Why Can't All Prices Just Work Like TVs?
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 06. 2024
- Have Companies & The US Government Pay You!
app.silomarkets.com/launch
TVs are one of those rare products in the world where prices only go down, and I’m not talking about the prices of used TVs or TVs with old technologies. Rather, the newest TVs with flagship technology get cheaper and cheaper every single year, not in a marginal manner either. TV prices have been consistently falling since the 1950s, and this trend has only accelerated throughout the 2000s with TV prices consistently falling 15% every single year. Even in the rare years in which TV prices increased, inflation was usually even higher meaning that the real prices of TVs were still going down. You could explain this phenomenon with the economics of scale, TV technology becoming cheaper, more competition, and so on. But, I think the real culprit behind this decline is simply consumer’s extreme clarity when it comes to buying TVs. This video explains why TV prices keep falling and why consumers are smarter than ever when it comes to buying TVs.
Earn Interest From The Government & Top Corporations:
(iOS App for US Residents)
www.silomarkets.com/waiting-l...
Free Weekly Newsletter With Insiders:
logicallyanswered.substack.com/
Socials:
/ hariharan.jayakumar
Discord Community:
/ discord
Timestamps:
0:00 - TV Prices
2:21 - Adoption Delay
6:59 - Consumer Clarity
10:37 - Forcing Change
Thumbnail Credit:
bit.ly/3NGlhxt
Resources:
pastebin.com/PJYS114s
Disclaimer:
This video is not a solicitation or personal financial advice. All investing involves risk. Please do your own research.
www.silomarkets.com/disclosures
So basically consumers have stated "this is our demand threshold for a TV, it's a commodity we all want/need one of, not a luxury to be splurged on, so give us your best offer, corporations." A rare moment in history that the corporations bent to the will of the consumer.
Yep pretty much hahaha
TVs unlike iPhone or cars is not a show-off thing that is aslo a reason everyone is okay with older model .
It didn’t matter how long they waited, nobody, and I mean nobody, was about to convince their friends that they too should buy a 5k$ television when plasmas came out.
More like a rare moment when consumers exercise constraint in their spending.
@@LogicallyAnsweredthat means that the crashing birthrates will also crash prices for washing machines, dishwashers etc because there will be nobody with houses to sell these to. The demand for new units will collapse with the world population forcing those companies that remain to try to do more with less. An AI powered robot doesn’t need a washing machine.
I CANNOT be the only one who has that "consumer clarity" in categories beyond TVs. I don't think a car from 2010 or 2013 seems outdated at all.
Agreeing with this on my iPhone 8. 😌
Yeah I have a Honda Accord from 2011 and it's just fine. I don't need the latest and greatest. cars from 2008 still look just fine on the road and don't seem outdated at all
@@growingup15 That's what's up, older accords are wonderful pieces of engineering that can last an incredibly long time. I have one myself
Bought a single new phone in my life, which back then was a couple of years behind the curve. Ever since smartphones are widespread, I have been using phones I got for free or as dirt cheap second-hand purchased. I didn't even have a TV for years until I got a decent one for free. I do miss out on a few things here and there, but largely my appliances can do everything that I need them to. The only thing that would make me consider buying a leading-edge smartphone is if someone figured out how to get smartphone cameras to take pictures taken in low-light conditions to appear as they do for the human eye. Currently, even the best phones fail to capture the atmosphere.
My car from 1996 can get me from A to B as comfortably as a new car, don't see why I would need a new one
Before I was born, Dad splurged on a colossal 43-inch Sony TV, a marvel for its time. He even crafted custom furniture to hold its grandeur. Fast forward 15 years, a simple Fire Stick breathed new life into it, adding five years of streaming joy. Boom, vintage tech reborn!
can you take pictures of your tv and share it ?
@@pedi-kun3978you can't share links on CZcams, you'll get shadowbanned
@@kashre001lol Roku is a piece of s**** full of ads and tracking.
@@Kevin-oj2uo you dont think Amazon does tracking? lol
43 Inch isn't expensive
Im a bachelor and im pretty much broke. But my tv system is a 1000x better than when i was growing up in the 2000s with my family. My 60 inch would of been a DREAM to the 28 inch we had growing up
Indeed😊 it WAS my dream
I was an engineer at ATI when in 2008 we sold off our DTV business to Broadcom. At the time I had no clue why we'd done it. The business looked really good, and we had a fantastic product stack. It only took a few years before even my eyes saw that there was no money in the TV business, and there never would be. Was really fun working with that team though.
