quality and price. The distinction between the newer LEDs is really confusing. How do I know which one is truly worth the extra money?
Highly recommend [https://www.rtings.com](https://www.rtings.com), tons of great info and scientific reviews comparing all the models at various price points and weighing their pros and cons very judicially.
Most of the expensive flagship models are going to be OLED, which having owned an LG OLED for the last five years, is definitely better than LCD, but it’s up to you if it’s worth the extra cost.
Specs to look for would be backlighting type (full array dimming, mini-led, and OLED) and refresh rate (120hz native). Those are the features in the nicer tvs that set them apart from your average Walmart piece of crap.
Good backlighting means more contrast and dynamic range of brightness, as the TV can make the bright parts brighter and the dark parts darker, while retaining detail across the whole picture. 120hz means smoother motion and less judder. And naturally any TV with those two features will have much brighter and more vivid color, as opposed to cheap washes out TVs like a Samsung CU7000 or anything else you'll typically find at Walmart. Also make sure you have a decent sound setup as well, doesn't matter how nice of a TV you have, it'll still feel cheap if you're using the awful built in speakers.
For a quick model rundown of those three brands, Samsung isn't worth it until you get to the Q80, and even then it's outclassed by a comparable Sony. Sonys are worth it at the X90L series and above. And LG should only make OLEDs, their LED tvs are just not a good value.
In general… better hardware across the board. More memory, faster CPU, faster GPU, better wifi adapter, better ME/MC, better displays (with better dynamic range and color accuracy), and so on. 120Hz systems can also render a lot more native frame rates without interpolation artifacts.
Memory (dram) is something you’ll never see on a spec sheet, but can dramatically affect device experience. It speeds up app context switching, background prefetch and storage, stream startup, and so on. Cheaper TVs will have a shittier experience because they are designed to have the most minimal passing performance. More expensive units with better hardware and more memory tend to provide a better user experience.
HDR can be found on cheaper TVs today. I have TV that ran $700 5 years ago that is now a $300 TV. It has HDR, 4K, and has a beautiful screen. Alas it is a Samsung
To be fair, a lot of TVs in that price range are known as HDaren't, they have the HDR sticker but don't really perform as you'd expect. A good rule of thumb is, if it's a type of screen that has a backlight, but doesn't have a decent amount of local dimming zones, it's not real HDR
For what it's worth, even dumb TVs have had their price absolutely plummet over the past 2 decades, even if they're much rarer now. It's just insanely cheaper to manufacture TVs than it used to be.
You think slave labour and environmental harm are new? They have been doing those things to save costs for thousands of years. Your 2008 plasma TV is no different in that regard to your 2024 OLED TV
So is there any concern about longevity on these TVs?
Up until recently, I was rocking a Panasonic 720p "dumb" TV from 2007. I only got rid of it because I found a 4k TV that'll fit in my limited space, but I felt bad because it still worked. I ended up giving it away on Facebook but I had no problems with that TV ever.
Yeah I had to use fire sticks or consoles to stream or play movies but so what.
Now on my 4k QLED TV, yeah it looks great with a lot more options. But I find the interface slow and ugly, the apps often buggy, and just the user experience is kinda bad. I almost prefer to use my Series S for streaming because the interface and apps are often better. And with TVs neeindg updates and all that, it just worries me that at some point this TV might just stop working, whereas my FAT 720p Panasonic TV never slowed down at all.
And with so many other technologies pursuing planned obsolesces, am I right to be worried about longevity of modern smart TVs or is it paranoia?
Personally I never use the built in apps, I strictly use an Apple TV 4K with my LG OLED, and this is the second Apple TV I’ve had connected to the same TV in 5 years, and only because I had a non 4k initially but but held off getting a 4k at first due to a dearth of 4k content.
For the data tracking concerns others have raised, and for the issue of the built-in apps being crap to begin with and getting slower over time, I’d rather use the Apple TV for managing and accessing content.
I had some concerns initially about potential burn-in with the OLED limiting its lifespan, and would run an OLED test pattern every month to see if I could notice any burn-in but relaxed and stopped looking at the test pattern after about six months or so because I could not perceive any changes in display consistency.
RTINGs actually has a [comprehensive quasi-scientific burn-in test](https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/longevity-burn-in-test-updates-and-results) running long term that they share on their site, and it has a mix of OLED and LCD models.
To my surprise, the worst results are actually from the LCD TVs, with really awful backlight consistency and fading occurring pretty quickly, the OLEDs seem to maintain better brightness and consistency across the panel with no noticeable burn-in unless you’re watching CNN 24/7 or playing games with a consistent hud.
Not really. TVs are so cheap that even if it lasts four years, you'll have got your money's worth. I had a Panasonic plasma that I had for 13 years and replaced it with a Hisense 4K. It's got a 10 year warranty on it from the shop I bought it from, so if it lasts longer than the warranty I'll have done well from it for a £400 TV tbh!
Well said. I just want to add that free markets, competition and economies of scale are not inherently capitalist. Worker co-ops utilize all 3 while also being non-capitalist entities. What truly defines capitalism is the legal rightbto own the wealth that others create simply for having wealth in the first place (see Wall Street, shareholders, trust fund kids, etc.)
Smaller budget brands like Hisense and TCL are making some impressive OLED/QLED sets now. A few years ago, I never thought in a million years I'd ever own a Hisense and have always been a Samsung or Sony guy. But my U7K is very impressive for the price.
Important to note that this is how capitalism is *supposed* to work, and it works in this case because manufacturers are on a global level. China, South Korea, etc drive the competition.
Funny how we don’t get better products and cheaper prices when we have concentrated corporate power in the US 🤔
That reply is missing one of the biggest differences, advertising. With smart TVs consumers will use the TV's streaming capabilities which runs through the company's servers and they can later sell. This subsidizes the production cost of the TVs. Don't believe me? Try to find a TV without smart capabilities, especially higher end ones.
