Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Whats going on in the TV world?
- Thread starter MacBH928
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I did in the end and I’m a very happy customer. Thanks for the reply.
The 2025 CES show was last week in Las Vegas, and HiSense will begin selling a 136" TV this year:
https://www.hisense-b2b.com/us/136-led-all-in-one-display ...and they had a 165" on display (on sale TBD).
https://www.hisense-b2b.com/us/136-led-all-in-one-display ...and they had a 165" on display (on sale TBD).
maybe my memory does not serve me right, but pre-2000 when a product was released you wouldn't worry about its quality. It will serve you long years. Today its all about fancy cutting edge features but in the end you will start noticing failures and malfunctions. I would be very wary of such tv from HiSense , something tells me the tv should not be this size if LG and Samsung are not releasing it to the market.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
In all super cheap vs. super expensive discussions like this, the easiest option is first to establish the median price... which is arrived at by looking at many/most/all same size, seemingly same feature set items. Median price is probably about the "right" price for this "thing" because competition balancing quality and cost will tend to cluster around median price.
Those charging a lot more than that are either including premium features that one may or may not notice and/or leaning on brand name clout or other variables.
Those charging a lot less are cutting costs somewhere. There is no magic pool of supplies that makes it possible to sell "the same" (as more expensive ones) for crazy low prices, except in liquidation dumps... which then means warranty means nothing because company is dying.
In this discussion, if the picture seems about as good, I'd worry about variables like longevity. I actually doubt the picture of cheapie vs. pricey IS as good if it was carefully scrutinized... if not day 1, the on day 366. Who cares about that level of scrutinization? TV use is typically a 10+ year thing, so little "who cares" compromises are cumulative compromises over a very long time. If cheapie panel "goes yellow" or develops dead pixels in the next year or two, how happy are you about saving the money?
Who cares about the relatively small differences between a cheaper Android phone vs. a pricier iPhone? Or who cares about a cheaper 5K monitor vs. a pricier ASD? MB vs. PC laptop? As soon as you put it in Apple (brand) terms, we suddenly start conjuring very important differences to rationalize paying up for Apple pricing. Why do we do that for Apple but not for some TV we buy that will will likely use LONGER than anything we will buy from Apple right now? Whatever we answer to that question does generally apply to many other products than only those from Apple.
"You get what you pay for" DOES generally apply. Anything super cheap (well below median for comparable things) almost certainly has meaningful compromises somewhere. They may not be obvious up front but they may reveal themselves in time. On day 1, every MB I've ever owned has had whole day+ battery life. But a few months later, it seems to have lost some of that extra and falls down towards a long-term normal (as if there was some substantial extra that is lost a little beyond the returns/exchange and/or warranty window. On day 1, the new iPhone is "OMG", "crazy fast", "best iPhone ever"... but give it even 2 years and the same people will be rationalizing an upgrade by calling that iPhone "long in tooth", "too slow", etc.
Are some things worth paying more to much more than about median price? Yes, if you value whatever the variables are driving you to covet them. Again, see Apple offerings across the board. We fall all over ourselves with "shut up and take my money" to buy Apple stuff even when commodities like RAM & Storage is priced at 3X-5X market. Why do we do that? Why not choose cheapie alternatives, some priced far below Apple pricing? Again, the answers that you are knee-jerk conjuring in your mind can apply to non-Apple things like TVs too.
Are some things worth buying at super bargains (relatively)? Yes, if you are cash pinched and/or if you are prepared to probably replace it sooner or willing to roll with the compromises- whatever they are- that may show on day 1 or may "long in tooth" a little beyond the return/exchange/warranty window.
Earlier in this thread someone asked which to buy: a Sony 43" vs. a HighSense 43." The only variable apparently being considered is brand name, which is often just a piece of plastic stuck on the device somewhere. One could likely remove a cheapie brand and stick on a premium-price brand with only a little glue. Scratch off HighSense mark, affix Sony... or Cartier or Apple or Rolex and you'll present a Cartier/Apple/Rolex TV to anyone who looks. Did it become better than then HighSense TV with that change?
Furthermore, within each of those brands, they may offer 3-5 (quality) classes of 43" TVs. Is this comparison considering the cheapest class of the better-known brand vs. the best class of the less-known brand? We don't know because we have no details beyond a brand name. Is one 1080p or 720p and the other 4K or 8K? Is one cheapest possible panel vs. best possible panel? We know nothing except one piece of plastic (name) vs. another piece of plastic.
