Whats going on in the TV world?

[HobeSoundDarryl]

OK, but I see plenty of 8K TVs priced under $2K already... and many more under $3K. Yes, certainly under $1K would be all the more desirable but manufacturing seems to have long since figured out how to make 8K TVs priced only a little more than iPhone MAX or ASD with stand option or Mac Studio base. Perhaps $2K-$3K is no longer viewed as "great TV" affordable by the masses? I just don't seem to perceive that among my friends/family/acquaintances etc. who often come to me for help on this kind of topic and end up spending a few thousand on a purchase likely to be used for the next 10-12 or more years.

Apparently median price paid for televisions in the last few years is about $800. That's not just big screen but all TVs. To be median, the number is middling, which means many buy TVs that cost a lot less and a lot more than that. I paid up over $3K for my last television purchase chasing well-rated, high-quality 4K. If I had to replace it today, I'd be expecting to spend up into that range again and I'd probably go ahead and go 8K with so many 8K TVs available in that range now.

Why with "no 8K content", no 8K AppleTV, etc? Why not? Just as 1080p upscales to 4K, 4K would upscale to 8K. I do have a great abundance of self-shot 4K video and photos to take advantage of higher resolutions. And there will be only more of that to come. As soon as I have a way to shoot 8K video instead of 4K, I'll immediately switch to it.

There was a point in time where there was "no 4K content" and no 4K AppleTV. And before that there was a point with no 1080p content and no 1080p AppleTV. We're well into the 4K life cycle now. I doubt I would replace current 4K with another, even if I could do so for considerably less than a few thousand. But perhaps that's just me.

• A couple of decades ago before HD was "it", I paid $800 for a relatively small (today) SD TV.
• A number of years ago before 1080 HDTV was "it", I paid over $6K for a 1080i TV.
• A few years ago before 4K was "it", I paid over $3K for a 4K TV in a closeout, before which it MSRP'd at $6K.
• In 2025, I'd be ready to easily do that again to go 8K before it may be "it."

It's day is definitely coming. I doubt that significantly lower prices are necessary to make it happen... though lower prices always help. I know once Apple embraces 8K in iPhone video capture and then an 8K AppleTV, this crowd will accept it just like they accepted 4K and 1080p when Apple finally embraced those. BEFORE Apple embraced those, there were mountains of posts that read basically the same as arguments against going 8K now. History shows that such opinions evaporate as soon as Apple makes the tier leap.

 

[Alameda]

OK, but I see plenty of 8K TVs priced under $2K already... and many more under $3K. Yes, certainly under $1K would be all the more desirable but manufacturing seems to have long since figured out how to make 8K TVs priced only a little more than iPhone MAX or ASD with stand option or Mac Studio base. Perhaps $2K-$3K is no longer viewed as "great TV" affordable by the masses? I just don't seem to perceive that among my friends/family/acquaintances etc. who often come to me for help on this kind of topic and end up spending a few thousand on a purchase likely to be used for the next 10-12 or more years.

Apparently median price paid for televisions in the last few years is about $800. That's not just big screen but all TVs. To be median, the number is middling, which means many buy TVs that cost a lot less and a lot more than that. I paid up over $3K for my last television purchase chasing well-rated, high-quality 4K. If I had to replace it today, I'd be expecting to spend up into that range again and I'd probably go ahead and go 8K with so many 8K TVs available in that range now.

Why with "no 8K content", no 8K AppleTV, etc? Why not? Just as 1080p upscales to 4K, 4K would upscale to 8K. I do have a great abundance of self-shot 4K video and photos to take advantage of higher resolutions. And there will be only more of that to come. As soon as I have a way to shoot 8K video instead of 4K, I'll immediately switch to it.

There was a point in time where there was "no 4K content" and no 4K AppleTV. And before that there was a point with no 1080p content and no 1080p AppleTV. We're well into the 4K life cycle now. I doubt I would replace current 4K with another, even if I could do so for considerably less than a few thousand. But perhaps that's just me.

• A couple of decades ago before HD was "it", I paid $800 for a relatively small (today) SD TV.
• A number of years ago before 1080 HDTV was "it", I paid over $6K for a 1080i TV.
• A few years ago before 4K was "it", I paid over $3K for a 4K TV in a closeout, before which it MSRP'd at $6K.
• In 2025, I'd be ready to easily do that again to go 8K before it may be "it."

It's day is definitely coming. I doubt that significantly lower prices are necessary to make it happen... though lower prices always help. I know once Apple embraces 8K in iPhone video capture and then an 8K AppleTV, this crowd will accept it just like they accepted 4K and 1080p when Apple finally embraced those. BEFORE Apple embraced those, there were mountains of posts that read basically the same as arguments against going 8K now. History shows that such opinions evaporate as soon as Apple makes the tier leap.