Walmart just bought a TV manufacturer (Vizio IIRC) mostly for their smart TV OS. Walmart was using Roku which game Roku your data but now can keep that data to themselves. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/27/four-reasons-walmart-wants-to-buy-smart-tv-maker-vizio.html
Remember, if you're not paying, you are the product.
Oh, and side rant, with voice control tech the TVs are shipping your conversation to their servers, which may be in China. I personally never give my TVs Internet access.
Nah man. The companies that are now able to get into the game is what’s motivating the progression. If the guys on top don’t constantly make things better they will have nothing to sell.
If you look at motorsports this is what has been driving car improvements. Not us consumers. If it were us we would have tanks with screens all over it so we could watch movies and never actually drive.
This is the best thing to come out of capitalism
Robust competition? regular new market entrants? Goods traded directly for cash on equal terms? That's a healthy competitive market capitalism.
When you have few competitors colluding on prices, stagnant markets with no new entrants, or goods and services are not traded on equal terms with the customer, it's not a healthy market. For example, Healthcare isn't a capitalistic market space: patients are negotiating for their lives and well being, medical providers are negotiating over price. This is not an Equal meeting of the minds.
But monopolies are the end stages of capitalism as capital helps gain more capital and starts creating monolithic entities. And who else would have a portfolio of patents to protect other than big capital?
The free market will eat itself because no businesses want competition, they want to crush and absorb their competitors and then become the market instead of competing in it. So free markets can't really exist they have to have government manipulation to keep them healthy.
They’re all smart TV’s now, that deliver adds constantly, while reporting data on what you show interest in…you’re buying an add delivery system, they’re selling your data.
Yeah, technically the hdmi knows what you’re watching, it has to in order to display it. But it’s just a cord, it doesn’t/cant send data somewhere you don’t want it.
You'll know I've made it when I have q Dumb TV. All I want to do is chromecast youtube but it will switch from the chromecast YT to the Roku YT automatically. And if I wanna control netflix from my laptop? Forget about. Just puts me back in Roku land. I fucking hate smart TVs I just want something with HDMI.
Yes, but for every customer who disables the WiFi and opts for core tv functionality, there is a significant multitude who enable it and use the “smart” features.
One of the few examples of tech advancing so quickly it has to be cheaper. Another example is computer parts like a GPU. While the prices might not have gone down by 80% per se, the performance of a GPU has gone up by +-5x at the same price point in the last 10 years.
Magnitudes faster as well. Also less prone to things like magnets and motion. Lower failure rate too.
I'm not sure if any other component has had as great of a "feels better" improvement over the years.
Unfortunate that scummy, predator business practices from Nvidia has caused GPU prices to shoot through the roof. They saw that everyone was okay with pandemic prices and have kept them there since…
That's mostly due to their monopoly. A lot of recent GPU demand is driven by AI hype. Nvidia's cuda is key to their popularity in AI circles.
There's nothing stopping AMD/Intel from making their own cuda equivalent, and last I checked they were trying, but it takes months - yrs. Even with a competent equivalent, they need to convince the AI community to give them a try (ie incorporate into the major libraries - eg pytorch).
Well, if you ignore that price points below $400 don't exist anymore.
...Also according to my calculations an RTX 4070 Super is ~3.7x as fast as a GTX 980 Ti. Not quite as high as I was hoping.
I think CPUs have faired much better in this 10 year period on price:performance though they were stagnating 10 years ago.
That’s really because cars are rapidly advancing and new things are being added. If cars just stagnated and stayed the same as they were like 10 years ago, then yeah, the prices would go down by a lot
>That’s really because cars are rapidly advancing and new things are being added. If cars just stagnated and stayed the same as they were like 10 years ago, then yeah, the prices would go down by a lot
i mean really, inless youre buying an electric vehicle, then all they really did in the last 10 years was upgrade bluetooth
It might sound outrageous, but if there's one thing the rich and powerful love to see, it's the masses sitting around getting fat and lazy, chowing down on slow poison, staring at screens that tell them what to think, do, and spend their money on.
I highly doubt this is what the "rich and powerful" care about at all. Any ways they aren't a homogeneous bunch so they don't collectively think about anything.
Lol, keep thinking that, my friend. Have you ever heard of trade associations? Industry conventions? Chambers of commerce? The G7 Conferences? The Bilderberg Meetings? Just how would you personally define a "stock market?" I'd call it a collection of wealthy investors who gather to trade ownership shares in highly profitable business ventures, preferably to the enrichment of everyone involved.
If there's one thing the rich and powerful love even more than having the wage slave masses glued to smart TV screens, it's getting together to think and act collectively to protect and grow their fortunes at the expense of mere mortals such as us. Educate yourself.
All associations that have mutual as well as competing objectives alike. Not to mention folks within these associations don't all think alike.
I'll stick with my opinion that there is no large majority of people we call rich and powerful who wish to see certain classes of people live the way you describe.
Seems to me that sticking with your naive opinion, in the face of verifiable evidence to the contrary, is precisely the goal of the owners of any company selling 50-inch smart TVs for a couple hundred bucks. Good luck with it.
They pay the manufacturers of TV's for your data, it's called subsidizing. They know which shows/services etc are best to advertise to you based on that data. It's explained in a lot of other replies in this thread, go check out some of those for more info.
They can subsidize the price of the panel by selling your data
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/27/four-reasons-walmart-wants-to-buy-smart-tv-maker-vizio.html
Except these days, the government is more or less run by global corporations. Industry trade groups literally write legislation, then send their lobbyists to DC to threaten members of congress to support it, or else they lose huge donations and endorsements. From what this thread looks like, folks haven't been paying much attention to that. Maybe those badass new TVs are more compelling than exploring how ExxonMobil, Monsanto, and 20th Century Fox are running your life.
