The Gap Between Premium and Budget TV Brands is Quickly Closing (theverge.com)
- Reference: 0180549607
- News link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/26/01/08/1925221/the-gap-between-premium-and-budget-tv-brands-is-quickly-closing
- Source link: https://www.theverge.com/tech/857325/the-gap-between-premium-and-budget-tv-brands-is-quickly-closing
The premium brands retain certain advantages: Sony's processing remains unmatched and LG's OLEDs deliver contrast that mini LED cannot match. "Even as the gap in performance across technologies continues to shrink, and TVs from all the manufacturers get closer to parity, the challenge for TCL and Hisense shifts from creating incredible, competitive products to altering perception," The Verge notes.
Samsung once owned the art TV segment entirely; CES 2026 saw announcements from Amazon's Ember Artline and LG's Gallery TV, all using similar edge-lit technology and magnetic frames. The experience across brands is "remarkably similar." If the pricing gap persists and performance remains comparable, "the big three will have to respond by bringing their pricing down or risk losing sales," the publication concluded.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/tech/857325/the-gap-between-premium-and-budget-tv-brands-is-quickly-closing
How are OLEDs premium? (Score:3)
If anything, they are a burning pile of cash. OLED burn-in is not an "if" but "when". It's an expensive ticking bomb. Or if you pause a film and forget to turn your TV off overnight for more than a couple hours, it's gone instantly.
Re: How are OLEDs premium? (Score:2)
...and no - I don't want an annoying screensaver with ads.
Re: How are OLEDs premium? (Score:2)
That's an easy fix so I don't understand why they don't. They'd know how long it takes to burn in on their panels no reason they can't check if the image has changed and if not shut it off. No need for a screensaver.
Re: (Score:2)
My Philips OLED TV can display screensavers without any ADs, I actually display some of my own Google Photos galleries.
Meh (Score:2)
Not really a lot of improvements left that make sense. 8k isn't supported by most content, can't get darker than OLEDs off. Most people won't even notice the differences in OLED panels. Sadly means they are justifying their price tags with added extras like smart/AI. Perhaps it's just my circle of friends but I haven't met anyone who actually uses the smart features outside of opening the prime or Netflix app.
Re: (Score:2)
> 8k isn't supported by most content
That's what was said when 4K hit the market. Today. there is 4K content, and even 4K streaming services. Provided you're willing to pay for it. But, cable and OTA broadcasts are still 1080p by and large.
So you're right. Most of today's 4K TVs are just pushing 1080p and 8K is an even bigger waste, except for a very niche and tiny market.
Re: Meh (Score:2)
That's a fair comment. I guess 4k wasn't really pushed until more TVs could handle it. I haven't actually seen a 8k bar the YouTube.
Tin can sound? (Score:3)
Do any of them have sound that doesn't sound like it is coming through two in cans and string? I bought and returned a TV from one of those "mid-range" companies because the sound was so bad that it wasn't worth using, and ended up mailing out a 20-year-old TV's remote control sensor board for someone to rebuild it instead, because that ancient hardware still provided a better experience.
Re: (Score:2)
> Do any of them have sound that doesn't sound like it is coming through two in cans and string? I bought and returned a TV from one of those "mid-range" companies because the sound was so bad that it wasn't worth using, and ended up mailing out a 20-year-old TV's remote control sensor board for someone to rebuild it instead, because that ancient hardware still provided a better experience.
Soundbars have gotten so cheap that most TV brands, even "premium" TV brands, sacrifice sound quality for thinness.
Of course, a good soundbar with a sub still costs some money, but you can add on "acceptable for the family room" soundbars for only a couple hundred bucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Is why all I want is a 65" display; no connectedness, no AI crap, no speakers; just a decent screen.
Re: (Score:2)
> Is why all I want is a 65" display; no connectedness, no AI crap, no speakers; just a decent screen.
By any TV with a decent display and never hook it into the network. That's what I've done the last few years. Bonus if they come with a way to turn off the "home screen" nonsense and just be a display, though that two to three second pause before switching off the home screen isn't that big a deal on the one I have that does that.
Re: (Score:3)
>> Do any of them have sound that doesn't sound like it is coming through two in cans and string? I bought and returned a TV from one of those "mid-range" companies because the sound was so bad that it wasn't worth using, and ended up mailing out a 20-year-old TV's remote control sensor board for someone to rebuild it instead, because that ancient hardware still provided a better experience.
> Soundbars have gotten so cheap that most TV brands, even "premium" TV brands, sacrifice sound quality for thinness.
> Of course, a good soundbar with a sub still costs some money, but you can add on "acceptable for the family room" soundbars for only a couple hundred bucks.
First, the TVs haven't gotten meaningfully smaller. "I want a thinner TV" said no one ever. It sits on a table. Nobody cares if it is thinner. Even the people who buy TVs based on aesthetics will think that an ugly sound bar sitting on top of the TV is worse than a TV being one inch thicker.