In pursuit of something you are probably going to own and use for 10+ years (if the one you choose can last that long), you should opt to take the purchase much more seriously:
Else, let cheap price be the dominant driver and you probably end up facing consequences. If price dominates a decision as important as a 10+ year use thing, you probably shouldn't be paying way up for Apple stuff. Else, if you rationalize Apple stuff is worth an Apple premium relative to competing products, the very same kind of thinking should be applied to non-Apple-branded stuff like televisions. Again, why? Because you are probably using a TV for far longer than 2 or 3 iPhones that will take $2K-$3K+ money from you. You are probably on at least 1 replacement Mac before a TV needs replacement. Etc.
While it looks like various people have already made their purchase decisions before I could offer the above, hopefully this post will help others who discover this thread and face making TV buying decisions in the months or years to come. Many households will have people staring at a TV screen for more hours than they stare at computer screens. Take this kind of purchase very serious. It's worth getting it right.
Those charging a lot more than that are either including premium features that one may or may not notice and/or leaning on brand name clout or other variables.
Those charging a lot less are cutting costs somewhere. There is no magic pool of supplies that makes it possible to sell "the same" (as more expensive ones) for crazy low prices, except in liquidation dumps... which then means warranty means nothing because company is dying.
In this discussion, if the picture seems about as good, I'd worry about variables like longevity. I actually doubt the picture of cheapie vs. pricey IS as good if it was carefully scrutinized... if not day 1, the on day 366. Who cares about that level of scrutinization? TV use is typically a 10+ year thing, so little "who cares" compromises are cumulative compromises over a very long time. If cheapie panel "goes yellow" or develops dead pixels in the next year or two, how happy are you about saving the money?
Who cares about the relatively small differences between a cheaper Android phone vs. a pricier iPhone? Or who cares about a cheaper 5K monitor vs. a pricier ASD? MB vs. PC laptop? As soon as you put it in Apple (brand) terms, we suddenly start conjuring very important differences to rationalize paying up for Apple pricing. Why do we do that for Apple but not for some TV we buy that will will likely use LONGER than anything we will buy from Apple right now? Whatever we answer to that question does generally apply to many other products than only those from Apple.
"You get what you pay for" DOES generally apply. Anything super cheap (well below median for comparable things) almost certainly has meaningful compromises somewhere. They may not be obvious up front but they may reveal themselves in time. On day 1, every MB I've ever owned has had whole day+ battery life. But a few months later, it seems to have lost some of that extra and falls down towards a long-term normal (as if there was some substantial extra that is lost a little beyond the returns/exchange and/or warranty window. On day 1, the new iPhone is "OMG", "crazy fast", "best iPhone ever"... but give it even 2 years and the same people will be rationalizing an upgrade by calling that iPhone "long in tooth", "too slow", etc.
Are some things worth paying more to much more than about median price? Yes, if you value whatever the variables are driving you to covet them. Again, see Apple offerings across the board. We fall all over ourselves with "shut up and take my money" to buy Apple stuff even when commodities like RAM & Storage is priced at 3X-5X market. Why do we do that? Why not choose cheapie alternatives, some priced far below Apple pricing? Again, the answers that you are knee-jerk conjuring in your mind can apply to non-Apple things like TVs too.
Are some things worth buying at super bargains (relatively)? Yes, if you are cash pinched and/or if you are prepared to probably replace it sooner or willing to roll with the compromises- whatever they are- that may show on day 1 or may "long in tooth" a little beyond the return/exchange/warranty window.
Earlier in this thread someone asked which to buy: a Sony 43" vs. a HighSense 43." The only variable apparently being considered is brand name, which is often just a piece of plastic stuck on the device somewhere. One could likely remove a cheapie brand and stick on a premium-price brand with only a little glue. Scratch off HighSense mark, affix Sony... or Cartier or Apple or Rolex and you'll present a Cartier/Apple/Rolex TV to anyone who looks. Did it become better than then HighSense TV with that change?
Furthermore, within each of those brands, they may offer 3-5 (quality) classes of 43" TVs. Is this comparison considering the cheapest class of the better-known brand vs. the best class of the less-known brand? We don't know because we have no details beyond a brand name. Is one 1080p or 720p and the other 4K or 8K? Is one cheapest possible panel vs. best possible panel? We know nothing except one piece of plastic (name) vs. another piece of plastic.