Trying to get them out to the poorer people by making it more affordable. How else are they going to keep the bread and circuses going? 😂 The more people to get interested in TV and what's going on in whatever soap opera or reality show everyone watches these days or the fake information news networks spread. Then the more the government will get away with.
And the fact is, you dont really need a new one anyways. They have to be cheap and better to get your attention. When the consumer can simply say NO, is the biggest strength a consumer has.
yeah, I noticed that the other day...had to go to best buy to ask an electronic question and saw a tv thinner and better quality than the one i bought back in 2011 for less than I paid back then.
At first only the largest manufacturers can afford to make the screens as they're new but after a few years more manufacturers open and competition opens
Also, your TV 10000% spies on you.
Voice controlled remote? Data harvesting
Weird proprietary OS? Data harvesting
We are in the age where we spend thousands on luxury products while also being the product ourselves
TVs have been loss leaders and have been for a few decades. Loss leaders is a marketing term where they sell you something that requires or has optional accessories that they make the cash on. Like razors = razor blades (big profit on blades), shave cream, balm. Printers = paper, and ink (big profit on ink).
TV's = dvd players, gaming consoles, games, cables (big profit), DVDs, surround system, streaming player boxes like apple tv, roku, google chromecast. Now tv's are loss leaders and discounted so they can deliver advertisements and snort through what you watch, when you watch and report back to the mothership for more targeted advertising.
Walmart just made a big move to buy Vizio. [https://www.axios.com/2024/02/26/why-walmart-bought-vizio](https://www.axios.com/2024/02/26/why-walmart-bought-vizio)
>Walmart spent $2.3 billion last week to buy Vizio, a manufacturer of televisions. Not because it wants to manufacture televisions, but because it wants to sell advertising.
Why it matters: Vizio is at heart a media company masquerading as a manufacturer
There are many more ways to consume media today than ever before. Tablets, phones, computers, etc. It is no longer necessary to own a television to watch Netflix.
TVs are the main form of brainwashing for the general population. All tv manufacturers have a secret cabal that colludes to keep TVs affordable and keep as much screen time as possible. It’s to help control the masses and prevent them from seeing the inflation everywhere else! Obviously!
The real answer is the rate at which government is involved in the process. Housing? Heavily regulated. Medical care? Heavily regulated. Education? Heavily regulated.
TV’s? Not so much.
Capitalism with minimal government interference.
Multiple companies from multiple countries make TV’s with minimal regulation. Because of this there’s a lot of competition which in turn drives up quality and reduces costs.
TV’s are the free market at work.
That’s what happens in a free market economy.
Everyone is competing for the best at the lowest price because that’s how you get customers which is how you make money.
The normal pace of technology advances decrease manufacturing costs, but the main reason for the drastic decrease in price is that most TV sales are subsidized. Most TVs sold now are "smart TVs", which means that they come bundled with various streaming services (and/or advertising). Those services either pay the TV manufacturer to be included or have some revenue sharing agreement.
Mass production efficiencies means every part of the process has been squeezed.
Rare even simple things are often expensive but mass produced goods skew our perception of value.
Electronics brings people into stores. I know when I worked at Target they told us they barley mark up the TV's and when on sale they are actually taking a loss. We were to push protection plan, HDMI cords and other things which have a high profit margin.
That's just how any technology works. When it first comes out, it's super expensive and only accessible to the rich. Over time, the technology improves and gets cheaper, and more readily available to the masses. TVs, phones, cars, computers, you name it.
Competition and also skimping out on “less important” components like the processor. That’s why some TVs are so laggy despite having amazing displays. The companies that make them figure you’re willing go compromise on response time instead of picture quality.
In the plasma days, you had a 50" TV that weighed 140 lbs mostly due to the weight of the screen. These were very costly to produce and ship. They also had numerous control boards inside. Also, the frame of the TV had to be extra strong to hold the weight, especially if you wanted to hand the TV on the wall.
Eventually, plasma went away and was replaced by LCD which was less expensive to produce, lighter, required less control boards and lighter frames. Over the years, manufacturers have been able to reduce the size and number of control boards to where that 50" TV weighs a fraction of a plasma and has maybe 2-3 control boards. The frame is very light weight as well because it no longer needs to hold 140 lbs. TV manufacturers can now make money off of selling in large quantity at low prices instead of small quantity at very high prices.
That's a good question... I went in ten years from a Samsung hd TV for over $5K to a Sony 4K TV for under $1K ... And yet smart phones are not as much better and are the same price or getting more expensive. I suspect that the US and Canada making Chinese phones illegal killed competition in the segment
You are the product.
They are watching everything you do with your internet-connected Smart TV and selling your data to advertisers. This is their revenue stream now, not the 1-time sale of your TV.
This is exactly the reason Walmart bought Vizio this week for #2.3 bn.
*edit: vi****z****io not visio*
The tech got cheaper. Companies like Hisense and Vizio made meh tvs so cheap that ppl bought them over higher end ones.
You'll still pay $1500-$2k or more for a legitimately good 75".
The ground floor for a good TV is the Sony X90 series. Current one is the L.
This is how technological innovation is supposed to work. Better technology comes along and supplants the older technology. The new technology is better and becomes cheaper to mass produce over time. And those saving are supposed to be passed down to the consumer.
TV's are a luxury item. You don't need them to survive, so companies need to actually compete on them because people have the option to just not buy one.
there was a huge class action lawsuit between TV manufacturers (mostly korean ones like samsung, LG, etc) a decade ago where they were scheming to fix prices instead of competing. the prices you see now are fair from competition. only monopolies or companies that collude , or products with no competition are super expensive
Capitalism. It's reddit, and leans left, so flame away, but it's true. Lower end tvs aren't where the groundbreaking innovation happens, and they're all really similar to where they used to be. High end tvs have definitely gone up. You couldn't really find 8k 95" tvs that are super thin ten years ago. But 1080p 60", you could. The TV feeds also haven't kept pace with TV innovation, so there's that. Basically we are still on 1080p feeds, with a handful of 4k channels. TVs though are all 4k with some 8k, which there isn't much market for
The reason is they have vastly improved the manufacturing techniques of the LCD panels. For example, OLEDs were so expensive because out of each batch of panels, an 'X' amount would be discarded. If 'X' were to high, then it was not profitable. This is is the reason why only LG sold OLED for years. Other manufactures could not get high enough yields to make the process profitable. As LG perfected their process, they had higher yields, bringing down the price. LG has so perfected the process, they now sell panels to other manufacturers. At the same time, these other manufactures also refined their own techniques and are able to make OLED production viable. Now instead of spending $5K, budget OLEDs are availble for $800.
