Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Television

How Did TVs Get So Cheap? (construction-physics.com) 109

Posted by msmash from the bigger-glass-smaller-prices dept.
A 50-inch TV that would have set you back $1,100 at Best Buy during Black Friday 2001 now costs less than $200, and the price per area-pixel -- a metric accounting for both screen size and resolution -- has dropped by more than 90% over the past 25 years. The story behind this decline is largely one of liquid crystal display technology maturing from a niche product to a mass-manufactured commodity.

LCDs represented just 5% of the TV market in 2004; by 2018, they commanded more than 95%. The largest driver of cost reduction has been the scaling up of "mother glass" sheets -- the large panels of extremely clear glass onto which semiconductor materials are deposited before being cut into individual displays. The first generation sheets measured roughly 12 by 16 inches. Today's Generation 10.5 sheets span 116 by 133 inches, nearly 100 times the original area. This scaling delivers substantial savings because equipment costs rise more slowly than glass area increases.

Moving from Gen 4 to Gen 5 mother glass cut the cost per diagonal inch by 50%. Equipment costs per unit of panel area fell 80% between Gen 4 and Gen 8. Process improvements have compounded these gains: masking steps required for thin-film transistors dropped from eight to four, yields climbed from 50% to above 90%, and a "one drop fill" technique reduced liquid crystal filling time from days to minutes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Did TVs Get So Cheap? More

How Did TVs Get So Cheap?

Comments Filter:

  • hardware level spyware, that is how (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Thursday January 08, 2026 @11:30AM (#65910363)
    Every smart TV on the market is a 'telescreen' right out of 1984, that always on, always records everything you watch. It is privacy nightmare and sometimes you can't even turn it off even if you know it is there. This is why TV are so cheap - you are the product.
  • In my recollection, in 2001, if a 50 inch flat screen existed, it would have been more like $40,000.

    • In my recollection, in 2001, if a 50 inch flat screen existed, it would have been more like $40,000.

      2021 or 2011 would be more realistic - maybe a typo?

      • Plasma (Score:2)

        by JBMcB ( 73720 )
        The very first flat-screen TVs were plasmas that came out in that time frame, and they were super-expensive. Miles Finch brags about having one in Elf, that came out in 2003.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MikeS2k ( 589190 )

          I remember my first year of college in 2002. We were talking about Plasma TV's, and every rich family would have a 42" Plasma TV, it was seen as the ultimate home cinema accessory. I believe they were even SD resolution, they predated the HD standards. There was even a rumour that crooks would drive around at night looking to see plasma TV's through windows so they would know who had money.

          I'm sure they were only around $1000 - $2000 back then, I remember a conversation with a friend, he said "Man when we

          • They were more expensive when they first came out, but dropped in price. I bought a 46" plasma around 2009 for ~$1,000 and that was one of the better models on the market. They never managed to get as cheap as LCDs, but the true blacks made the extra cost worth it. When I first got it I put it next to the LCD I had to compare them and was blown away at how much brighter the plasma was.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ichthus ( 72442 )

        2021 or 2011 would be more realistic - maybe a typo?

        Never attribute to typos that which is adequately explained by malice.
        -Qwerty's razor

    • I think I paid less than that for a 55 inch rear projection 1080i TV back then

    • The largest ever made was 43 inches:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      And weighed 200kg!

    • Yeah I remember around 2007-ish there was a pair of 55" flat screen monitors in a conference room. I looked them up on ABT or whatever and they were around $10k each. This office also had 21" flat monitors for workstations. My previous jobs offices were full of CRTs.

    • in 2001 I remember 32" Plasma EDTVs that were probably close to 6" thick going for 20k at a high end AV retailer in the area. Flat panels much larger than 32" were pretty much unheard of at that time. If you had a TV larger than that it was likely one of those projection monstrosities.

  • I finally gave up fighting my newer Visio and disconnected it from the internet. I just use an AppleTV, but the Vizio still tries to force me to watch itâ(TM)s advertisements shortly after I turn it on. It fails, but itâ(TM)s still an annoyance. No more Vizio for me, this lifetime.

    • I won't even buy a TV these days. I don't think you can get a proper TV today that doesn't have all that "smart tv" crap built into it. I've moved over to projectors. For the most part they remain unmolested, but "smart tv" features are starting to creep into some of them.
  • We have considerably more devices with screens. Production got so cheap

  • Funded by advertisements. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Thursday January 08, 2026 @11:47AM (#65910431) Homepage
    and data collection. Next Question!

  • Because they now sell your data (Score:3)

    by cjonslashdot ( 904508 ) on Thursday January 08, 2026 @11:49AM (#65910437)
    The TVs now monitor what you watch, and sell that data. But (by law) you can disable the monitoring. It's hard to find the settings, but the TVs have setting to turn off monitoring.
    • Just don't plug in the god damn ethernet cable or connect to wifi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      They have been doing that for at least a decade, the story just finally got some traction recently. I have an old (3D!) LG that I remember having a mouseprint disclaimer about built in Nielsen tech that monitored and reported viewing.