I have considerable experience in this field. I think that 8K adoption is still very low. There are a lot of explanations for these things, they talk about “chicken and egg” and all of that, but one thing that is clear is that the TV sets always come long before the content.

Most consumers did not upgrade from SD to HD. They upgraded from 32 - 26” CRT to 40” flat panel.
Most consumers then upgraded from 40” flat panel to 55 - 65” 4K TV. Truly, this is how the majority of consumers made their purchase decisions. The resolution wasn’t the main thing.

TV sales are flat because most people have 55 to 65” TV sets and they see no reason to sell a 65” 4K TV for a 65 or 75” 8K TV. And, to be honest, I think they’re right.

There are two technologies which can change this: MicroLED and rollable OLED. With these technologies, consumers can get displays which cover an entire wall, and the experience is truly immersive. It probably has to be seen to be understood, but once you see it, then, yes, it’s really great and you’ll figure out how to move the bookshelves and sofa around to cover an entire wall with a TV screen.

The only thing I can imagine after that is building a sphere at home, which might be a video gamer approach in another five or ten years.

 

[MacBH928]

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.

-Well Yes I will blame them when the $2000 tv has 1 year warranty just like the $500 generic brand tv. If their brand was to represent quality then they should replace my defective unit. A lot of those companies will play a cat and mouse game when honoring their warranties telling you they dont "see" the defect.

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.

-IMO its on the company that makes it confusing to me and forces me to research. Companies should make buying choices as simple as possible to the consumer not confuse him into infinite. The more you confuse the consumer the more likely you will lose him to the competition because you made it unclear to him. I shouldn't be having to research every single model of single brand out there. Steve Jobs fixed this in Apple when he presented the 4x4 matrix, Consumer-Pro X desktop -Laptop

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 drive deflation? A biggie is robust competition.

I mean look at this:

'65 LG OLED TV - $988

'65 4K TV - $299

aren't these prices insane?! I am completely shocked

I recall some time ago paying $6K for a 1080i TV

Yup, those are the prices I remember.

 

[MacBH928]

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.

Its so very obvious. If you lived through the 80s and 90s, those Japanese electronics were the gold standard of ever lasting high quality products. Now its all cheap internals sold on brand name recognition.

Albeit I do not blame the brands. if Sony would release a high grade quality tv for $4000 that will last you at least 15 years no issues , and next to it in the showroom is a same size $799 chinese generic tv brand, guess which one will the consumer buy?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

-Well Yes I will blame them when the $2000 tv has 1 year warranty just like the $500 generic brand tv. If their brand was to represent quality then they should replace my defective unit. A lot of those companies will play a cat and mouse game when honoring their warranties telling you they dont "see" the defect.

Again, MB Butterfly keyboards with 1 year warranty. Many of those MBpros cost $2K or more to much more. Did Apple replace all those defective units or spin "affecting only a small number of users" cat & mouse.

I agree that all should make good products so consumers don't have negative experiences like yours but forgiving one brand while assigning great blame to the other needs some consideration.

-IMO its on the company that makes it confusing to me and forces me to research. Companies should make buying choices as simple as possible to the consumer not confuse him into infinite. The more you confuse the consumer the more likely you will lose him to the competition because you made it unclear to him. I shouldn't be having to research every single model of single brand out there. Steve Jobs fixed this in Apple when he presented the 4x4 matrix, Consumer-Pro X desktop -Laptop

Some guys chatting in a thread on a website will never be able to get companies to streamline and simplify their product mixes. All companies likely know what Jobs did when he returned to Apple and have had 25+ years to emulate it in their own companies. Many haven't for whatever reason. Even modern Apple has grown out of simple product mixes. Why? Most likely because it works better for them to do something different.

I mean look at this:

'65 LG OLED TV - $988

'65 4K TV - $299

aren't these prices insane?! I am completely shocked

• Look at 4-passenger cars that can cost $500K vs. 4-passenger cars that can cost $10K
• Look at a 16" MBpro starting at $2499 vs. a 16" Funyet Laptop for $339 with $50 Off coupon right now
• There are 3 bedroom homes near where I live selling for $800K and 3 bedroom homes not so near selling for $100K
• Rolex President at $47,500 vs. Peugeot Gold Fluted at $87.50. Ironically, this latter option is better at keeping time too.
• In my college days I sold a lot of 1 carat solitaire rings for as low at $1200 to as high as $16K. Both were the exact same cut diamond on the exact same mount. Why was there such a huge difference in prices? Quality of stone, color of stone, etc... which translated into diamond sparkle vs. diamond seeming to look dirty all the time.

This list could be VERY long.

Aren't those prices insane? Are we also completely shocked?