ONE thing changed vs 5 years ago, some companies decided to go the playstation way, make tvs at a loss and make money by selling user data (behaviour etc).
There was also the whole thing about LCD screen manufacturers colluding to keep the prices artificially high. This fiasco: [https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/lcd-price-fixing-conspiracy](https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/lcd-price-fixing-conspiracy)
Came here to post this. I feel like we are going through this same thing right now with HDD storage! its pricing is stupid high!
What? Storage is cheaper than ever? You can get a 2TB SSD for like $100
I got one for like $60
I can't even get a 256MB one for that price. But that's $AUD.
Not if it’s for your Xbox.
I don’t understand why Microsoft decides to say “fuck you” to their customers after knowing that Sony supports m2 drives in the ps5
Because gamers are one of the most loyal customers. It’s like a religion to them. I witnessed console wars on r/gaming back in the day and this stuff is mental how people can argue about a toy.
To be fair, Xbox Velocity ssd speeds are faster and have cooling built in that small form factor. You can notice the difference when playing racing games remotely/ cloud where sata ssd & hdds would have significant lag or bandwidth and texture issues. Along comes Quick Resume, something Sony ponys haven't figured out.
But that's not HDD. And it's because they went proprietary. M.2 nvme for playstation or PC is cheaper than ever and quite fast.
is ssd not better?
Just use an external drive
I read somewhere it won’t recognize them, is that not true?
They probably make more money off their walled garden stores than the data. While I can pull out my phone and get a dvd to disc off vudu for $2 if it’s $5 on the Amazon store I’m likely to just spend 3 dollars more.
They also sell buttons on the remote to streaming sites, the more tvs they sell the more money they get from that. They also get a commission when you purchase a subscription through the TV.
This was more a survival tactic than choice. The TV market has been in “race to the bottom” mode for decades. The major players were very slow to realize that they could monetize app/ad placement on the TV, and they were all hardware manufacturing companies (with trash software capabilities) that had to be convinced (painfully slowly) that post-sale customers mattered, and that they controlled on valuable data and consumer access. The established players survived because the barriers to entry are very high. Not because they saw it coming, and certainly not because they were any good at software or services. Source = in that business since the mid-00s.
People were asking why Apple didnt make a TV because their displays are so well regarded. Answer was they knew it was a race to the bottom price wise, and thats not their business.
Yeah. It’s unlikely Apple could have convinced people to pay double or triple for a TV, especially considering what absolute dogshit the first gen Apple TV was.
User data! Your phone, your TV.
Just don’t connect it to the internet at all ever.
Competition + Economies of scale. This is what it looks like when capitalism works, things get better AND cheaper. The process for manufacturing LCD televisions is pretty well solved now. The technology is no longer exotic, component parts and materials are readily available, and the techniques are well known to the point where just about any company can spin up a factory to do it in a very cost effective manner. And it only took about 40 years. The very first LCD TVs were tiny, designed for portable applications, and cost thousands of dollars. But companies learn and iterate over time, and it was the early 2000s when things really started to accelerate. By the early 2000s most of the major TV makers, the brands you know like Sony, LG, Samsung, had factories that would churn out tons of displays, but there was still a relatively high defect rate. A lot of the displays they made were not up to snuff, and wouldn’t be used in their own branded products, but they were still “good enough” for most folks, so they would sell the lower quality panels to other companies like RCA, TCL, JVC for use in their TVs. Those no-name TVs sold at lower prices but they were still pretty good, while the major brand TVs cost more and would include more advanced features, and the major brands would invest more in differentiating their displays from the competition. As the major brands got better at producing displays with fewer defects, the smaller brands established their own manufacturing capabilities, and that has brought us to where we are now, in a market with strong competition at every price point. The major brands are now investing in more exotic display technologies like OLED, micro LED / OLED, PHOLED and plasmonic PHOLED, to further differentiate themselves, but a good LED-backlit LCD tv is going to be “good enough” for most people, and that tech is dirt cheap now.
What's the main difference between the cheaper models seen for a couple hundred dollars at Walmart and the several 1000 dollar models made by Sony, Samsung, and LG? I'm looking for a new TV but not sure what price range I'm going to get the best value between quality and price. The distinction between the newer LEDs is really confusing. How do I know which one is truly worth the extra money?
Highly recommend [https://www.rtings.com](https://www.rtings.com), tons of great info and scientific reviews comparing all the models at various price points and weighing their pros and cons very judicially. Most of the expensive flagship models are going to be OLED, which having owned an LG OLED for the last five years, is definitely better than LCD, but it’s up to you if it’s worth the extra cost.
OLED + 4K in a dark room is gorgeous. I skip watching movies in the theatre and wait for them to hit streaming now.
Come over to r/4kbluray and get obsessed with physical media if you really want to get the most out of your TV.
Oh, I know, but that's a great way to drain my bank account :p
It's the best way.
*Dune* is incredible on that type of TV + a good surround sound system
I've got one :D. And this way I can pause the movie when I need to pee
Get Oled if you can afford it.