In pursuit of something you are probably going to own and use for 10+ years (if the one you choose can last that long), you should opt to take the purchase much more seriously:
- Dig into the details.
- Compare specs that matter.
- Dig into objective reviews to get best takes at BOTH pros & cons.
- Scour the internet for experiences with your finalists. YouTube seems to have reviews for just about anything... and not all of them are simply extensions of brand marketing.
Else, let cheap price be the dominant driver and you probably end up facing consequences. If price dominates a decision as important as a 10+ year use thing, you probably shouldn't be paying way up for Apple stuff. Else, if you rationalize Apple stuff is worth an Apple premium relative to competing products, the very same kind of thinking should be applied to non-Apple-branded stuff like televisions. Again, why? Because you are probably using a TV for far longer than 2 or 3 iPhones that will take $2K-$3K+ money from you. You are probably on at least 1 replacement Mac before a TV needs replacement. Etc.
While it looks like various people have already made their purchase decisions before I could offer the above, hopefully this post will help others who discover this thread and face making TV buying decisions in the months or years to come. Many households will have people staring at a TV screen for more hours than they stare at computer screens. Take this kind of purchase very serious. It's worth getting it right.
Last edited:
I have a mix of Samsungs and Vizios, and I don't think you can go wrong with either in terms of build quality and picture quality when all other things are roughly equal (e.g., price, display type, number and types of ports).
Perhaps, but a couple of the TV review channels on EweTube have been singing the praises of both HiSense and TCL a LOT in the last two years, not unlike the major turnaround of Hyundai/Kia autos of about 15 years ago, nor unlike the major turnaround of Toyota/Honda 40 years ago. Young, aggressive and hungry companies can do amazing things.
For the record, I bought a 55" Sony Bravia last year and probably won't be buying another TV (at least on this side of the sod); I just thought a purchase-able 136" TV, this year, was pretty amazing. YMMV.
I thought Vizio was supposed to be a more generic brand, how would its price equal samsung which is like the high end of tv tech?
The problem with these reviews is they review new units. The real test is the stress test after some time. How many of these units are working just fine with no issues after 3 years? There is a reason why Lexus sells more cars than Jaguar.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
A service like Consumer Reports tends to offer objective longevity reports... and since almost all TV models refresh each year, that information is typically on discontinued TVs from years ago and likely does not apply to the 2025 variant. For example, XDB1212A2-C from 2015 may get high longevity marks for still functioning just fine but XDB1212A2-M (the 2025 version) may or may not have the same quality of build, quality of chips, etc.
OP, your first post looks like low price was a big driver. Your last post looks like longevity (and thus quality) is mattering. As the desire for quality goes up, price is probably going up. As the draw of low prices pulls down, quality is likely sliding. If you want to strike some balance, figure out the approx. median prices for the specs you seek, pick 3 favorites from that group and then research those 3 units in great detail. Pick a winner. Buy a TV and enjoy it.
If you do subscribe to CR for such information, they have objective TV roundups every year. So you could use their information to help you build a list of a few favorites. If so, go read/watch every review you can find on them to help narrow in on 1 best choice for you.
Else, if you just ask strangers in forums, you'll get answers like: "I've got a Philco from 1972 that still operates just fine" and/or "I always buy <brand> and they always last for me." That's like asking if smoking is actually bad and 2 or 3 guys come in with "I'm 8X years old (cough, cough), have smoked 2 packs a day for life (cough, cough, cough) and am in perfect health (cough, cough, spit up something brownish, cough)." Is that proof that smoking is not bad? Or just a few examples of outliers who happen to chime in to defend their own takes?
Since TVs are a product that generally last 10+ years, you DO want to take the purchase very seriously. We spend far more to buy new phones every couple of years. Generally, lower-lowest price is NOT the way to go with 10+ year use-life products... so paying up for quality is typically worth it.
If me, I'd put my floor in towards about the median price of whatever size/featureset TV I want and then work UP from there because I'd rather gamble some extra spend on buying quality to enjoy for 10+ years. That middle-of-the-pack pricing where most of your desired set will be grouped will likely be good balances of quality and price, driven by hefty competition trying to out quality each other AND win or come close on price too. Just as I'd scalp off the low ballers, I'd also reject those few at unusually high prices for no apparent reason. Think bell curve and chopping both ends off to focus on the middle 60%-70% of available TVs. The one you will love is probably in that pool.