Dramatically different prices for what looks like the same thing are commonplace. The devil is always in the details. What is making one cost much more than the other? Why does whatever that is make that much of a difference(s)? Do I- as potential buyer- care about that difference(s)?

Everything Apple makes is relatively high-priced. It's easy to find dramatically cheaper iPhone-like phones, iPad-like tablets, Mac-like computers, etc offered by others. Yet we fall all over ourselves to pay up for Apple versions of those things. We shouldn't look at things with other brand names on them and assume nothing else is worth a price higher than the lowest price we can find. There is almost always solid reasons for big price differences. If not, we would all have $200 smart phones, $100 tablets and $300 laptops, etc. and Apple would be long-since be dead and buried.

I clicked the links of those 2 TVs and immediately see that one is LED and the other is OLED. That's tremendously different TV screens in terms of pictures they can present all by itself. One offers a 60hz refresh rate and the other is 120hz. If you hop around this website a bit, you'll see bash-a-rama at anything and everything that comes out that is "only" 60hz since Apple has gone "pro motion." If I wanted to spend the time, I could keep comparing spec vs. spec and probably find a few more "biggies" that tend to matter.

But you're the TV shopper, so you should be identifying FABs important to you to then screen out duds and get the right TV for you. To throw gas on the comparison fire, here's one of the best-rated OLED TVs at 65" for $2799, also by LG by the way. But if price is a great driver for you and under $1000 is towards the top of the range, here's a high-rated QLED 65" on sale now for $999. And here's another with very high ratings for the same.

You need to do the research work and identify the specific technologies of TV that really matter to you. At 65" if that is your target size, you'll find nothing that is really great down at $300. It is going to have meaningful compromises. Think "smart phone" shopping since that is comparable to some of these 65" prices. Is a great smart phone to be had down at $300?

At the other extreme, screening out TVs for OUTDOOR use (which are many times higher for 65"), the very highest price one I'm seeing for indoor use at Best Buy is on sale at $3799.

As offered earlier, think bell curve and lop off the extremes at each end. Those grouped in the middle are typically going to reflect efforts to strike balances between great quality and good price... because there is abundant competition in the middle.

And again, a 1-month subscription to Consumer Reports will likely get you access to their most recent TV roundup ratings and they'll likely have currently-available 65" TVs rated for features often important to consumers. You might work from that list to zoom in on a couple of good ones... and then scrutinize each of them through as many reviews as you can find and actually going and seeing each if possible.

 

[MacBH928]

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.

I doubt 8K will pickup. A quick lookup shows that first 4K tv released by sony in 2012 (12 years ago) still most content is not 4K. This is mostly because people can not tell the difference. Higher resolution will only be noticeable on bigger screens and I think most people will be at 70-85 MAXIMUM tv size which 1080 still looks great on.

Further reasons not to adopt 4K nor 8K is the size. On avergae 1.5 hr movie (approx.)
1080p = 4GB
4K = 12GB
8K = 64GB

the internet servers, infrastructure, local storage sizes, server sizes will not able to sustain it especially when most people reaction would be "I can't see a difference" . Further more i doubt a of the already recorded material that people want to watch (40s movies, 80s sitcoms , 90s documentaries) will have any benefit from being upscaled to 4K if that is even possible.

Most consumers did not upgrade from SD to HD. They upgraded from 32 - 26” CRT to 40” flat panel.
Most consumers then upgraded from 40” flat panel to 55 - 65” 4K TV. Truly, this is how the majority of consumers made their purchase decisions. The resolution wasn’t the main thing.

I find this pretty funny 😂😂

for like 80 years people lived with '32-'40 inch tv screens and didn't complain and suddenly they do not want a tv smaller that '75😂 I wanted replacement for my '42ish tv which is the perfect size for my room and was surprised Panansonic didn't have a model smaller than '55 😂

One thing though, is back then kids used to sit very close to the tv which I do not see any more. You were supposed to stay far away because watching tv weakens your eye sight .

The only thing I can imagine after that is building a sphere at home, which might be a video gamer approach in another five or ten years.

sphere?

 

[Alameda]

I doubt 8K will pickup. A quick lookup shows that first 4K tv released by sony in 2012 (12 years ago) still most content is not 4K. This is mostly because people can not tell the difference. Higher resolution will only be noticeable on bigger screens and I think most people will be at 70-85 MAXIMUM tv size which 1080 still looks great on.

Further reasons not to adopt 4K nor 8K is the size. On avergae 1.5 hr movie (approx.)
1080p = 4GB
4K = 12GB
8K = 64GB

the internet servers, infrastructure, local storage sizes, server sizes will not able to sustain it especially when most people reaction would be "I can't see a difference" . Further more i doubt a of the already recorded material that people want to watch (40s movies, 80s sitcoms , 90s documentaries) will have any benefit from being upscaled to 4K if that is even possible.