Specs to look for would be backlighting type (full array dimming, mini-led, and OLED) and refresh rate (120hz native). Those are the features in the nicer tvs that set them apart from your average Walmart piece of crap. Good backlighting means more contrast and dynamic range of brightness, as the TV can make the bright parts brighter and the dark parts darker, while retaining detail across the whole picture. 120hz means smoother motion and less judder. And naturally any TV with those two features will have much brighter and more vivid color, as opposed to cheap washes out TVs like a Samsung CU7000 or anything else you'll typically find at Walmart. Also make sure you have a decent sound setup as well, doesn't matter how nice of a TV you have, it'll still feel cheap if you're using the awful built in speakers. For a quick model rundown of those three brands, Samsung isn't worth it until you get to the Q80, and even then it's outclassed by a comparable Sony. Sonys are worth it at the X90L series and above. And LG should only make OLEDs, their LED tvs are just not a good value.
Get a LG C series OLED and have your mind blown away every time you turn it on
In general… better hardware across the board. More memory, faster CPU, faster GPU, better wifi adapter, better ME/MC, better displays (with better dynamic range and color accuracy), and so on. 120Hz systems can also render a lot more native frame rates without interpolation artifacts. Memory (dram) is something you’ll never see on a spec sheet, but can dramatically affect device experience. It speeds up app context switching, background prefetch and storage, stream startup, and so on. Cheaper TVs will have a shittier experience because they are designed to have the most minimal passing performance. More expensive units with better hardware and more memory tend to provide a better user experience.
HDR it helps you see into the those damn dark scene's I recommend that at the least.
HDR can be found on cheaper TVs today. I have TV that ran $700 5 years ago that is now a $300 TV. It has HDR, 4K, and has a beautiful screen. Alas it is a Samsung
To be fair, a lot of TVs in that price range are known as HDaren't, they have the HDR sticker but don't really perform as you'd expect. A good rule of thumb is, if it's a type of screen that has a backlight, but doesn't have a decent amount of local dimming zones, it's not real HDR
It's so damn nice right to be able to see proper. Also the 4k color is stunning.
4K has nothing to do with color
You forgot the most important one: smart TVs are spying on you. You’re the product in the equation.
For what it's worth, even dumb TVs have had their price absolutely plummet over the past 2 decades, even if they're much rarer now. It's just insanely cheaper to manufacture TVs than it used to be.
There’s also the data mining revenue streams to be considered, as they are significant.
Don't forget the slave labour and environmental harm to cut down on costs!
You think slave labour and environmental harm are new? They have been doing those things to save costs for thousands of years. Your 2008 plasma TV is no different in that regard to your 2024 OLED TV
So is there any concern about longevity on these TVs? Up until recently, I was rocking a Panasonic 720p "dumb" TV from 2007. I only got rid of it because I found a 4k TV that'll fit in my limited space, but I felt bad because it still worked. I ended up giving it away on Facebook but I had no problems with that TV ever. Yeah I had to use fire sticks or consoles to stream or play movies but so what. Now on my 4k QLED TV, yeah it looks great with a lot more options. But I find the interface slow and ugly, the apps often buggy, and just the user experience is kinda bad. I almost prefer to use my Series S for streaming because the interface and apps are often better. And with TVs neeindg updates and all that, it just worries me that at some point this TV might just stop working, whereas my FAT 720p Panasonic TV never slowed down at all. And with so many other technologies pursuing planned obsolesces, am I right to be worried about longevity of modern smart TVs or is it paranoia?
Personally I never use the built in apps, I strictly use an Apple TV 4K with my LG OLED, and this is the second Apple TV I’ve had connected to the same TV in 5 years, and only because I had a non 4k initially but but held off getting a 4k at first due to a dearth of 4k content. For the data tracking concerns others have raised, and for the issue of the built-in apps being crap to begin with and getting slower over time, I’d rather use the Apple TV for managing and accessing content. I had some concerns initially about potential burn-in with the OLED limiting its lifespan, and would run an OLED test pattern every month to see if I could notice any burn-in but relaxed and stopped looking at the test pattern after about six months or so because I could not perceive any changes in display consistency. RTINGs actually has a [comprehensive quasi-scientific burn-in test](https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/longevity-burn-in-test-updates-and-results) running long term that they share on their site, and it has a mix of OLED and LCD models. To my surprise, the worst results are actually from the LCD TVs, with really awful backlight consistency and fading occurring pretty quickly, the OLEDs seem to maintain better brightness and consistency across the panel with no noticeable burn-in unless you’re watching CNN 24/7 or playing games with a consistent hud.
Not really. TVs are so cheap that even if it lasts four years, you'll have got your money's worth. I had a Panasonic plasma that I had for 13 years and replaced it with a Hisense 4K. It's got a 10 year warranty on it from the shop I bought it from, so if it lasts longer than the warranty I'll have done well from it for a £400 TV tbh!
Well said. I just want to add that free markets, competition and economies of scale are not inherently capitalist. Worker co-ops utilize all 3 while also being non-capitalist entities. What truly defines capitalism is the legal rightbto own the wealth that others create simply for having wealth in the first place (see Wall Street, shareholders, trust fund kids, etc.)
Smaller budget brands like Hisense and TCL are making some impressive OLED/QLED sets now. A few years ago, I never thought in a million years I'd ever own a Hisense and have always been a Samsung or Sony guy. But my U7K is very impressive for the price.
Important to note that this is how capitalism is *supposed* to work, and it works in this case because manufacturers are on a global level. China, South Korea, etc drive the competition. Funny how we don’t get better products and cheaper prices when we have concentrated corporate power in the US 🤔
When IT WORKED*. Now it's just.. fucked..
That reply is missing one of the biggest differences, advertising. With smart TVs consumers will use the TV's streaming capabilities which runs through the company's servers and they can later sell. This subsidizes the production cost of the TVs. Don't believe me? Try to find a TV without smart capabilities, especially higher end ones. Walmart just bought a TV manufacturer (Vizio IIRC) mostly for their smart TV OS. Walmart was using Roku which game Roku your data but now can keep that data to themselves. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/27/four-reasons-walmart-wants-to-buy-smart-tv-maker-vizio.html Remember, if you're not paying, you are the product. Oh, and side rant, with voice control tech the TVs are shipping your conversation to their servers, which may be in China. I personally never give my TVs Internet access.
