Extremely-thin TVs have new names however they nonetheless suck

I will admit upfront that the headline is an exaggeration. I do not hate ultra-thin TVs — clearly, in no less than a technique, 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 light-weight that I might dangle it excessive on a wall with out 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, 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 performed properly, they’re nonetheless not a very good 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 in the event you gave me a small and (comparatively) low-cost one — just like the 32-inch non-Professional Body — I would nonetheless take pleasure in watching it in the fitting context. The image goes to be effective, and I would admire the load financial savings, having moved a shocking variety of instances previously 15 years. I’ve lived in two international locations and 4 cities. In Austin alone, I went by means of three flats 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 referred to as “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 properly and good besides that even that 32-inch Body is $600, and bigger units from a number of manufacturers are concurrently dearer than their non-art counterparts whereas continuously being inferior spec-wise.

Particularly, the recurring subject 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 colour, 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 in the event you care about image high quality over vogue.

You is perhaps 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 other than being much more costly, OLED is weak to burn-in when static photos are left onscreen for hours at a time. That makes the tech distinctly unsuited for mimicking artwork, irrespective of if in case you have a TV change photos each jiffy and reap the benefits of upkeep options like pixel refresh cycles.

To illustrate 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 containers. It is a 4K OLED set that gives 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’ll 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 with out a wi-fi connection field. It is not onerous 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 possibly can afford two or three typical OLEDs with the identical display dimension.

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 in terms of ultra-thin designs. Heading into 2025, Apple, Samsung, and different manufacturers have been seemingly all-in on the concept, anticipating the general public to adore units that have been extraordinarily snug to carry, irrespective of if it price them additional and did not do as properly within the digital camera 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 the vast majority of folks aren’t prepared 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 would argue that there is a comparable dangerous premise behind them: that present merchandise are by some means too cumbersome. That argument may’ve been legitimate within the early 2010s. Certainly, once 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, nonetheless, 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, expertise 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 high of an leisure middle, 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 a whole lot or hundreds extra for luxurious designs. For the typical shopper, although, there’s much more worth in prioritizing specs that may maximize the expertise of flicks, 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 when it comes to its efficiency or display dimension?

Talking of which, this whole debate might turn out to be moot within the subsequent few years. Enhancements in miniaturization inevitably turn out to be cheaper as manufacturing scales up. By the 2030s, what you see in present artwork TVs or the W6 might turn out to be de facto in common fashions, or no less than extra commonplace. In that 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 approach they have not to date. And there is a probability that a few of us will likely be utilizing AR glasses as an alternative — in the event you’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?