I find this pretty funny 😂😂

for like 80 years people lived with '32-'40 inch tv screens and didn't complain and suddenly they do not want a tv smaller that '75😂 I wanted replacement for my '42ish tv which is the perfect size for my room and was surprised Panansonic didn't have a model smaller than '55 😂

One thing though, is back then kids used to sit very close to the tv which I do not see any more. You were supposed to stay far away because watching tv weakens your eye sight .




sphere?

You are flat-out wrong. Technology never stops improving.

I’ve seen this clown car over and over in my career. You’re one of those guys who thinks he’s a genius because you can doubt everything. The electric car will never take off. You’re perfectly happy running DOS. A computer doesn’t need a mouse. The internet will never be able to support streaming video. A computer will never need more than 512K of RAM. Nobody can see the difference with HDTV. Nobody can see the difference that 1080p makes. I’ve heard it all. Steve Jobs was certain that Macintosh didn’t need more than 128KB of RAM. Now the minimum is 16 gigabytes.

People like you are always, always, always wrong. Always.

Sure, 8K won’t take over next year. But its time will come.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I agree: 8K is inevitably next. I don't buy it's only because of screen sizes but I'm quite confident 8K is coming fast. All the excuses slung against it are pretty much the same slung against 4K and the same slung against 1080p. Those only exist until Apple embraces it and it seems like they are approaching it by spinning it for a couple years now in various kinds of marketing (Even M1 had spin about editing multiple streams of 8K).

48Mpixel cameras in iPhone should be able to shoot it... as they have in Samsung phones since about 2020. That's just a matter of Apple opting to embrace it. Why would they? Anyone wanting to shoot in 8K will need LOTS of onboard storage and Apple makes tremendous profit on Apple storage prices.

Once iDevices go, 8K AppleTV follows so there is a way to move whatever we might shoot to 8K TVs without having to direct connect the iDevices to the TV. And all those people about to spin the "I don't want to replace a perfectly-good 4K TV with...", hardware capable of 8K can readily down-convert to 4K or 1080p or even SD... just as you can link a 4K AppleTV to a 1080p TV and it works just fine too. Anyone buying new Macs are buying Macs capable of driving 8K monitors. But nearly everyone is hooking them to 5K or lower res monitors and they work just fine.

As to 8K media, that will probably drag just like 4K media has... but it will come just like 4K media has. The whole "until there's plenty of 8K media in the store" makes no sense at all as the hardware to play the software must come before the software. Besides, there's not plenty of 4K in the store even now, nor is everything in 1080p in the store now. Put the hardware in place and let the software catch up. It never works the other way.

That shared though, it doesn't matter what is written around here: the next resolution tier never makes any sense to most until Apple embraces. After Apple does, Apple is not called out for going to it... and all of the rationale for why they shouldn't doesn't get repackaged as Apple criticism for doing so. Instead, it just goes into the bin to be recycled for why there is no need for 12K or 16K or whatever comes next. I saw all the same stuff before Apple embraced 4K and all of the same stuff before Apple embraced 1080p. It's a broken record to me.

I suspect a surprise with 48Mpixel camera in this next round of iPhones or the one after than will be 8K video capture. And then the rest of the mix will follow. Perhaps one of the reasons the next AppleTV is now rumored for late Fall MIGHT be because the next iPhone will shoot it and the next AppleTV will be able to play it. There were strong rumors of iPhone adding 8K video capture TWO years ago. What was the holdup? 48Mpixel camera.

I'm a BIG fan of AppleTV myself but have no interest in gen 4 of another 4K model with only slightly faster hardware. However, step up the horses to 8K and I'm first in line (even with a 4K TV as my primary TV). And when I replace that TV... eventually... I'll be doing so with one about identical in size but 8K resolution.

 

[LionTeeth]

You are flat-out wrong. Technology never stops improving.

I’ve seen this clown car over and over in my career. You’re one of those guys who thinks he’s a genius because you can doubt everything. The electric car will never take off. You’re perfectly happy running DOS. A computer doesn’t need a mouse. The internet will never be able to support streaming video. A computer will never need more than 512K of RAM. Nobody can see the difference with HDTV. Nobody can see the difference that 1080p makes. I’ve heard it all. Steve Jobs was certain that Macintosh didn’t need more than 128KB of RAM. Now the minimum is 16 gigabytes.

People like you are always, always, always wrong. Always.

Sure, 8K won’t take over next year. But its time will come.

You’re thinking too narrow. 8K will never take off because there is no reason for it. Technology will march forward of course, but what are people focusing on now? Panel tech. Mini and micro LED. HDR, black level etc. things never stop moving but 8K is not coming. In 1998 you would have been telling us that HD VHS is the future and we’re all wrong just plain wrong.