OP, your first post looks like low price was a big driver. Your last post looks like longevity (and thus quality) is mattering. As the desire for quality goes up, price is probably going up. As the draw of low prices pulls down, quality is likely sliding. If you want to strike some balance, figure out the approx. median prices for the specs you seek, pick 3 favorites from that group and then research those 3 units in great detail. Pick a winner. Buy a TV and enjoy it.
If you do subscribe to CR for such information, they have objective TV roundups every year. So you could use their information to help you build a list of a few favorites. If so, go read/watch every review you can find on them to help narrow in on 1 best choice for you.
Else, if you just ask strangers in forums, you'll get answers like: "I've got a Philco from 1972 that still operates just fine" and/or "I always buy <brand> and they always last for me." That's like asking if smoking is actually bad and 2 or 3 guys come in with "I'm 8X years old (cough, cough), have smoked 2 packs a day for life (cough, cough, cough) and am in perfect health (cough, cough, spit up something brownish, cough)." Is that proof that smoking is not bad? Or just a few examples of outliers who happen to chime in to defend their own takes?
Since TVs are a product that generally last 10+ years, you DO want to take the purchase very seriously. We spend far more to buy new phones every couple of years. Generally, lower-lowest price is NOT the way to go with 10+ year use-life products... so paying up for quality is typically worth it.
If me, I'd put my floor in towards about the median price of whatever size/featureset TV I want and then work UP from there because I'd rather gamble some extra spend on buying quality to enjoy for 10+ years. That middle-of-the-pack pricing where most of your desired set will be grouped will likely be good balances of quality and price, driven by hefty competition trying to out quality each other AND win or come close on price too. Just as I'd scalp off the low ballers, I'd also reject those few at unusually high prices for no apparent reason. Think bell curve and chopping both ends off to focus on the middle 60%-70% of available TVs. The one you will love is probably in that pool.
Last edited:
Except, if you read that article about privacy, it has nothing to do with whether the smart TV platform is the TV set, Apple, Amazon or someone else.Which is a great reason to just deny your TV access to the internet, and stream everything through an Apple TV
I worked many years developing components used in HDTV and 4K TV’s.
It is usually very difficult to tell the difference from one TV and another inside a store such as Best Buy. The lighting is not like the lighting in your home, and they play ultra high bitrate, ultra-colorful images which don’t represent what you see at home.
There are some distinct viewing considerations: Whether you watch mostly in a dimly lit room (nighttime TV) or in a brightly lit room during the daytime. Whether you mostly watch movies or sports, and whether you play video games.
Some terminology: All TV screens are LCD screens except OLED, which is a unique technology which illuminates each pixel. Because of this, an OLED pixel can become pure black. All LCD sets are backlit and some bleed-through occurs, preventing the blacks from being perfectly black. An LED screen is an LCD screen which uses LEDs for the backlight (which is virtually all non-OLED panels sold). A QLED screen is a panel which uses “Quantum Dot” technology, which is a superior dye for producing rich colors. Samsung cleverly calls this QLED to confuse people between QLED and OLED. While OLED gives better blacks and richer colors, its peak brightness isn’t as high and it doesn’t have the ultra-fast refresh that some LCD screens use for gaming.
For daytime viewing in a bright room, OLED is not ideal and its benefits are not visible. You want to look for a set that has a high NIT rating; that is, a very bright set. And you might want to look at its anti-glare coating, which you can view in a store if you look at the panel off-center, at an angle, and look at how a lightbulb reflects from it. A glossy screen like Apple’s monitors will do poorly in these conditions.
In general, the 120 Hz TV sets are better for both movies and sports. OLED is at its best at viewing movies at nighttime, but OLED sets cost noticeably more and it’s certainly not a requirement. They deliver great colors and the best blacks; it’s lovely, but you can certainly enjoy TV with an LED or Samsung QLED screen. My own TV isn’t an OLED. For high refresh content, especially video gaming from a late model Xbox or PlayStation, a 120 Hz TV with variable refresh rate (VRR) is ideal. In ordinary TV and movie viewing, you will not ever use the VRR feature.
So this will give you some ideas of which to choose if you have a specific use. I’d maybe avoid the very, very least expensive models, but otherwise, budget models are outstanding these days. The built-in streaming features are excellent, at least they are on my Samsung. But you can always buy an AppleTV or other box and use that instead of the TV’s built-in streaming features. Or, perhaps after five years, the built-in apps won’t be state of the art and you can replace with an AppleTV or other.