Second, the TV I was talking about was, IIRC, a 26-inch TV. This isn't a large family room TV. It's a bedroom TV. Adding a $200 soundbar to a $70 TV because someone cut $5 from the manufacturing cost is pure idioc
Re: (Score:2)
> This isn't a large family room TV. It's a bedroom TV. Adding a $200 soundbar to a $70 TV because someone cut $5 from the manufacturing cost is pure idiocy.
Who said you have to spend $200? Heck, you might not even have to buy a soundbar. Just about every streaming device I've seen supports Bluetooth. Just pair a speaker that you likely already have lying around - problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
>> This isn't a large family room TV. It's a bedroom TV. Adding a $200 soundbar to a $70 TV because someone cut $5 from the manufacturing cost is pure idiocy.
> Who said you have to spend $200? Heck, you might not even have to buy a soundbar. Just about every streaming device I've seen supports Bluetooth. Just pair a speaker that you likely already have lying around - problem solved.
Bluetooth audio sucks — latency, failing to reliably connect randomly, etc. When it comes to buying a replacement TV for an elderly parent, I'd rather have the tin can sound than put up with that nonsense. Problem very much not solved.
Re: (Score:2)
A $70 TV sounds bad? No. I refuse to believe that.
They made shitty TVs forty years ago too. I had a 13" black and white that sounded like a tin can rattling against a window for a few years back then. Pretty sure I paid more than $70 for it, even back when the dollar actually had some value.
Re: (Score:2)
> Do any of them have sound that doesn't sound like it is coming through two in cans and string?
I'd imagine the market segment of folks who care enough about audio quality but don't care about it enough to buy a soundbar is really small.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Do any of them have sound that doesn't sound like it is coming through two in cans and string?
> I'd imagine the market segment of folks who care enough about audio quality but don't care about it enough to buy a soundbar is really small.
Doubtful.
Medium-sized TVs (say 26") start at somewhere around $60. Improving the sound dramatically would probably not add more than $40 to the price.
As far as I can tell, soundbars with even halfway decent sound cost start at $150+.
The number of people who would pay a 60% premium for the sound to not be terrible cannot plausibly be smaller than the number of people who would pay a 250% premium.
And it is *always* *much* cheaper to build, ship, and sell one product than to build, ship, and sell two product
Re: (Score:2)
> As far as I can tell, soundbars with even halfway decent sound cost start at $150+.
Even if TV manufacturers upped their speaker game, you're still going to be in the realm of entry-level Bluetooth speaker audio quality. Honestly, with the DSP trickery they use these days, even bargain-bin soundbars are pretty decent for what they are. Yeah, if you want to literally rattle the walls you're going to need something with a subwoofer, but didn't you say this was for a bedroom TV?
A $30-$40 soundbar is going to sound fine. I have one of the cheapies that I paid about that much for in my bedro
Re: (Score:2)
How many people actually use the speakers built into their TVs? The general rule is you want to get a sound bar at a minimum or a real audio system.
According to Google, about two-thirds are connected to sound systems, which may be right for higher-end TVs. It's probably logical to put better speakers on smaller and cheaper TVs that are less likely to use external sound, but that's the opposite of what manufacturers are likely to do.
We're probably stuck with lousy TV sound unless we get magic speakers that
Re: Tin can sound? (Score:1)
The days of decent sound built into a TV are from the era of CRT. Maybe not even then. I have never heard flat panel TV speakers that were worth using, regardless of thinness.
I agree, TCL makes a good TV. (Score:2)
I picked up a 65" TCL for boxing day and have to say it's better than the Samsung it replaced. Picture and software re quite good and several hundred dollars cheaper.
Mature technology (Score:3)
Most TVs are made with panels sourced from the same couple of vendors. Most TVs run the same "smart-TV" OS's, licensed from the same couple of vendors.
The couple of companies that make the panels can innovate and hold a premium space by releasing their new tech exclusively on their own branded TVs and sell last year's technology to the commodity manufacturers.
Unless you are one of the panel manufacturers, you are selling the same TV as everyone else, just mixing and matching panel + OS + branding.
"Premium" ? (Score:2)
I think the only Premium TVs left are the business TVs that give you meaningful mechanisms to not have intrusive "Smart" features.
Is there a meaningful difference between a Sony TV that harvests data and won't let you opt-out of "smart" features, and a Wal-mart TV that harvests data and won't let you opt-out of "smart" features?
I guess I am blessed to not be an audiophile and not have flawless supervision :)
FWIW, I have:
- a 20 yo 720p dumb 42" plasma
- a 20 yo 1080P dumb 50" plasma
- a 1yo 4k Samsung 65" TheF
Leadership Changes (Score:2)
LG is the current hotness. Samsung has proven to be overpriced crap. Especially with their LED diffusion lenses falling off and leaving bright spots on the screens.
That Hisense has become remotely acceptable, let alone mid range, is mind boggling.
Re: (Score:2)
I also expect that the TV market is already in decline and dying from an overflow of ads both in the programs and in recent years built into the devices.
Re: (Score:2)
> That Hisense has become remotely acceptable, let alone mid range, is mind boggling.
I have a 55" 4K Hisense in my living room that I bought as a Black Friday special a few years back. My collection mostly consists of 1080p SDR content ripped from Blu-Rays and from the high seas, so it's good enough.