I’m a tech enthusiast and I’m not interested in 8K. I can barely tell a difference between 1080 and 4K currently. And I’m a guy who knows what to look for.

I was also right about Vision Pro failing. Do not doubt me, I am the greatest tech envisioner ever lol

 

[BotchQue]

There comes a point of diminishing returns with tech/performance, and a different path appears; I agree with a couple folks above that 8K may be that point for TVs. In fact, a few months after I got my new Apple TV 4K EweTube TV offered me 4K signal for only $4.99/mo extra, and I signed up. First, I couldn't find any 4K material to watch, but then noticed the Superbowl was going to be on a couple channels, one 4K and the other not. I flipped back and forth, and couldn't see the difference (55" Bravia OLED, smaller room, eyeballs requiring glasses for, what, 58 years?); I dropped the 4K broadcast.
And I do remember seeing a side-by-side demo in best buy of an 8K screen vs 4K (it may have been 4K vs 1080p, I'm not sure anymore) and I could only see the difference from about 2' away (they were large TVs), stepping back to a decent viewing distance, I couldn't see a difference (the difference between LED and OLED I could see from the front of the store!)
There's plenty of other areas where where small "resolution/performance" improvements were overcome by cost, convenience, or customers just not caring at that point:

- The El-Casette (sp?) format sounded better than standard cassettes, but CDs moved in and no one cared about El Casettes...
- CD-quality streaming finally came to portable device/headphones, but most of the kids don't care, .mp3s sound fine...
- Even higher-than-CD-quality sound is available (the much-argued "Hi-RES" formats) and some folks are buying into it; I'm not. I recently bought a middle-road streamer, and it's capable of streaming "better-than-CD-quality" to my HT; I've yet to be able to hear it.
- I remember the very first Air Show photos published by Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine, even on glossy magazine print I could see the pixelation of the cutting-edge 4 Mp digital cameras used. Currently my two active DSLRs are 20 Mp, and I can see not only see the blades of grass in pics of my ex-GF's dog, but individual veins in the grass blades, on my 27" Retina monitor. They do make 45 Mp cameras; do I need one? No (a landscape photographer who makes 56" prints, maybe does).
- Speaking of monitors, I agonized between a good-quality 4K monitor, or the stupidly-expensive 5K Studio Monitor. I could (barely) see pixelation of text on the 4K, I couldn't on the 5K. Will I upgrade to an 8K if/when they come out? No.
- I got to try out my buddy's Blue Spruce Toolworks dovetail saw, $300. While a beautiful tool, could it cut a smoother dovetail than my $50 mass-produced Japanese dovetail saw? No, I couldn't see a noticeable difference.

As I said, there's a point of diminishing returns for the majority of people (there will always be a certain few who pony-up an extra $250K for a car that will hit 0-60 in 2.7 seconds, rather than the more pedestrian 2.8 seconds ). There's nothing wrong with that. But, I think 8K displays are that PODR for the TV world; no sense in arguing about it, time will tell and hopefully I'll still be on this side of the sod when the market determines the winner.

 

[MacBH928]

Some guys chatting in a thread on a website will never be able to get companies to streamline and simplify their product mixes. All companies likely know what Jobs did when he returned to Apple and have had 25+ years to emulate it in their own companies. Many haven't for whatever reason. Even modern Apple has grown out of simple product mixes. Why? Most likely because it works better for them to do something different.

I don't think it works better, if it did, Jobs wouldn't have got ridden of it. Its a bad practice. I mean seriously, what consumer will go through models and research that model QN65QN90DJV-XZA has 2 more hdmi ports than model QN65QN90DAF-CXA . this is ludicrous .

Look at 4-passenger cars that can cost $500K vs. 4-passenger cars that can cost $10K

• Look at a 16" MBpro starting at $2499 vs. a 16" Funyet Laptop for $339 with $50 Off coupon right now
• There are 3 bedroom homes near where I live selling for $800K and 3 bedroom homes not so near selling for $100K
• Rolex President at $47,500 vs. Peugeot Gold Fluted at $87.50. Ironically, this latter option is better at keeping time too.
• In my college days I sold a lot of 1 carat solitaire rings for as low at $1200 to as high as $16K. Both were the exact same cut diamond on the exact same mount. Why was there such a huge difference in prices? Quality of stone, color of stone, etc... which translated into diamond sparkle vs. diamond seeming to look dirty all the time.

well most of those price differences have a quality/spec difference among them (except the rolex one probably) so the difference is understandable . In a lot of tvs, its same spec different brand but the price gap is huge. That Funyet price is extremely impressive, I didn't know they made that that cheap. Maybe I would get one.

