Extremely-thin TVs have new names however they nonetheless suck

I am going to admit upfront that the headline is an exaggeration. I do not hate ultra-thin TVs — clearly, in not less than a technique, they’re wonderful in comparison with what I had rising up. As late as my early 20s, I used to be nonetheless utilizing a 40-inch CRT that was so cumbersome it took two folks to get it into an residence, even with the assistance of a dolly. Conversely, the 65-inch model of Samsung’s The Frame Pro is so skinny and light-weight that I may grasp it excessive on a wall and not using a stepladder if my arms stretched that a lot.

What made me consider this matter is the newest darling of the ultra-thin world, the LG evo W6. It is dubbed the Wallpaper TV, primarily as a result of it is 9mm thick — about the identical because the show on my laptop. It is spectacular on a number of ranges, truly, not less than from what was proven at CES. It is not in shops but as of early February 2026. Nevertheless it jogs my memory that when ultra-thin TVs are completed properly, they’re nonetheless not a superb worth. They will not be till thinness stops being a bulletpoint, a declare that ought to make extra sense in a minute.

What’s so horrible about ultra-thin TVs?

Two paths, each sketchy

In lots of respects, nothing. Even if you happen to gave me a small and (comparatively) low-cost one — just like the 32-inch non-Professional Body — I might nonetheless get pleasure from watching it in the appropriate context. The image goes to be superb, and I might admire the load financial savings, having moved a shocking variety of occasions prior to now 15 years. I’ve lived in two international locations and 4 cities. In Austin alone, I went by three residences and my first home.

The overarching drawback is that, a technique or one other, you are paying a premium for the privilege. Units like The Body or Hisense’s Canvas TVs are what are often known as “artwork” TVs — they’re skinny as a result of they’re meant to resemble (and present) framed work or photographs, mixing in along with your room’s wall decor. They ship with ornamental bezels, and have matte screens to cancel out reflections. That will be all properly and good besides that even that 32-inch Body is $600, and bigger units from a number of manufacturers are concurrently costlier than their non-art counterparts whereas regularly being inferior spec-wise.

Particularly, the recurring difficulty is that almost all of them use QLED. That is an evolution of the usual LCD format, however one which’s already on the way in which out. It is rapidly being changed by mini-LED, which gives superior coloration, distinction, and brightness. For lower than $600, you will get a 55-inch mini-LED set which is able to blow any QLED out of the water if you happen to care about image high quality over vogue.

You is likely to be questioning why extra artwork TVs aren’t outfitted with OLED, which is nice for thinness whereas beating mini-LED in coloration and distinction. The reason is that other than being much more costly, OLED is weak to burn-in when static photographs are left onscreen for hours at a time. That makes the tech distinctly unsuited for mimicking artwork, irrespective of when you have a TV change photographs each jiffy and reap the benefits of upkeep options like pixel refresh cycles.

For instance you are prepared to desert the pretense of an artwork TV, although, and chase after an ultra-thin product with zero efficiency compromises. The LG evo W6 checks these packing containers. It is a 4K OLED set that gives 0.1ms response occasions, 77- and 83-inch sizes, and customized anti-glare tech to protect the distinction most matte screens sacrifice. Its thinness is feasible as a result of it makes use of a high-speed wi-fi field for inputs — the one factor you want to plug into the TV itself is an influence cable.

The catch is that it is liable to be wildly costly. Whereas the W6’s pricetag has but to be introduced, the earlier Wallpaper TV price as much as $20,000. It is uncertain the brand new one will price a lot, however an equal 77-inch LG G5 is $3,500 and not using a wi-fi connection field. It is not arduous to think about the W6 beginning at $7,000, as some folks on-line are speculating. Simply $5,000 could be ridiculous, provided that you may afford two or three standard OLEDs with the identical display measurement.

A solution to a query nobody requested

The worth of being skinny

Credit score: LG

Within the telephone market, there’s been some extreme whiplash with regards to ultra-thin designs. Heading into 2025, Apple, Samsung, and different manufacturers have been seemingly all-in on the thought, anticipating the general public to adore units that have been extraordinarily comfy to carry, irrespective of if it price them further and did not do as properly within the digicam and battery departments.

Then the iPhone Air launched. Whereas it has its followers, the product has bought worse than Apple anticipated. A lot in order that Samsung and different rivals have reportedly scrapped plans for future imitators. Because it seems, nobody was actually complaining about how thick or heavy smartphones are, and nearly all of folks aren’t prepared to pay almost as a lot as they might for an iPhone 17 Professional for one thing that is inferior in some respects to the iPhone 17.

Extremely-thin TVs have had extra endurance, however I might argue that there is a related unhealthy premise behind them: that present merchandise are by some means too cumbersome. That argument may’ve been legitimate within the early 2010s. Certainly, after I initially moved to Austin, I purchased a 40-inch LCD that was simply barely skinny and light-weight sufficient to hold up three flights of stairs on my own. In 2024, nevertheless, I used to be in a position to purchase a 65-inch mini-LED set that was truly lighter, and thinness wasn’t one in every of its promoting factors.

Merely put, know-how has developed to the purpose the place most TVs are already as skinny and light-weight as anybody wants. It is no drawback sitting one on prime of an leisure heart, and you are going to need assist mounting a 65-inch one in your wall no matter how a lot it weighs.

Naturally, additional progress is welcome, and it is no pores and skin off my again if wealthy customers are prepared to pay lots of or 1000’s extra for luxurious designs. For the typical shopper, although, there’s way more worth in prioritizing specs that may maximize the expertise of films, reveals, and video games for longer. Ask your self — 5 to 10 years from now, will you get extra out of an ultra-thin TV, or one that will not really feel as outdated by way of its efficiency or display measurement?

Talking of which, this whole debate may grow to be moot within the subsequent few years. Enhancements in miniaturization inevitably grow to be cheaper as manufacturing scales up. By the 2030s, what you see in present artwork TVs or the W6 may grow to be de facto in common fashions, or not less than extra commonplace. If that’s the case, there will not be a lot purpose in any respect to market TVs on their thinness, until maybe foldable and rollable fashions take off in a means they have not to this point. And there is a likelihood that a few of us can be utilizing AR glasses as an alternative — if you happen to’re not watching a film with different folks, who wants a 65-inch rollable when you’ll be able to simulate a 100-inch TV anyplace you go?