That's why I qualified it with "when all other things are roughly equal (e.g., price, display type, number and types of ports)." So a mid-range Vizio versus a mid-range Samsung, for example.
-In past times, higher price meant better build quality, higher grade material used. today higher price means bleeding edge feature but what about quality?
-Yes, some brands are expensive because of the logo but the material is as cheap as the generic brands. I avoid brands like these. We purchased an expensive Samsung tv and in few years we got alternating brightness strips. I won't be buying Samsungs in the future.
-I pay the Apple premium because Apple indeed has higher build quality and of course mac os. The storage and ram is crazy expensive but the overall experience is way better. My macs last easy 7 years and they work just as good as new if you disregard their specs. I checked some pc laptops and there were no where near as solid and well designed as the macbooks.
you strategy in reviewing and picking a product is very logical and indeed its the one I approach.
-Am not sure which models you are referring to (XDB1212A2) didn't even show with a web search but I get what you are saying. Back in the day a brand quality was across the board. Now its per model or product but not necessarily for the other brand offerings. I already picked a QNED LG tv. Last year we bought a similar spec Samsung for nearly double the price
whats going on?-Low price was not my biggest driver, quality is. I was just surprised that the higher end models dropped so much in price. The higher priced ones had bells and whistles that no one really care about (8K, blah blah)
-Whats QR? I think you meant CR (Consumer Reports)
-Yes I am totally surprised that you can buy an 85 inch 4K HDR tv for like $2000 meanwhile a 6.9 inch Pro Max can cost like $1500 , but I am not the kind of guy that buys the expensive phones
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I think I have the same model and its really not that bad, looks pretty good and enjoyable.
thanks for the info! I examined the mini-led QLED and its really hard to tell the difference between them and OLED models specially on glossy screens.
I never understood the "brightness" part, all tv reviewers are hunting for the brighter tv but my 2013 samsung can blind your eyes if you set the brightness to high. Unless your tv is set in the garden during day light, I don't get the hunt for brighter screens at all. If anything, I lower the brightness on all screens i use. My iphone screen is set to around 25% but I do use it mostly darker rooms.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Just made those up to illustrate the idea. TV brand numbers can often look like that with a different letter or two at the end.
Back in the day a brand quality was across the board. Now its per model or product but not necessarily for the other brand offerings. I already picked a QNED LG tv. Last year we bought a similar spec Samsung for nearly double the price
The TV industry is highly competitive. But at double the price, I'd guess you are comparing perhaps closeout price vs. not-on-sale price. Else, there are very likely important differences between the two. Samsung would not let LG deliver the same TV for half the price. It's a VERY competitive space.
That's the game: time erodes high prices. The concept of inflation that is often slung to support why Apple is charging a little more this year than last doesn't apply to everything. Deflation is a thing too. What drives deflation? A biggie is robust competition.
I recall some time ago paying $6K for a 1080i TV. Step back further and I remember paying $800 for a 25" SD TV. As time passes, pricing drops (except generally in Apple land). And next tier up becomes the premium showcase models at relatively high prices. Wait 4-5 years and premium 8K TVs will be where 4K ones are now and 12K or 16K TVs will replace them at premium tier.
And if we care about 5K enough to pay whole iMac 27" pricing for just the monitor portion alone, we should care about higher resolution TV too. The very same rationale for why 5K vs. 4K vs 1080p applies. In fact, spin for all latest Macs is that they can display to 8K monitors now. So guess what's probably coming soon from Apple?
And no people: we don't need to rattle through all of the stuff that makes 8K unimportant. All that recycled rationale was the same spun against 4K before Apple went there and 1080p before Apple went there. As soon as Apple embraces 8K, we'll suddenly care about it. iDevices will shoot it, new model of AppleTV will play it, content in the store will start offering 8K versions, etc. There's always this collective wall of the same rationale against the next tier up that immediately evaporates as soon as Apple embraces it.
Yes, typo, getting corrected right after I post this.
Compare Apples margin to TV industry margin. And iPhone is an island without 20 other models of iPhone made by 20 other companies all competing with each other. When a seller is the lone Company Store, they can charge anything for their product with no competitive pressure. TVs have tremendous competitive pressure. See all RAM & SSD prices, etc. Where there's
- robust competition, there's high value, low price propositions.