I clicked the links of those 2 TVs and immediately see that one is LED and the other is OLED. That's tremendously different TV screens in terms of pictures they can present all by itself. One offers a 60hz refresh rate and the other is 120hz. If you hop around this website a bit, you'll see bash-a-rama at anything and everything that comes out that is "only" 60hz since Apple has gone "pro motion." If I wanted to spend the time, I could keep comparing spec vs. spec and probably find a few more "biggies" that tend to matter.

You understood me wrong, i wasn't comparing the two I am just saying its pretty wild you can get 65 4k tv for $300 even an LED one . And the premum OLED technology is just $900 at '65 large!

But you're the TV shopper, so you should be identifying FABs important to you to then screen out duds and get the right TV for you. To throw gas on the comparison fire, here's one of the best-rated OLED TVs at 65" for $2799, also by LG by the way.

yeah so this is a good example of what I am talking about , 2 TVs from LG at '65 OLED technology, one is $1000 and the other 3x the price. Now why is that? i looked it up and it seems to be the G is just the "premium" model for the most part. is that premium really worth 2K extra? they deliberately make it confusing.

 

[MacBH928]

You are flat-out wrong. Technology never stops improving.

I’ve seen this clown car over and over in my career. You’re one of those guys who thinks he’s a genius because you can doubt everything. The electric car will never take off. You’re perfectly happy running DOS. A computer doesn’t need a mouse. The internet will never be able to support streaming video. A computer will never need more than 512K of RAM. Nobody can see the difference with HDTV. Nobody can see the difference that 1080p makes. I’ve heard it all. Steve Jobs was certain that Macintosh didn’t need more than 128KB of RAM. Now the minimum is 16 gigabytes.

People like you are always, always, always wrong. Always.

Sure, 8K won’t take over next year. But its time will come.

actually, you are wrong. Not every technology gets adopted. There are reasons they do not, price or the benefit to the consumer. I can give you a list of technology that didn't pick up.

• quick look up shows first electric car made in 1890, 130 years later still not the norm
• Segway
• first consumer vr is Nintendo Virtual Boy released 30 years ago, still not adopted
• 3D tvs
• Bluray never surpassed DVDs in popularity
• hooverboards
• D-VHS
• mini-disc
• RCA SelectaVision
• Motion sensor video games (Nintendo Wii, Microsoft Kinect)
• IPv6
• MUSE LaserDisc

Maybe 8K adoption will eventually come, but doesn't seem to be in the foreseeable future.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm not sure what you are looking for now. You now seem to want a spec of size to basically be THE differentiator, thus the comparison of an LED 65" vs. an OLED 65" and "shock" at the price differences because they are both 65" TVs.

I offer up the idea of taking that- probably cheapest LG OLED 65" against another LG OLED 65" TV priced several times higher and you seem to see even more flaw in pricing, seeming to assign the rationale only to LG referring to one as premium and the other apparently NOT premium. That's almost certainly NOT the case... else all players would call all of their products "premium" if that's all it takes to command multiples of prices that should be assigned to them. There MUST be tangible differences... just as there was a very obvious TWO major differences between the cheap 65" vs. that $999 65" you offered: LED vs. OLED, 60Hz vs. 120Hz. With a little more research, more would very likely show themselves... but just those 2 are relative whoppers.

If you think all 65" are basically the same, seek cheapest 65" TV. On a search for "new" only (no refurbs), etc. I'm seeing 65" TVs for under $300. Refurb would presumably be less than that. Head for a Walmart and they'll probably have one priced super low in an aisle right now.

If you don't want to invest the time to figure out the differences of one model vs. another, buy blind and hope for the best. Lots of people step into retail stores every day not even there to buy something like a TV and walk out with one. The impending Super Bowl will drive a huge volume of new sales of TVs, many purchased almost exactly like that (blind, driven only by screen size and cheapest price). If me, I'd invest the time and figure out the differences as this is a product that should serve you 10-12 or more years, assuming you choose one good enough to last the usual lifetime of a good TV.

I shared a few links to 2 high-rated 65" TVs that I just happen to know are rated well from helping friends buy new TVs lately. If I wanted to buy based on some strangers suggestion online, I'd quickly do a bit of confirmation research on those two to try to see if there is support for "well rated" and- if I find it- I just buy either of those and be done with this.

Else, I can easily open a browser and type in a search for things like "best rated 65 inch TVs 2025" and similar and start reading what a variety of websites suggest as best 65" TVs available right now. If one of their recommendations appeals to me, maybe I do a little more searching for additional confirmations that THAT TV is a good one and then I go buy it.