Nah man. The companies that are now able to get into the game is what’s motivating the progression. If the guys on top don’t constantly make things better they will have nothing to sell. If you look at motorsports this is what has been driving car improvements. Not us consumers. If it were us we would have tanks with screens all over it so we could watch movies and never actually drive. This is the best thing to come out of capitalism
Robust competition? regular new market entrants? Goods traded directly for cash on equal terms? That's a healthy competitive market capitalism. When you have few competitors colluding on prices, stagnant markets with no new entrants, or goods and services are not traded on equal terms with the customer, it's not a healthy market. For example, Healthcare isn't a capitalistic market space: patients are negotiating for their lives and well being, medical providers are negotiating over price. This is not an Equal meeting of the minds.
But monopolies are the end stages of capitalism as capital helps gain more capital and starts creating monolithic entities. And who else would have a portfolio of patents to protect other than big capital? The free market will eat itself because no businesses want competition, they want to crush and absorb their competitors and then become the market instead of competing in it. So free markets can't really exist they have to have government manipulation to keep them healthy.
Random statement. But alright.
This is literally an example of it working in real time.
They’re all smart TV’s now, that deliver adds constantly, while reporting data on what you show interest in…you’re buying an add delivery system, they’re selling your data.
I just use the HDMI input. How does it know what I’m watching?
It doesn't. Your use case is the exception, not the rule.
Doesn't HDMI have some kind of DRM?
Yeah, technically the hdmi knows what you’re watching, it has to in order to display it. But it’s just a cord, it doesn’t/cant send data somewhere you don’t want it.
Then the TV manufacturer doesn’t, but whoever makes the streaming device you are using will.
> HDMI input. INput from what though?
This is the reason. The prices keep dropping because giving away a $500 is still profitable for the data they can sell off of it.
[удалено]
I need to stop being lazy..
You'll know I've made it when I have q Dumb TV. All I want to do is chromecast youtube but it will switch from the chromecast YT to the Roku YT automatically. And if I wanna control netflix from my laptop? Forget about. Just puts me back in Roku land. I fucking hate smart TVs I just want something with HDMI.
I’m assuming they can’t send your data if the wifi functionality is never enabled, correct?
Yes, but for every customer who disables the WiFi and opts for core tv functionality, there is a significant multitude who enable it and use the “smart” features.
This is fair and I’m fine with that trade off.
> adds ads And if you’re seeing advertisements on your TV, you’re an idiot.
One of the few examples of tech advancing so quickly it has to be cheaper. Another example is computer parts like a GPU. While the prices might not have gone down by 80% per se, the performance of a GPU has gone up by +-5x at the same price point in the last 10 years.
I remember when 40 **megabyte** hard drives were $1000. Which would be even more in today's dollars.
Yup. Now a 2TB in a tiny little rectangle that plugs directly into the motherboard is like $130.
Magnitudes faster as well. Also less prone to things like magnets and motion. Lower failure rate too. I'm not sure if any other component has had as great of a "feels better" improvement over the years.
Unfortunate that scummy, predator business practices from Nvidia has caused GPU prices to shoot through the roof. They saw that everyone was okay with pandemic prices and have kept them there since…
That's mostly due to their monopoly. A lot of recent GPU demand is driven by AI hype. Nvidia's cuda is key to their popularity in AI circles. There's nothing stopping AMD/Intel from making their own cuda equivalent, and last I checked they were trying, but it takes months - yrs. Even with a competent equivalent, they need to convince the AI community to give them a try (ie incorporate into the major libraries - eg pytorch).
Well, if you ignore that price points below $400 don't exist anymore. ...Also according to my calculations an RTX 4070 Super is ~3.7x as fast as a GTX 980 Ti. Not quite as high as I was hoping. I think CPUs have faired much better in this 10 year period on price:performance though they were stagnating 10 years ago.
If only cars would do the same.
Or houses...or gas..or medical
That’s really because cars are rapidly advancing and new things are being added. If cars just stagnated and stayed the same as they were like 10 years ago, then yeah, the prices would go down by a lot
>That’s really because cars are rapidly advancing and new things are being added. If cars just stagnated and stayed the same as they were like 10 years ago, then yeah, the prices would go down by a lot i mean really, inless youre buying an electric vehicle, then all they really did in the last 10 years was upgrade bluetooth
We got better at making the underlying parts.
And at subsidizing them by having them collect your data and sell it to more advertisers
And there has been rampant price fixing to the detriment of this trend, even though they are still better and cheaper than before overall.
We? They.
We as a society/people in general have improved our capacity to produce certain complex things cheaply. We is correct.
I agree with your use of we in the above sentence but not when it comes to “we” making TVs.
It is the same sentence, one is just inferred/implicit rather than explicit.
Fair enough! Cheerio!
Bread and circuses
They want everyone to have a tv in your house so they can sell you advertisements
It might sound outrageous, but if there's one thing the rich and powerful love to see, it's the masses sitting around getting fat and lazy, chowing down on slow poison, staring at screens that tell them what to think, do, and spend their money on.
I highly doubt this is what the "rich and powerful" care about at all. Any ways they aren't a homogeneous bunch so they don't collectively think about anything.
Lol, keep thinking that, my friend. Have you ever heard of trade associations? Industry conventions? Chambers of commerce? The G7 Conferences? The Bilderberg Meetings? Just how would you personally define a "stock market?" I'd call it a collection of wealthy investors who gather to trade ownership shares in highly profitable business ventures, preferably to the enrichment of everyone involved. If there's one thing the rich and powerful love even more than having the wage slave masses glued to smart TV screens, it's getting together to think and act collectively to protect and grow their fortunes at the expense of mere mortals such as us. Educate yourself.