- no competition, there's high value, high price propositions.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The thing about this is you are blaming the entire brand for one bad apple. What happens when you buy some Apple product that disappoints you (Apple certainly rolls out defective stuff too). Does the whole brand get blamed for one defective offering?
All of the tech brands- including Apple- can manufacture defective products. If we all bought a butterfly keyboard Mac, presumably we would all be sworn off Apple for everything if we applied that kind of thinking. Instead, we "forgive" the favorite brand and just keep right on buying more.
If you heed the advice in the other reply, CR is very likely going to rate some Samsung TVs towards the top of their ratings. Other Samsung TVs may be down towards the bottom of their ratings. Last 5-10 years, it's been judgement by specific model, not blanket good or bad by brand name. Research is key to sort the good ones from the bad. Anyone reading this thread to find a new TV should make great effort. Unlike phones & tablets & computers that may cost more to much more than the new TV, you'll likely still be using the new TV 10-12, maybe 15 years from now. Let that longevity use influence how hard you work to find the RIGHT TV.
Last edited:
Agreed. I have a plasma from 2010 that will make your eyes hurt with how bright it can get. The specs say 1500 nits. Is that true? I have no idea but it can get very very bright.
What is happening is that I think that prices have fallen because new TVs are largely lower quality every year. Remember when LED TVs were a new thing, native 120hz screens were almost the standard. Now you’re paying a premium for that “high refresh rate”. Whatever is going on in the TV industry, they are cutting corners like crazy and panels are getting worse.
Great post.
But Apple isn’t going to be the company that makes 8K happen. It’s entirely up to LG, Samsung, and a Chinese panel manufacturer. And it’s not about a decision, it boils down to if and when they can build 8K panels at lot cost.
Manufacturers were able to build large 4K panels for about the same price as 1080 panels, so it was a no-brainer. We haven’t seen that with 8K yet. It is not clear if we will.
Yes, Apple may build a spectacular 8K monitor, but that won’t move the industry any more than Apple’s 5K panels have (not) moved the industry. It might be a big deal within our specialized niche, but it will take around 50 million 8K sets in US consumer living rooms to truly change content and the industry.
I hope we do get to 8K, with panels 6 feet high. It’s an incredible experience. Imagine watching hockey and football at home with life-size players in your living room. It would be great!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I don't know where you live but 8K big screens are already everywhere and have been for years. LG, Samsung and Chinese panel manufacturers have been shipping big screen 8K TVs for 5+ years now. I think I recall the first hitting in about 2017-18 but may be off by a year or two.
Just to get a sense of it, hop on Amazon, sort for 8K TVs and then filter only for big "70 inches and up." There are 5 (FIVE) pages of matches from where I am- 16 matches per page, tallying about 75 models for sale. They are priced like 4K monitors of similar size only a few years ago... and falling fast (just like 4K before them, and 1080p before those).
Step into a TV retailer like Best Buy and they'll have MANY 8K TVs on display and ready for anyone to take home same day.
That shared though, I agree that Apple won't make 8K happen. Why? The history of Apple and TV resolution tiers is Apple drags in about last. They were about last to 1080p, last to 4K and they'll likely be last to 8K too. And while Apple clings to a tier, the fandom readily spins how the next tier "makes no sense", "the chart, the chart", "is a gimmick", "no one can see the difference", "until everything in the iTunes Store is 8K" (not that everything in the iTunes Store is now 4K or even 1080p yet, but Apple moved on anyway), "until the internet backbone is improved enough to handle 8K streaming EVERYWHERE", "until everyone has 8K TVs" and "I'm not going to replace my perfectly good <1080p/4k> TV with an 8K TV (like a box capable of higher resolution requires that. Again, all new Macs are capable of 8K output now), etc.
The arguments against the next tier are the same every time, and passionately recycled and used over and over right up until Apple finally embraces the new tier. And then what? Crickets. It's as if all that passion against it was never slung. Much like USB-C in iPhone before and after, as soon as Apple embraces it, it's readily accepted and "just fine." A mountain of arguments against evaporate overnight. Those so confidently bashing it before don't show up to bash Apple for finally going there... just as you don't see any Apple bashing for embracing USB-C in iPhone. What happened to the mountain of "lint magnet", "wobbly" and "broken tongues" bashes? Poof. Now USB-C is perfectly fine in iPhone. But before??? Complete and total disaster, dooming all to recurring, expensive port repairs and the extinction of pocket lint.