Else, if I question objectivity in such searches, I spend a few dollars to subscribe to Consumer Reports for one month, locate their latest "TV roundup" ratings, consider 3-8 TVs they put at the top of the 65" pile, do a little confirmation hunting from other sources and then buy my favorite from those towards or at the top of their list.

This doesn't have to be a hard thing to buy. And there is PLENTY of information to help understand differences as well as fully objective to questionably objective to probably-biased reviews easily found in an hour or three of searching around exploring a few favored models.

 

[MacBH928]

I'm a BIG fan of AppleTV myself but have no interest in gen 4 of another 4K model with only slightly faster hardware. However, step up the horses to 8K and I'm first in line (even with a 4K TV as my primary TV). And when I replace that TV... eventually... I'll be doing so with one about identical in size but 8K resolution.

you seem to be enthusiastic about 8K, out of curiosity, other than your own image captures , which video material released in 8K you want to watch on that tv?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

As soon as I'm able to shoot 8K, I'll start capturing all home movies in 8K. As soon as I could shoot 4K, I started capturing all home movies in 4K. Same with 1080p. Etc. Why? Because you can't come back and capture such moments from the future, when 8K is as prevalent as 4K now... and as 1080p was 5-7 years ago.

So immediately, it would be pictures and select stuff from select places such as 8K content on YouTube. But a TV that I might buy today would be a good one and thus I'd be expecting to still be using it in 2035-37. I FULLY expect 8K TVs to be as prevalent in 2030 as 4K was in 2020 and 1080p was in about 2014. But whether that's true or false doesn't even matter. I'd rather just go ahead on that assumption... as I've seen these transitions from SD to 720p to 1080p to 4K with EVERY tier viewed as "unlikely to take off" and "nobody can see" and "until there is tons of content available" and "until the Internet backbone is improved everywhere" and "the chart, the chart" and "nobody can see a difference", etc. And then Apple embraces the next tier and that wall of doubt just evaporates, dumped into the recycle bin to then revive with a number change when people start wishing for the next hop a few years later.

I would place a fairly BIG bet that iDevices will add 8K video capture within the next 3 years and even have some belief that THIS year's models will bring it. Why? Because this year apparently adds that key 48Mpixel camera which has been rumored since 2021 to "also bring 8K capture to iPhones." Select Samsung phones could capture it in 2020 and some models from just about all other major brand phones can already capture it today, so Apple would only be 5 years late on matching that feature vs. Samsung and towards last to the 8K party (which is a recurring pattern on next video-res-tier adoption by Apple).

Rather than waiting, I've actually been looking into a dedicated prosumer camcorder able to shoot 12K now... to then keep my masters in 12K but render a copy to 8K or 4K depending on if current AppleTVs can take an 8K H265 file and smoothly down-convert it to 4K to display on the 4K TV I mostly use now. If it can, I'll render the copy in 8K, roll with the down-converting until this TV conks and I replace it with an 8K TV and- presumably- an 8K AppleTV at that time. When that time comes, I'd have a bunch of video in my own can that can immediately take advantage of 8K res on that new TV... which is EXACTLY what happened with prior TV purchases (I piled up my own content to take advantage of the next TV BEFORE I owned it).

Lots of people are capturing video in "spatial" now and they don't own a Vpro or similar. Why are they doing that if they have no way to experience it yet? So they can experience their own library of it when they add the hardware capable of it. That might not be viewable until Vpro 4 or 5 or Meta Goggles/glasses released in 2033 for some of them but they're capturing spatial now anyway. Why? Because they can't come back and recapture it when they are in 2033.

Capture it now as good as it can be captured... or deal with lower quality later. Dig up Aunt Meg's old VHS home movies to watch on your current TV to then get a sense of why people want to do this. Personally, I'd pay a GREAT DEAL OF MONEY to be able to step back to them 1970s-1990s times to recapture movies shot at those poor resolutions that looks so blurry/blocky in 2025.

Contrary to a very popular argument, the HARDWARE must always come first because it makes no sense to serve up a lot of 8K software if there is no way to enjoy it in 8K. Wave a magic wand and have EVERYTHING in the store including an 8K version today. Now what? With no 8K AppleTV to display, even those who have had 8K TVs for years now have no way to consume it.

However, release the hardware and the software can catch up... much like releasing raytracing capabilities in new A & M-series chips so that software able to use raytracing can then take advantage of actually using it. Or embracing 5G several years ago before 5G service was available everywhere in the world. It would not work the other way... as "waiting for abundant 8K content in the store" doesn't make a bit of difference if the store was full of it today... until there is hardware to actually serve all that content to 8K screens.

