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 no less than a method, they’re superb 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 house, even with the assistance of a dolly. Conversely, the 65-inch model of Samsung’s The Frame Pro is so skinny and lightweight that I may dangle it excessive on a wall and not using a stepladder if my arms stretched that a lot.

What made me consider this subject is the most recent 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, no less than from what was proven at CES. It is not in shops but as of early February 2026. However it jogs my memory that when ultra-thin TVs are achieved effectively, 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 for those who gave me a small and (comparatively) low-cost one — just like the 32-inch non-Professional Body — I might nonetheless take pleasure in watching it in the best context. The image goes to be wonderful, and I might recognize the burden financial savings, having moved a stunning variety of instances up 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 downside is that, a method or one other, you are paying a premium for the privilege. Units like The Body or Hisense’s Canvas TVs are what are often called “artwork” TVs — they’re skinny as a result of they’re meant to resemble (and present) framed work or photographs, mixing in together with your room’s wall decor. They ship with ornamental bezels, and have matte screens to cancel out reflections. That may be all effectively 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 often being inferior spec-wise.

Particularly, the recurring situation 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 offers superior colour, distinction, and brightness. For lower than $600, you may get a 55-inch mini-LED set which can blow any QLED out of the water for those who care about image high quality over style.

You could be questioning why extra artwork TVs aren’t outfitted with OLED, which is nice for thinness whereas beating mini-LED in colour and distinction. The reason is that aside from being much more costly, OLED is susceptible to burn-in when static photos are left onscreen for hours at a time. That makes the tech distinctly unsuited for mimicking artwork, regardless of when you’ve got a TV swap photos each couple of minutes and make the most of upkeep options like pixel refresh cycles.

As an example you are keen 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 containers. It is a 4K OLED set that provides 0.1ms response instances, 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 could 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 laborious to think about the W6 beginning at $7,000, as some folks on-line are speculating. Simply $5,000 can be ridiculous, on condition that you might afford two or three standard OLEDs with the identical display screen measurement.

A solution to a query nobody requested

The worth of being skinny

Credit score: LG

Within the cellphone market, there’s been some extreme whiplash with regards to ultra-thin designs. Heading into 2025, Apple, Samsung, and different manufacturers had been seemingly all-in on the concept, anticipating the general public to adore units that had been extraordinarily snug to carry, regardless of if it price them additional and did not do as effectively within the digicam and battery departments.

Then the iPhone Air launched. Whereas it has its followers, the product has offered 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 keen to pay practically 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 comparable dangerous premise behind them: that current merchandise are one way or the other too cumbersome. That argument would possibly’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 lightweight 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 considered one of its promoting factors.

Merely put, know-how has developed to the purpose the place most TVs are already as skinny and lightweight as anybody wants. It is no downside 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 keen to pay tons of or hundreds extra for luxurious designs. For the typical shopper, although, there’s much more worth in prioritizing specs that can maximize the expertise of films, exhibits, 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 screen measurement?

Talking of which, this complete debate may turn into moot within the subsequent few years. Enhancements in miniaturization inevitably turn into cheaper as manufacturing scales up. By the 2030s, what you see in present artwork TVs or the W6 may turn into de facto in common fashions, or no less than extra commonplace. If that’s the case, there will not be a lot motive in any respect to market TVs on their thinness, until maybe foldable and rollable fashions take off in a method they have not up to now. And there is a likelihood that a few of us can be utilizing AR glasses as a substitute — for those who’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 wherever you go?