I mean AMD and ATI became one company in that time period too!
broadcom is doing veeery well nowadays though
Why didn’t ATI/AMD keep pace with nVidia on ai chips like the H100?
@@TheLazyVideo nvidia invested in AI before it was profitable for like 10 years
I believe phones will follow TVs in the near future.
Phones have become “boring” in the last few years with much longer life cycle, which is a good thing for us because most of them are good but not for the phone makers. Especially with the new EU regulations for battery replacement and right to repair. I think more and more people would change their phones less often.
Even the physical appearance doesn’t matter that much anymore. The “Dynamic island” isn’t as popular as the “notch” was. Even Apple ignored it after its first release and never mentioned it again.
Cars however is the opposite position. Especially with Teslas and EVs.
Phones have already started down that path. The average time between getting a new phone is increasing. Your average phone has enough processing that you wouldn't notice a difference in performance unless you went out of your way to test performance. There is essentially nothing from a hardware perspective that separates phones from an end user perspective. It's just a matter of time until the market catches up to this reality.
Only recently perhaps, I still use a 6 year old phone because of physical features no longer offered (replaceable battery, dual physical SIM, SD card reader, headphone jack, etc), and modern software bloat makes it annoying to use at times.
As a non-expert, it feels like phones are more dependent on software than tvs (repeat: non-expert!). The ability for iOS/Android to issue software updates differently to different devices may give the companies the power to make older models less desirable. It concerns me 😅
@@fredgoodyer4907 as an expert this is definitely true. Apple has even been caught reducing the battery life of older phones with software updates. That will probably extend the desire to upgrade, but desktop and laptop used to be the same way. You would feel the need to replace it after about 3 years. Now people will use the same desktop or laptop for 7 to 10 years. Phones have already gone from being replaced every 2 years to 3 or 4 years. As things mature they are going down the same path.
I feel a very important point that is not touched on is that it's become a real pain in the arse to get rid of a TV. It's so much harder to part with your old 77" TV compared to almost everything else that even if you wanted to upgrade, it's much more convenient to just keep the thing. It's hard to carry it, it's hard to return it, it's hard to throw it away, and new TVs are so cheap that it's not worth trying to find a buyer for your old one. Even with a car, you can just drive it away to someone and are almost guaranteed to find somebody who'd be willing to buy it off of you.
Put it under the "Free" section of craig. Curb alert even. You will have it gone quick.
I don't know about that. When it recently came time to replace our aging 50 inch plasma with a new OLED, the delivery service included carting away the old television. Like most appliances, you can get them delivered now, and pay a few bucks to get the old one hauled away.
@@rdormer If you are in NYC, no one will take it because of our annoying garbage laws.
There's also the fact that your peers can't judge you for the TV you've got. Nobody sees your TV (or even lack of one) other than the people you live with and even if they do, it's often briefly. People however see your phone and car all the time giving them plenty of opportunities to ridicule you for your financial status. Also, it's not easy to tell an expensive TV from a cheap one. Even if someone has an old TV, it could still have been expensive at the time they purchased it.
I commented the same thing. I think its pretty spot on.
Old CRT TV's were made of glass. The process of building was hard and mundane. Today's TV screens are made. By the sheet. Like 20' x 60' and can be cut to size. One of the reasons they are so big today. The cost of making the screens is next to nothing. All in, maybe $20 - $30 for all parts. What you pay for is shipping across the ocean, terrifs on parts, some cheap labor. Days of the $20k flat screens are gone. Back then it was "NO one else has one" today you can walk down the street and find them on the curb.
what you're saying about the $20k flat screens days are gone is not true. If u got really deep pockets you can buy a 16K tv for a few million dollars.
Diminishing returns though
This is simply not true, OLED tech is not easy to make and TV manufacturers need to keep pushing for more upgrades and thus it's hard to get the costs lower. The difficulty of making OLED displays gets higher as the size gets lower and the resolution stays at 4k, which is why we didn't get a 42 inch 4K OLED for so long. OLEDs also need proper care features to be actually viable.