In the meantime, if I added an 8K TV today, it would just up-convert all media... as a 4K screen up-converts resolutions below it and 1080p screens up-convert resolutions below it. Hardware first and as it spreads, software follows. Everything in the store is not even available in 1080p today but that didn't stop Apple from embracing the 1080p tier and then the 4K tier too. I'm confident they'll move on to 8K soon. "We" will only collectively bash the concept with the same old arguments against it right up until they make the jump. And then it will be as if we never said a word against it... as it was for 4K and 1080p before that.

 

[MacBH928]

There comes a point of diminishing returns with tech/performance, and a different path appears; I agree with a couple folks above that 8K may be that point for TVs. In fact, a few months after I got my new Apple TV 4K EweTube TV offered me 4K signal for only $4.99/mo extra, and I signed up. First, I couldn't find any 4K material to watch, but then noticed the Superbowl was going to be on a couple channels, one 4K and the other not. I flipped back and forth, and couldn't see the difference (55" Bravia OLED, smaller room, eyeballs requiring glasses for, what, 58 years?);

there is nothing wrong with your eyes. Resolution is relative to screen size. If you are watching on a 2 inch screen you will probably not see a differece between SD, 1080, or 8K. If you blow up 1080P on an IMAX theater 52 feet screen you probably can tell 1080P from 8K.

For home screen sizes (max 100inch) , its probably impossible to tell anything better than 4K.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

That's a very common argument. Now hop over into other threads and start applying it to rationalizing against buying "retina" from Apple... and be prepared to be pounded by people arguing how they can absolutely see retina high resolutions even down into very tiny phone & watch screens. Apparently where high density of pixels even in handheld size screens are used now by Apple, we easily rationalize it, see it, and are quick to shoot down "inferior" resolution that is below retina. But then in this ONE topic where Apple clings to some res (pick a res, any res), that's as good as it can ever be and the next tier makes no sense... until Apple adopts it and then collective opinion just hops right on with them.

"We" can absolutely see and rationalize 5K pixels in a 27" inch monitor from 2-3 feet but there's no way we can see more than 4K pixels on much bigger screens from 4-8 feet... definitely not 8K. No way. No how. But buy 5K ASD and ONLY 5K ASD, yet no reason to even consider 8K TVs because nobody can see the difference. 🤪

Nobody would be able to see 4K before Apple adopted it and nobody would be able to see 1080p before Apple adopted 1080p... but then Apple is never called out for the overkill when they go ahead and adopt the tier that nobody would be able to see. There is a pattern to this that plays out the same every time: a wall of how the next tier is not needed, nobody can see, we've peaked at this level (that Apple is supporting right now), the chart-the chart, until the internet is upgraded, until everything in the store is <next tier>, etc that then immediately evaporates as soon as Apple makes the hop.

Don't believe it? Maybe not around for the times just before Apple embraced 4K and/or 1080p before that? There's abundant posts history here. Go search threads from before either hop to see the very same arguments (often the very same words) now slung against 8K. Pay special attention to the popular "the chart" graphic as it looks the same but just the numbers on it change to adapt to rationalizing why nobody can see the next resolution.

And for anyone wanting to just keep making arguments against the next hop, go visit the old threads, copy, change the number before "K" and then re-use them. They've been the same over and over again through each tier... until Apple makes the jump. Then, it's crickets again... because... apparently, we can all suddenly see it.

 

[OverTheHill]

8K has a content problem and unless you’re sitting 4 feet away, the benefits are marginal at best. Now, if they made a 120” 8k screen that might be something from an immersive standpoint, but the price tag would be insane.

QD-OLED is currently the way to go, but Mini LED is improving.

We use an QD-OLED in the dedicated mini-theater where light is well controlled and a Mini LED in the living room where the need for more screen brightness is an issue.

I think one of the issues why screen development is slowing down is the new panels have pretty damn good longevity. We only upgraded because we built a new house and needed bigger screens.

 

[LionTeeth]

Nobody would be able to see 4K before Apple adopted it and nobody would be able to see 1080p before Apple adopted 1080p...

I love Apple products like everyone else here but come on... the thought that
-Apple-
drives the resolution and tech market leaps is a little ridiculous. Give me a break. I liked and saw the benefits of 1080 when I saw lord of the rings on bluray.

Blu-ray developed by sony
On a Samsung television
When I still owned windows phones

 

[HappyMBAowner]

Modern smart TVs are so cheap because they are subsidised by selling you out.

CTV industry’s unprecedented “surveillance”

48-page report citing Ars Technica urges FTC, FCC investigate connected TV data harvesting. Gen AI, potentially racially discrimniatory practices head concerns.

arstechnica.com

 

[BotchQue]

I would also recommend the EweTube channel "Digital Trends", Caleb does a great job of reviewing this area, which is changing by leaps and bounds a lot ...

Just learned yesterday that after 15 years or so, Caleb quit "Digital Trends" and has started his own ewetube channel, "Calebrations", in case anyone here follows him.