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 at the very least 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 residence, 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 hold it excessive on a wall with out 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, really, at the very least 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 finished effectively, they’re nonetheless not an excellent 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 would nonetheless take pleasure in watching it in the suitable context. The image goes to be high-quality, and I would respect the load financial savings, having moved a shocking variety of instances prior to now 15 years. I’ve lived in two nations and 4 cities. In Austin alone, I went by way of three flats and my first home.

The overarching downside 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 pictures, 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 incessantly being inferior spec-wise.

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

You is perhaps 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 aside from being much more costly, OLED is weak to burn-in when static pictures are left onscreen for hours at a time. That makes the tech distinctly unsuited for mimicking artwork, irrespective of when you’ve got a TV change pictures each jiffy and benefit from upkeep options like pixel refresh cycles.

For 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 packing 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 might 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 value as much as $20,000. It is uncertain the brand new one will value 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 can be ridiculous, provided that you could possibly afford two or three typical OLEDs with the identical display screen 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 relating to ultra-thin designs. Heading into 2025, Apple, Samsung, and different manufacturers had been seemingly all-in on the thought, anticipating the general public to adore gadgets that had been extraordinarily comfy to carry, irrespective of if it value 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 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 would argue that there is a related dangerous premise behind them: that current merchandise are one way or the other 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 lightweight sufficient to hold up three flights of stairs on my own. In 2024, nevertheless, I used to be capable of purchase a 65-inch mini-LED set that was really lighter, and thinness wasn’t one among its promoting factors.

Merely put, expertise 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 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 consumers are keen to pay tons of or hundreds extra for luxurious designs. For the typical shopper, although, there’s way more worth in prioritizing specs that may maximize the expertise of flicks, 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 when it comes to its efficiency or display screen measurement?

Talking of which, this whole debate may change into moot within the subsequent few years. Enhancements in miniaturization inevitably change into cheaper as manufacturing scales up. By the 2030s, what you see in present artwork TVs or the W6 may change into de facto in common fashions, or at the very least 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 manner they have not thus far. And there is a likelihood that a few of us might be utilizing AR glasses as a substitute — if you happen to’re not watching a film with different folks, who wants a 65-inch rollable when you may simulate a 100-inch TV wherever you go?