So the current rumor for a next AppleTV late next year is generation 4 (FOUR) of yet another 4K model. Meanwhile, 48Megapixel cameras in phones can shoot 8K, as Samsung started offering in their phones back in about 2020. In fact, MANY brands of phones can shoot it last couple of years. But, as mentioned above, in spite of installing cameras quite capable of it, Apple tends to drag in last. Maybe this year's batch? Maybe next years? Maybe 2 or 3 more years?
Meanwhile, Mac advertising spins how new Macs can readily drive 8K monitors and even M1 Mac marketing from years ago spun how they could edit "multiple streams of 8K"... if only they had an Apple source of 8K video to do any of that editing.
8K is already here and has been for a few years. The walled garden just ignores/ridicules/undermines it because Apple doesn't embrace it yet. That will change overnight as soon as Apple does embrace it... like NFC (pay with phone), USB-C in iPhone, 4K AppleTV, or even phablet-sized phones and on and on. Frankly, I look forward to it myself- even without an 8K TV yet- because the added horsepower to be able to provide 8K means much more powerful AppleTV hardware that will work just fine with what I do have, improved video functionality of iDevices, etc. Besides, we all already have libraries of photos ready to be viewed at resolution well above 4K-5K and that's a content start for even those of us firmly within the wall.
Just to get a sense of it, hop on Amazon, sort for 8K TVs and then filter only for big "70 inches and up." There are 5 (FIVE) pages of matches from where I am- 16 matches per page, tallying about 75 models for sale. They are priced like 4K monitors of similar size only a few years ago... and falling fast (just like 4K before them, and 1080p before those).
Step into a TV retailer like Best Buy and they'll have MANY 8K TVs on display and ready for anyone to take home same day.
That shared though, I agree that Apple won't make 8K happen. Why? The history of Apple and TV resolution tiers is Apple drags in about last. They were about last to 1080p, last to 4K and they'll likely be last to 8K too. And while Apple clings to a tier, the fandom readily spins how the next tier "makes no sense", "the chart, the chart", "is a gimmick", "no one can see the difference", "until everything in the iTunes Store is 8K" (not that everything in the iTunes Store is now 4K or even 1080p yet, but Apple moved on anyway), "until the internet backbone is improved enough to handle 8K streaming EVERYWHERE", "until everyone has 8K TVs" and "I'm not going to replace my perfectly good <1080p/4k> TV with an 8K TV (like a box capable of higher resolution requires that. Again, all new Macs are capable of 8K output now), etc.
The arguments against the next tier are the same every time, and passionately recycled and used over and over right up until Apple finally embraces the new tier. And then what? Crickets. It's as if all that passion against it was never slung. Much like USB-C in iPhone before and after, as soon as Apple embraces it, it's readily accepted and "just fine." A mountain of arguments against evaporate overnight. Those so confidently bashing it before don't show up to bash Apple for finally going there... just as you don't see any Apple bashing for embracing USB-C in iPhone. What happened to the mountain of "lint magnet", "wobbly" and "broken tongues" bashes? Poof. Now USB-C is perfectly fine in iPhone. But before??? Complete and total disaster, dooming all to recurring, expensive port repairs and the extinction of pocket lint.
So the current rumor for a next AppleTV late next year is generation 4 (FOUR) of yet another 4K model. Meanwhile, 48Megapixel cameras in phones can shoot 8K, as Samsung started offering in their phones back in about 2020. In fact, MANY brands of phones can shoot it last couple of years. But, as mentioned above, in spite of installing cameras quite capable of it, Apple tends to drag in last. Maybe this year's batch? Maybe next years? Maybe 2 or 3 more years?
Meanwhile, Mac advertising spins how new Macs can readily drive 8K monitors and even M1 Mac marketing from years ago spun how they could edit "multiple streams of 8K"... if only they had an Apple source of 8K video to do any of that editing.
8K is already here and has been for a few years. The walled garden just ignores/ridicules/undermines it because Apple doesn't embrace it yet. That will change overnight as soon as Apple does embrace it... like NFC (pay with phone), USB-C in iPhone, 4K AppleTV, or even phablet-sized phones and on and on. Frankly, I look forward to it myself- even without an 8K TV yet- because the added horsepower to be able to provide 8K means much more powerful AppleTV hardware that will work just fine with what I do have, improved video functionality of iDevices, etc. Besides, we all already have libraries of photos ready to be viewed at resolution well above 4K-5K and that's a content start for even those of us firmly within the wall.
