The Gap Between Premium and Budget TV Brands is Quickly Closing (theverge.com) 57
The long-standing hierarchy in the TV market -- Sony, Samsung and LG at the top, TCL and Hisense fighting it out in the midrange -- is eroding as the budget brands close the performance gap and increasingly lead on technology innovation, The Verge writes. Hisense debuted the first RGB LED TV last year, and TCL's X11L announced at CES 2026 is the first TV to use reformulated quantum dots and a new color filter. TCL's QM9K release last year was "a pretty clear statement that they're ready to fight with the big boys."
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.
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.
Leadership Changes (Score:4, Interesting)
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:3)
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: Leadership Changes (Score:1)
We'll know TV is cooked when stodgy old men start buying up all the broadcast outlets and converting them into right-wing talk.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind fixing the LED diffusion lenses that do fall off samsung. the annoying part is when their overdriven (I assume) LED fail way sooner than expected. Got 2 free TVs because of this flaw.
Re: Leadership Changes (Score:5, Informative)
LG and Samsung have piss poor reputation when it comes to service their products under warranty.
I would much rather buy a low end TV at Costco for a fraction of the cost of a big brand one, slap an Apple TV behind it to do the smart stuff (I have a PS5 that can do that as well, but it don't want to wear the ssd), if you are concerned about the spyware.
We have a 1080p projector with a 120" screen (not used much), a 4K 55" Vizio that is many years out of warranty but looks more than fine. If it goes bad we will probably replace it with the cheapest 75"+ model at Costco. You can get an 85" tv with a 5y warranty from $800. A 75" QLED starts at $550.
I don't know enough about LED vs QLED vs OLED vs mini LED, nor do I really care.
Re: (Score:2)
How are OLEDs premium? (Score:4, Interesting)
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:3)
Re: How are OLEDs premium? (Score:3)
Isn't that kind of what a screensaver does, with optional flying toasters?
Seriously though, I think static pixels on OLED are kind of like tobacco smoke or plutonium where no amount is considered safe. I've got a couple OLED phones. Even with all the dimming settings and smart pixel shifters and whatnot turned on, the static stuff still burns even just in normal daily use.
The contrast and the energy efficiency are really nice, but this technology isn't quite there for the long run yet. Which is probably
Re: (Score:2)
My rear projection TV from 20+ years ago used to do that. The later generations of plasma TVs would also detect still images and even had some hacks to reduce the appearance of burn in.
Re: (Score:2)
My Philips OLED TV can display screensavers without any ADs, I actually display some of my own Google Photos galleries.
Re: How are OLEDs premium? (Score:2)
What are "ADs"?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:How are OLEDs premium? (Score:4, Informative)
The vast majority of consumers will never experience any OLED burn-in. Their TVs will fail after a decade from powersupply faults or other things. Unless you're creating a commercial display like a train station timetable or running CNN/Fox with a ticker across the bottom of the screen 24/7 OLED will be perfectly fine as a panel for you.
Your comment shouldn't be +3 Informative, it should be -1 Belongs-in-2010
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you read my other comment? No - I don't want a screensaver. If I decide to stare at Nicholas Cage's face for 5 hours on pause - so be it. I get annoyed by flashing, moving animations, and 2min and 10min respectively is a completely silly, unrealistic timeout. Plus, TV screensavers are being completely consumed by ads these days.
Meh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the difference with the jump from 4k to 8k is that you're starting to hit the practical limits of the eye's ability to distinguish the difference.
On a 75" TV, you can in principle distinguish between 1080p and 4k content if you're sitting within ~8 feet of the screen. That's probably a bit close for comfortable viewing, but it's plausible. To distinguish between 4k and 8k you'd need to be within ~4 feet of that display. I'd bet that no one is regularly doing that in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's anything like the move from SD to HD, it makes the artifacts even more glaring and the overall picture even more fuzzy that the old SD CRTs that they are replacing.
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: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.
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:2)
That's why I did. My wife keeps hitting the wrong buttons on the remote and I have to explain to her how to get out of the built-in Android and into the rooted Android TV box we use.
I kind of want a consumer protection law that requires an option to turn the fancy built-in OS on and off. Basically if it can load apps, then it is too complicated and needs an off switch.
Re: Tin can sound? (Score:2)
If your TV still has an IR receiver, as my 2020 vintage 82in Q70r samsung vintage does, you can use a universal IR remote instead of the original Bluetoot6hzh remote.
I use an ARRX18G, which I programmed with Remote master. Macros always set the TV to HDMI input 4. I never see any of the built in stuff. They also set the correct input on the AVR to select the HTPC, fire stick or ccwgtv.
The only reason the TV is still connected to WiFi is for the smart view casting function from the phone.
The IR remote macros
Re: (Score:2)
Consumer protection law? In the US? HA! At least I'm starting the day off with a good laugh.
Re:Tin can sound? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 idiocy.