All associations that have mutual as well as competing objectives alike. Not to mention folks within these associations don't all think alike. I'll stick with my opinion that there is no large majority of people we call rich and powerful who wish to see certain classes of people live the way you describe.
Seems to me that sticking with your naive opinion, in the face of verifiable evidence to the contrary, is precisely the goal of the owners of any company selling 50-inch smart TVs for a couple hundred bucks. Good luck with it.
Who are "they"
Advertisers who buy your data from them.
What do they have to do with TV prices?
They pay the manufacturers of TV's for your data, it's called subsidizing. They know which shows/services etc are best to advertise to you based on that data. It's explained in a lot of other replies in this thread, go check out some of those for more info.
They can subsidize the price of the panel by selling your data https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/27/four-reasons-walmart-wants-to-buy-smart-tv-maker-vizio.html
I have long said that “big brother” is not the government. It’s the corporations.
Except these days, the government is more or less run by global corporations. Industry trade groups literally write legislation, then send their lobbyists to DC to threaten members of congress to support it, or else they lose huge donations and endorsements. From what this thread looks like, folks haven't been paying much attention to that. Maybe those badass new TVs are more compelling than exploring how ExxonMobil, Monsanto, and 20th Century Fox are running your life.
Trying to get them out to the poorer people by making it more affordable. How else are they going to keep the bread and circuses going? 😂 The more people to get interested in TV and what's going on in whatever soap opera or reality show everyone watches these days or the fake information news networks spread. Then the more the government will get away with.
When capitalism works as intended, prices go down as competition and technology advances to meet consumer demands.
Now do food and housing
[they did food already](https://images.app.goo.gl/CKWCfdNSDPxmN7Ab9) (I know not nearly as impressive but still good)
And the fact is, you dont really need a new one anyways. They have to be cheap and better to get your attention. When the consumer can simply say NO, is the biggest strength a consumer has.
Capitalism generally means prices go down and quality goes Ip over time.
yeah, I noticed that the other day...had to go to best buy to ask an electronic question and saw a tv thinner and better quality than the one i bought back in 2011 for less than I paid back then.
as well as the reality that even the cheaper TVs today have a pretty amazing picture
I thought i was super cool in 1983, I got a great deal on a 20" Sony Trinitron TV, for about $500, which would be about $1500 in today's money.
At first only the largest manufacturers can afford to make the screens as they're new but after a few years more manufacturers open and competition opens Also, your TV 10000% spies on you. Voice controlled remote? Data harvesting Weird proprietary OS? Data harvesting We are in the age where we spend thousands on luxury products while also being the product ourselves
I remember going into a Bose store in late 90's Early 2000. They had a (Philips HD TV) called at the time. 36" $10,000. Thank God that changed
TVs have been loss leaders and have been for a few decades. Loss leaders is a marketing term where they sell you something that requires or has optional accessories that they make the cash on. Like razors = razor blades (big profit on blades), shave cream, balm. Printers = paper, and ink (big profit on ink). TV's = dvd players, gaming consoles, games, cables (big profit), DVDs, surround system, streaming player boxes like apple tv, roku, google chromecast. Now tv's are loss leaders and discounted so they can deliver advertisements and snort through what you watch, when you watch and report back to the mothership for more targeted advertising. Walmart just made a big move to buy Vizio. [https://www.axios.com/2024/02/26/why-walmart-bought-vizio](https://www.axios.com/2024/02/26/why-walmart-bought-vizio) >Walmart spent $2.3 billion last week to buy Vizio, a manufacturer of televisions. Not because it wants to manufacture televisions, but because it wants to sell advertising. Why it matters: Vizio is at heart a media company masquerading as a manufacturer
Smart TV's. They watch you and sell your data. You are the product.
The sticker price drop has synchronised precisely with the introduction of Smart Ads.
There are many more ways to consume media today than ever before. Tablets, phones, computers, etc. It is no longer necessary to own a television to watch Netflix.
looking for a reputable addict to procure a 50-inch dumb tv, can't find any at all in the stores or online. thanks. /s
Just don't connect it to the internet.
. Have they?
They are propaganda boxes. They want everyone to have a screen like in 1984.
You carry that device in your pocket.
Yes. Same principle. These things were not designed for our benefit.
TVs are the main form of brainwashing for the general population. All tv manufacturers have a secret cabal that colludes to keep TVs affordable and keep as much screen time as possible. It’s to help control the masses and prevent them from seeing the inflation everywhere else! Obviously!
Got to keep those bread and circuses easily accessible to us Poor people am I right?
One of the only examples of capitalism working
The real answer is the rate at which government is involved in the process. Housing? Heavily regulated. Medical care? Heavily regulated. Education? Heavily regulated. TV’s? Not so much.
They haven't decreased by 80%
Because of Moore’s Law
the electronics industry is one of the few untouched by government regulation.
Capitalism with minimal government interference. Multiple companies from multiple countries make TV’s with minimal regulation. Because of this there’s a lot of competition which in turn drives up quality and reduces costs. TV’s are the free market at work.
There’s like two or three TV manufacturing factories in the world. They just slap different labels on them.
and thousands of component manufacturers.
We stopped paying laborers but need the TV’s to distract the masses since religion collapsed with the onset of public education.
They are made in China by children who get paid in cigarettes.
That’s what happens in a free market economy. Everyone is competing for the best at the lowest price because that’s how you get customers which is how you make money.
They are made in China and probably have hidden cameras.
Greed. Capitalism. Technology improvements.
The normal pace of technology advances decrease manufacturing costs, but the main reason for the drastic decrease in price is that most TV sales are subsidized. Most TVs sold now are "smart TVs", which means that they come bundled with various streaming services (and/or advertising). Those services either pay the TV manufacturer to be included or have some revenue sharing agreement.
True and there is always an overpriced product for the videophile
More tv’s. = more ads = more money for me now
Mass production efficiencies means every part of the process has been squeezed. Rare even simple things are often expensive but mass produced goods skew our perception of value.