Last edited:
I didn’t say that 8K TV’s cannot be purchased, but they cost twice as much as their 4K counterparts at the same size. So sales have been poor.
I began work on 8K semiconductors in 2015. I worked on the very first 4K systems before that, and 1080p systems before that. I know the market and the technology very well. I have invested years of my time in 8K.
The Great Big Hope is that a rollable 8K OLED panel will ship for about $1,000. You can easily transport it in a car or ship it, then you unroll it and it covers an entire wall in your home. Because at 75 inches, 8K isn’t especially remarkable. At two meters tall, though, it’s incredible.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Of course they cost more than their 4K counterparts at the same size. iPhones cost more than their Android counterparts at the same size. Macs cost much more than their PC counterparts at the same size. iPads vs. Fire tablets. Etc.
"New improved" generally costs more than "old established" in about all things.
And for a very long time, iMac 27" screens were NOT 5K and people gushed at the clarity & quality. Then they went 5K and people gushed at the clarity & quality. Since the size was the same, one might try to say that 5K at 27" isn't especially remarkable when so many were quite happy with about half 5K resolution for many years. But we rationalize 5K as towards essential because that's what Apple pushes. When Apple pushes 8K monitors... or perhaps another oddball resolution like 9.5" or 10.257" or whatever it will be, we'll then gush about it as ideal. If packed into about the same-size enclosure, tag it quad-Retina XL deluxe Pro or something and we and any raptors flying by will believe we easily see the superior difference.
I totally agree that BIG(ger) screens call for higher resolution. But as higher resolution is packed into existing screen sizes, many around here start talking up a concept called "retina" to rationalize more pixels packed into the same established space as superior to non-retina or even close-to-retina. That very same rationale seems like it should apply to TV screens too. But there we'll argue AGAINST advancement... until Apple embraces it.
Yes, 8K screens at giant sizes for <$1K sounds fantastic... as would an equivalent bargain in 27" 5K monitor pricing. But we Apple people have no problem at all rationalizing toward $2K with stand option pricing for the latter... even attacking competitor 5K offerings that work pricing down. I suspect the same kind of rationalizations could be applied to making sense of gigantic 8K screen at > $1K if desired (which seems to only take Apple endorsing it).
"New improved" generally costs more than "old established" in about all things.
And for a very long time, iMac 27" screens were NOT 5K and people gushed at the clarity & quality. Then they went 5K and people gushed at the clarity & quality. Since the size was the same, one might try to say that 5K at 27" isn't especially remarkable when so many were quite happy with about half 5K resolution for many years. But we rationalize 5K as towards essential because that's what Apple pushes. When Apple pushes 8K monitors... or perhaps another oddball resolution like 9.5" or 10.257" or whatever it will be, we'll then gush about it as ideal. If packed into about the same-size enclosure, tag it quad-Retina XL deluxe Pro or something and we and any raptors flying by will believe we easily see the superior difference.
I totally agree that BIG(ger) screens call for higher resolution. But as higher resolution is packed into existing screen sizes, many around here start talking up a concept called "retina" to rationalize more pixels packed into the same established space as superior to non-retina or even close-to-retina. That very same rationale seems like it should apply to TV screens too. But there we'll argue AGAINST advancement... until Apple embraces it.
Yes, 8K screens at giant sizes for <$1K sounds fantastic... as would an equivalent bargain in 27" 5K monitor pricing. But we Apple people have no problem at all rationalizing toward $2K with stand option pricing for the latter... even attacking competitor 5K offerings that work pricing down. I suspect the same kind of rationalizations could be applied to making sense of gigantic 8K screen at > $1K if desired (which seems to only take Apple endorsing it).
Last edited:
Television isn’t the same as computer display. Different viewing distances, backlight brightness, sharpness characteristics. While an 8K Retina display makes sense and there’s a good likelihood we’ll see one, that doesn’t translate to TV.
In TV, the 4K models sell for less than equal size 1080p models. And viewing distance does matter. The manufacturing technology isn’t ready yet for 8K in CE TV volumes. It’s not a conspiracy; it’s not “the man,” it’s just taking a lot longer than many of us thought.