If the TV sound is so bad that you can't stand listening to it, and the cost of fixing that is three times the total cost of the TV, there's something very, VERY wrong. They're not doing this to make the TV's more desirable in some way. They're doing it because they know they can get away with making TVs that are s**t because too many people will be too clueless to know the difference until it is too late to return them, and then they can make crazy profits on soundbars.
Re: (Score:1)
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)
"I want a thinner TV" said no one ever. It sits on a table. Nobody cares if it is thinner.
No you don't speak for everyone. I've said I want a thinner TV, and no mine doesn't sit on a table. It's not 2010. A significant portion of the population wall mount TVs.
Please stop gaslighting or pretending you speak for others.
Adding a $200 soundbar to a $70 TV because someone cut $5 from the manufacturing cost is pure idiocy.
Why would you add a $200 soundbar to a $70 TV? You're being very special. Regardless of budget you can get a soundbar for less than the cost of a TV. Stop being stupid.
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.
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:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The days of decent sound built into a TV are from the era of CRT. Maybe not even then.
I had a 19" CRT back in the day. It had a single, presumably paper cone with paper surround full-range speaker. My first foray into better audio as a teenager was getting this [radiomuseum.org] overpriced hunk of RadioShack crap, and connecting it to my HiFi Stereo VCR's audio output.
Re: (Score:2)
TVs have never had good sound, period. Not even high end ones.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Maybe not wonderful, but the circa 2004 Sony TV I was trying to replace at least had sound below 300 Hz. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
TVs have never had good sound, not even the good ones.
But it makes sense. TVs aren't about sound, they're about pictures. You want good sound, you've always needed to have a...sound system. I go even further, with separately-purchased amplifier, and separately-purchased speakers. It's true that some amplifier/speaker combos do sound decent. But if you want the best quality of each component, you need to buy components.
Re: (Score:2)
Acoustics and physics make it impossible to have good sounding speakers in a thin tv.
Re: (Score:3)
Back in 2019 I bought a Sony TV that solved this problem in a very intriguing way. It uses the whole screen as the speaker and vibrates it imperceptibly to generate the sound. I took a look just now to see if they're still doing this and they are. Sony calls it "Acoustic Surface Audio+" and offers it on their Bravia line. Check it out. I recommend it just for the coolness factor but it works well for providing full
I agree, TCL makes a good TV. (Score:2)
Mature technology (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Most TVs run the same "smart-TV" OS's, licensed from the same couple of vendors.
That's not true. It's the differentiation factor that companies do implement. Most of them run their own inhouse software, and when cross licensing exists even then the software is modified. Panels are indeed sourced from only a few places, but all the other features and specs do differ between vendors and models.
"Premium" ? (Score:3)
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" TheFrame TV
That last one was a splurge I wanted because the "Art Mode" is just too beautiful, and at the time, Samsung really had the only coherent offering. (I guess there are now "off brand" ArtTV attempts from HiSense and others.. i have no experience with them.)
On the ArtTV, we watch youtube or DVDs or XBox on it a little of the time, and all that stuff looks fine to me on the 65" Samsung. But the TV is otherwise displaying pretty artwork almost all of the time, and whatever Samsung has done with the screen, dimming control, bezel, etc, really does work and really is lovely. And you don't need a service or an app to get the experience - just stick a USB full of public domain masterpieces into the TV.
Even so, the Samsung ecosystem is pretty annoying. I can have it show my images in ArtMode, but i cannot have the "real" experience you'd get with a subscription - with Art XML metadata and stuff (artist, date, etc). We don't always remember what a piece is or who painted it when it comes up..
Anyway, AFAIK, the only way to get TVs that aren't enshittified spyware is a business SKU, right?
Re: (Score:2)
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 can't speak in generalities but I recently "overpaid" for a Sony TV specifically because it came with a Google TV OS where the first question, basically, is whether you want the TV to be dumb or smart. I am actually running it in "smart" mode so that I can run my own apps on it and while I did have to check a number of hidden boxes in the settings submenus, the current presentation is not too onerous.
I will continue to pay more for a TV that just leaves me alone and lets me run my own apps and I hope the
When a 30 TFLOPS computer ... (Score:2)
... costs less than a meal for two and fits in a cigarette box and screens are getting smaller and lighter to the point of just being flat slabs with glowing pixels on them, you're going to have a hard time finding features to differentiate "premium" from "regular" TVs. I wouldn't even buy a TV, I've been using monitors for decades now and sourcing my own input signals using computers and the internet. Preferably with adblock proxies and other tricks to give me a more premium experience than any ready-made
google TV (Score:2)
All the TVs have google's TV version of android on them. The 1st party apps are bloatware trash just like on phones and google TV's UI prioritizes youtube and google's own paid content over broadcast TV or other streaming services. Nobody cares about the underlying display technology. People look at the price tag and the picture quality of the display model at costco. Many "high end" technologies actually look worse in real life, so its no wonder the gap is closing.