  • In the 00's we were promised that by 30's we would be able to wallpaper our houses with screens that were as cheap as paint, still not there yet.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Viol8 ( 599362 )

      I think its fair to say that generally speaking futurologists are full of shit and don't have any more insight into the future than anyone else.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MikeS2k ( 589190 )

      Yeah makes me laugh when people say "A 65" screen at 4K 120hz is all you would ever need, why ever need anything more?" Get back to me when I can unfurl wallpaper displays that have the DPI of a Retina iphone which I can connect to be meters across.

      They have shown prototypes of wallpaper type displays that looked great to me, baffles me as to why we don't see them in use? Is it the effort of sticking them to a wall and connecting them together outweighing just buying a single sized TV?? (I guess there'd b

      • Wallpaper displays were the promise of OLED for 20 years but they've never quite been able to get the tech developed and reliable and cheap enough. Even LG is starting to lean away from it despite being the only company who really managed to manufacture it at scale, it's remained a premium display with some caveats rather than the replacement for LCD.

        Maybe MicroLED will fulfill that promise but that is also still another 5-10 years away from being truly scaled up.

      • What's the point of a "retina" display at 3 feet when you actually sit 10-15 feet away? A 65in 4k display IS a retina display at normal viewing distances.

        A huge display is nice for certain applications like a dedicated home theater, but a lot of people don't want an enormous screen in a living room. If you REALLY want something big 100in displays have come down to consumer-accessible prices and nearfield projects can go quite a bit larger. The number of times when a "wallpaper" like display is actually help

        • Exactly - look up the THX specs - you need to be sitting about 6 feet from that 65" 4K for most anyone to tell the difference.

        • This is why you go with a projector. I have one ceiling mounted in my living room. I project onto a plain wall and it works great. When the projector is off it's literally a blank wall. When I turn it on I have a 100" TV. Speakers are discreetly mounted in shelving around the area I project on.

  • I don't think this is correct? At the tech school where I taught we purchased a 40" (might have even been 32") gas plasma display in ~2003 for $30,000. We purchased it to add to the auditorium behind the podium next to the projector screen. I remember the price very clearly because I thought at the time it was a colossal waste of resources.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GoJays ( 1793832 )

      I remember back in 2004, the Sony Store had a "demo" OLED screen that was about 10 inches (could have been slightly smaller or bigger, can't remember) and it was available for purchase for something like $25 000 (Canadian $).

      Around this time I bought a Sony 16:9 32" 1080i CRT.... looked incredible... weighted about 150 pounds. Got it for about $1000. At the time I was the only one I knew who had a HD TV... all sporting events were watched at my place! I only got rid of the grey beast because I didn't w

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by GoJays ( 1793832 )

        That Sony OLED was released in 2007, not 2004... sorry, not like it was 20 years ago or anything.

        Sony XEL-1 [wikipedia.org]

      • I believe it was late 2003 or early 2004 when I purchased my first flat screen monitor for my computer. It was an NEC LCD1960NX 19" multisync 4:3 1280x1024 LCD. It cost $1000 when I picked it up at Staples. It replaced a 21" CRT monster I had sitting at my desk. I still have that NEC monitor and it works great. My first LCD TV was a Samsung 40" I purchased in 2009 for $800 from Newegg, when I thought prices finally became reasonable, LOL. I still have that TV too and it works great as well. Screens were bui

  • Propoganda/brain washing device (Score:4)

    by n0w0rries ( 832057 ) on Thursday January 08, 2026 @12:47PM (#65910605)

    You want everyone to have one so you can control them all.

  • It's a bit off-topic, but non-tube TVs have gotten a lot bigger too: The early LCD TVs were small [orientdisplay.com]:

    In the 1980s, there was rapid progress made in creating usable products with this new LCD research. Color LCD television screens were first developed in Japan during this decade. Because of the limit in response times due to large display size (correlated with a large number of pixels), the first TVs were handheld/pocket TVs. Seiko Epson, or Epson, created the first LCD TV, releasing it to the public in 1982, which was soon followed by their first fully colored display pocket LCD TV in 1984. Also in 1984 was the first commercial TFT LCD display: Citizen Watchâ(TM)s 2.7 inch color LCD TV. Shortly after, in 1988, Sharp Corporation created a 14 inch full-color TFT LCD that used an active matrix and had full-motion properties. Large-size LCDs now made LCD integration into large flat-panel displays like LCD screens and LCD monitors possible. LCD projection technology, first created by Epson, became readily available to consumers in compact and fully colored modes in 1989.

  • Non-smart 50" TV's don't "cost less than $200" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by apparently ( 756613 ) on Thursday January 08, 2026 @02:03PM (#65910777)

    A 50-inch TV [...] now costs less than $200

    This seemed to good to be true, so I checked Best Buy just like they said, and while Best Buy does have 50" TV's that cost less than $200, filtering for "non-Smart" TV's increases the price to $450+.