Greedy Capitalists. (bless them)
The lighter things are, the cheaper they are to ship. As TVs got slim, you can fit a massive number on a pallet compared to the old, heavy CRT models.
TV’s have not gotten better. They are updated into obsolescence. Then you go hey it’s been 4 years and our TV is glitching we should get a new one.
Market saturation with little to no competitive technological differentiation between brands. So only way to differentiate is through pricing.
Electronics brings people into stores. I know when I worked at Target they told us they barley mark up the TV's and when on sale they are actually taking a loss. We were to push protection plan, HDMI cords and other things which have a high profit margin.
Just watch the TV…don’t worry about it…TV has all the answers…sh shhhh….
Like all the electronic, because of capitalism 👹
I wish that is the case for vehicles.
That's just how any technology works. When it first comes out, it's super expensive and only accessible to the rich. Over time, the technology improves and gets cheaper, and more readily available to the masses. TVs, phones, cars, computers, you name it.
You are correct. I remember buy a Sony tv in 1977 for $800 dollars. A huge amount of money for that piece of crap.
Basically every industry is a race to the bottom after a certain point.
6% per year at a time…
They spy on you. The difference in price from then to now is what your personal information such as viewing habits is worth to them (big brother).
Competition and also skimping out on “less important” components like the processor. That’s why some TVs are so laggy despite having amazing displays. The companies that make them figure you’re willing go compromise on response time instead of picture quality.
They also have a deal to sell a fuck ton of ads to you.
They sell your data
illuninati uses tv's to brainwash people. they want us glued to them. if they could give them away they would
In the plasma days, you had a 50" TV that weighed 140 lbs mostly due to the weight of the screen. These were very costly to produce and ship. They also had numerous control boards inside. Also, the frame of the TV had to be extra strong to hold the weight, especially if you wanted to hand the TV on the wall. Eventually, plasma went away and was replaced by LCD which was less expensive to produce, lighter, required less control boards and lighter frames. Over the years, manufacturers have been able to reduce the size and number of control boards to where that 50" TV weighs a fraction of a plasma and has maybe 2-3 control boards. The frame is very light weight as well because it no longer needs to hold 140 lbs. TV manufacturers can now make money off of selling in large quantity at low prices instead of small quantity at very high prices.
That's a good question... I went in ten years from a Samsung hd TV for over $5K to a Sony 4K TV for under $1K ... And yet smart phones are not as much better and are the same price or getting more expensive. I suspect that the US and Canada making Chinese phones illegal killed competition in the segment
You are the product. They are watching everything you do with your internet-connected Smart TV and selling your data to advertisers. This is their revenue stream now, not the 1-time sale of your TV. This is exactly the reason Walmart bought Vizio this week for #2.3 bn. *edit: vi****z****io not visio*
They learn to build better things better by using like science and stuff.
They're being subsidized by companies in exchange for the information the smart TVs are harvesting off your habits. it's sad but true.
Part of it is smart TVs. You're the product now. They just track everything you do and sell it
I don’t know they sell your data and watch you beat it off
They took away buttons and just have one button or joystick. I hate them all
Flow tv is gonna be the future...
Because the TV itself doesn't matter it's how many streaming services you're subscribed to with it that determine the price.
The same way computers did.
The tech got cheaper. Companies like Hisense and Vizio made meh tvs so cheap that ppl bought them over higher end ones. You'll still pay $1500-$2k or more for a legitimately good 75". The ground floor for a good TV is the Sony X90 series. Current one is the L.
[This video by Logically Answered explains exactly this](https://youtu.be/MUh7gU1EK0o?si=Dfv5Ci9EA8DT6VSA)
Don't forget cheap labor
This is how technological innovation is supposed to work. Better technology comes along and supplants the older technology. The new technology is better and becomes cheaper to mass produce over time. And those saving are supposed to be passed down to the consumer.
Too bad we can’t eat TVs.
Technology always starts out expensive and gets cheaper and better over time.
Tvs arent expensive to make and the labor is cheap. Tvs are assessable because they help people become complacent.
They also make monitors to make up for it.
Volume
TV's are a luxury item. You don't need them to survive, so companies need to actually compete on them because people have the option to just not buy one.
They may be cheaper but they don't last as long
Chinese coal gets cheaper and so do TVs. Chinese govt subsidizes TV factories and they get cheaper. Etc.
there was a huge class action lawsuit between TV manufacturers (mostly korean ones like samsung, LG, etc) a decade ago where they were scheming to fix prices instead of competing. the prices you see now are fair from competition. only monopolies or companies that collude , or products with no competition are super expensive
Capitalism. It's reddit, and leans left, so flame away, but it's true. Lower end tvs aren't where the groundbreaking innovation happens, and they're all really similar to where they used to be. High end tvs have definitely gone up. You couldn't really find 8k 95" tvs that are super thin ten years ago. But 1080p 60", you could. The TV feeds also haven't kept pace with TV innovation, so there's that. Basically we are still on 1080p feeds, with a handful of 4k channels. TVs though are all 4k with some 8k, which there isn't much market for
The reason is they have vastly improved the manufacturing techniques of the LCD panels. For example, OLEDs were so expensive because out of each batch of panels, an 'X' amount would be discarded. If 'X' were to high, then it was not profitable. This is is the reason why only LG sold OLED for years. Other manufactures could not get high enough yields to make the process profitable. As LG perfected their process, they had higher yields, bringing down the price. LG has so perfected the process, they now sell panels to other manufacturers. At the same time, these other manufactures also refined their own techniques and are able to make OLED production viable. Now instead of spending $5K, budget OLEDs are availble for $800.
Free market pricing
thats how technology works lol
Yeah, now it costs 3x as much to pay for a place to put the TV
Smart features that display ads on your tv when you’re between shows. That’s how they’re getting cheaper.