Then comes Mini LED tech, manufacturers are fighting tooth and nail for the best mini led tech with the best local dimming algorithms, highest number of zones and having the least amount of DSE. So much stuff to go over and then you have to keep in mind the processor/processing being done and the calibration that TV manufacturers do nowadays with things like Filmmaker mode. So yeah TVs aren't so cheap to make. It's just that the competition is fierce now due to QD-OLED.
If the screen costs 20-30 dollars, does that mean I can get a replacement screen for that price?
@@luqmanibrahimit’s better to just get a new one at todays current prices. The panel is the most expensive part and majority of the cost will be labor. Better off getting a new TV w warranty because even if you fixed it yourself or get it fixed, it’s not guaranteed to last you as long it’s previous lifespan
I bought my first TV in 2000. It was a 20" Sony Trinitron "Flat Screen". I purchased it for around $420. That's equivelant to paying about $750 for a TV today. Imagine what you can get for $750, and that got me a tiny 20" screen that weighed about 80 lbs!
Indeed😅
Maybe a ps5 from a scalper off eBay that you can’t even enjoy unless it’s logged in and online all the time,physical disk or not.🤔
I got a free 32 Sony triniton off craig. In the 2000s or so I think I spent around $100 for a Sanyo 13".
People just like to display social status, you might have guests over your house and 9/10 times they won’t notice you have a very expensive OLED TV in your living room because were used to see big TVs everywhere. But your guests will definitely noticed your brand new 2024 car, or your shiny iPhone 15 pro max.
My car is from 2006. I dont upgrade because there is no need to. It still works great. I dont have a smart tv for the same reason. I fear when planned obsolescence reaches tvs.
you miss the most important part when comparing TV to smartphone and car. TV is mostly in a private device (needed to visit house) but smartphone and car is a 'show-off' product
Smartphones will suffer the same fate as tvs. Smartphones used to be show off devices but now they are slowly turning into another appliance.
@@MrElvis640 nah, apple dummies will still buy more iphone
I could say the majority of cars on the road are strictly appliance like and people just use them for daily commuting. Ex: Civics, Corollas, Model 3s etc.
I live in Los Angeles where the whole county was built around the automobile and car culture is pretty strong. Status symbol vehicles can range from cheap but modified, stock but rare, high price bracket commuters, or enthusiast weekend only cars etc. It’s pretty diverse.
The stuff about 8k is true though. It makes tv and movie production needlessly expensive, especially for cgi and gaming. The clarity and resolution is an improvement, but being able to count the hairs on someone’s arm doesn’t make the movie better
8k only makes sense when you get to 85" TVs and up. When 85" becomes the norm then you need 8K so the picture looks the same as your old 1080p
cgi and gaming is a totally different matter because you need your gpu to create the image in real time so this is a completly different conversation, some fps pros still play on 1080p to maximise frames, but there will come a time when it barely matters as much in terms of specs than price just like 4k tvs are now and this will be the obvious superior choice even if there's diminishing returns in improving image density. As a gamer, I put my 4k tv in a 1080p resolution to maximise frames, but I still watch my movies in 4k and that's the best of both worlds
yes it literally does the movie ''look'' better. now it may not be as important as the writing or acting sure. that is why young people become fans or old movies and tv shows. but saying it doesn't matter at all is BS. i remember growing up on VHS and o my good my first HD 720p tv was a godlike improvement. so was my first full HD and then 4K ones. and so will be my 8k one when I get one when content is released in that format. or I can run games at that resolution.
also any screen can be Retina (where you can no longer see pixels) since is a function of size and distance but not only 4k is no longer enough for big TVs. even if I place today a 24 inch full had monitor and a 48 inch 4k tv (both have same pixel density) at their retina distances side by side. while you cannot see pixels in either you for sure can see way more details in the screen 4 times larger since there is actually finer details being shown that get lost in the smaller format.