    I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out why a TV with less features would cost more.

    • I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out why a TV with less features would cost more.

      A dumb TV is niche. It's sold in less volume as most want a smart TV. Most don't give a shit about privacy or data ownership. Most just want to watch Netflix and chill.

      Similarly, a manual lever espresso machine costs more than a fully automatic one. A Mr Coffee electric coffee maker costs less than an aeropress or even most cheap pourover cones. Manual transmission cars cost more than automatic ones these days.

    • " increases the price"

      Costs are not prices.

      • " increases the price"

        Costs are not prices.

        cost [dictionary.com]: the price paid to acquire, produce, accomplish, or maintain anything.

        Guy 1: Hey man, I just bought a new 50" TV!

        Guy 2: Nice! How much did it cost?

        Guy 1: 400 bucks!

        Guy 2: Oh wow. It only cost 400 bucks? What was the price?

        Guy 1: Do you not know what words mean? I just fucking told you, 400 bucks.

        Did that help clear things up, or are you so far on the spectrum that your socially inept brain needs it explained with sockpuppets?

        • For everyone in the manufacturing chain, there's a difference:
          - cost: what they pay to design and build, or procure a widget
          - price: what they'll sell that widget for.
          The difference between the two is their margin, ie the profit they made on the sale.

          Did that help clear things up, or should I include some insults for you?

          • For everyone in the manufacturing chain, there's a difference: - cost: what they pay to design and build, or procure a widget - price: what they'll sell that widget for. The difference between the two is their margin, ie the profit they made on the sale.

            Did that help clear things up, or should I include some insults for you?

            You'd have a point if my post was referring to anyone in the manufacturing chain, but it wasn't; it was referring to the consumers purchasing the TV at a store -- you know, the topic that the entire article is about? How much it costs you the consumer to purchase a television.

            You'd get a C- for effort, but we gotta bump you down to a D+ cause you got snarky thinking really did something there, when all you did was show that you context cues are not your friend.

  • Here in Silicon Valley, I guess it wasn't worth selling a used TV. I got the newer, smaller one of two, free. Lots of house swaps here.

  • I'd like to know how much of that price drop is now supported by increasing ads and ACR served up by these TVs. And how prices might be affected if actions like those in Texas [slashdot.org] and elsewhere expand.

    • I'd like to know how much of that price drop is now supported by increasing ads and ACR served up by these TVs. And how prices might be affected if actions like those in Texas [slashdot.org] and elsewhere expand.

      Spying on you just isn't profitable enough to justify giving you a tangible discount on a TV. Also, what data can it collect that another broker couldn't do a better job of acquiring? Why spy on you when they can order your data from a broker with greater correlation and accuracy?

      Spying on you through your TV is kinda like putting a hidden camera in to watch yourself shower...there are better ways of getting the same show!

  • The Mother Glass thing is interesting, but these prices are way out of whack. $1100 for a 50 inch TV in 2001? What?

    LCD flat panels in 2001 were massively expensive, one approaching that size would've cost you $7000+

    Or you could get DLP TVs of that size... for $12,000.

    I guess they must be referring to rear projection TVs, but they would still be at least $2000, probably closer to $5000.

    And they never even made CRT TVs that large, but the largest, a 42 inch Trinitron, retailed for $40,000.

    Face it, we're livin

  • They are cheap because when flat TVs became affordable, everyone in the world wanted to replace their CRT TV. That created a one time demand for a billion or more flat TVs. Now that demand has been satisfied, and most people who have a CRT have one because they like to play retro games on it. However, South Korea and China still have the production capacity they built for that one time replacement wave. I have a C8 (2018) and a 1080P LCD set from around 2011. Both work fine. The C5 is now cheaper than the

  • I have a question about resolution and clarity on TVs vs. monitors.

    When I connect my computer to my television via HDMI, and use the exact same resolution of the TV, the image is still blurry and, for lack of a better term, smeared. It's a pixel-for-pixel perfect match, but, yet, it's blurry.

    Why?!

    • Monitors are designed to have static crisp display of text and also show motion with no blur for (usually) gaming. Monitors are viewed at most arms length.

      TVs are designed to show constantly moving images that also usually have motion blue to begin with. When motion blur is part of the content you don't really want crisp edges between the pixels. You want colors to flow. TVs are viewed at least at four or more arm lengths, crisp pixel definition isn't as important.

      It's two different mediums really.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kriston ( 7886 )

        Oh. I had to use a large TV while I was bedridden for a few weeks and was shocked how bad the picture was. I mean, it was usable, but just barely enough. One of my professional service people also thought they could use TVs as monitors and had the same exact problem.

Slashdot Top Deals

BYTE editors are people who separate the wheat from the chaff, and then carefully print the chaff.

Close