i remember vhs too, and the jump was amazing, but we've basically reached the point where the extra clarity just doesn't have the same effect anymore. it's strange to explain but when I look at 8k movies and tv it actually takes me out of the experience. it looses that movie quality in the video that makes it easier to suspend disbelief. Also factor in the other costs, movie production needs a whole new type of makeup to content with the higher resolutions and not look fake, 8k camera's are very expensive, doing cgi at 8k is a lot more costly than at 4k. it pushes up the budgets of movies where they need to make a billion dollars or they will be a flop. the big movie companies ALWAYS sacrifice quality writing and storytelling and use resolution and cgi as a crutch and we can see the results of that now@@lucaskp16
games are taking longer to make, and becoming way too costly because of this obsession with resolution. think about all the bugs in games, and how many of them are unplayable to various degrees on launch. it's because it takes a ton more resources to makes games that are playable at those resolutions, regardless if you choose to go 1080p or not. if they put out an 8k game, expect it to cost over $100 and a major drop in game play mechanics at every resolution, bad story telling, and to be absolutely riddled with bugs@@DamienCloud
Think you forgot to mention pixel density. Its the reason why large TV's don't cost much more than a smaller one at a certain point. At a certain size its cheaper to make a bigger TV than a smaller one because it would require much more dense pixels to make a smaller TV so in reality a bigger TV is a worse resolution smaller TV just much larger in physical size.
Thats a bad argument when you realize 4k phones exist at far less than many 4k screens...
If you can make 4k at 7 inches , at 40 or more inches you are only paying for the material and production costs in general, no extra i+d requires
But you’re not taking into account pretty much everything else including the most important features like HDR, local dimming, and backlighting that are required to make the screen brighter at their large sizes. Which can make the prices skyrocket for mid to higher end TVs. Lower end TVs without the features, your argument seems more valid.
I’m surprised that you didn’t talk about the Chinese government-subsidized push into the LCD market that killed profitability for Japanese and Korean panel suppliers and shuttered many a factory in said countries. It was a race to the bottom and China basically won with a sweeping majority of LCD panels and TV components being produced by Chinese factories currently. I’m sure that the Japanese and Korean companies would still love to charge top dollar for their TV’s (with Chinese-sourced panels), but companies like TCL, Vizio, and Hisense have given the consumer market 80-90% of the performance for 40% of the cost. LCD panel technology has matured, so the extra cost is usually justified by the TV aficionados for image processing. If Chinese manufacturers can solve that hardware chip and software deficiency, and if they can bring out robust inkjet-printed OLED panels, they will own the entire market, trade embargoes and/or possible war aside.
The above statement is for the general consumer market. At the higher end of the market, we have LG and Samsung duking it out with OLED and QD-OLED technologies respectively until Chinese manufacturers figure out a formula and price the Koreans out. MicroOLED sounds like the holy grail, but it’s probably a decade or more away from mass market, if not a pipedream. There are other technologies being developed, but with the current global economic downturn, and with the general consumer not wanting to spend more than $1000 USD on a TV, I don’t know how much money is being earmarked for research and development. That’s not even accounting for consumer trends shifting and more video content being consumed on mobile devices, hence their greater importance in daily life versus a statically-placed television.
100% agree, and I'd add that one of the value-added qualities the Japanese in particular had was longevity and build quality - something Sony and (real) Panasonic still have to a large degree but when you have a situation where everyone wants a bigger and "better" set every two years the market appreciation of quality diminishes, and this plays right into the Chinese companies' hands - they produce crap but slap a long warranty on it and, well, what can you do.
@@jasejj I still miss my old 32” Panasonic Standard Definition CRT. The colors and motion quality were amazing!
I think it should be noted Vizio is an American company.
@@evancombs5159 That is true but the technology certainly isn't.
This is why I love this channel, I didn’t even know I wanted to learn about this.
Hahaha 🙏
TV became the 24/7 home billboard that is why.
That's also true, but really for me at least I have old 42 inch 1080p TV and it's fine for everything. My parents had 32 inch 1080p TV and it was doing everything just fine until it died. Really, TVs are just terribly mundane and all you will do is just watching TV, maybe some streaming and perhaps console or Blu-Ray player connected. You do exactly the same stuff as you always did. A bit nicer, but still. Other tech just changes a lot more and thus is upgraded more often, but not TVs. Even if you have old TV, you can basically upgrade it a lot with Roku or something too, making whole TV upgrade a bit pointless.
6% margin????. thats massive. I have worked with 1% margin. Massive challenge to make that profitable.
Oh man !!! I still remember when LCD tvs were first launched they were more expensive than a used car like 5000 dollars for 55 inch tv and 3500 dollars for 35 inch tv
Crazy drop since then hahaha
@@LogicallyAnswered of course man ! I used to think either this is a commercial tech that's sold to consumers or it can a consumer tech repackaged and sold at a really high price in the name of innovation and new breakthrough, because my dad used to be a commercial supplier for alot of products like especially electric wires those thick gauge multi core one's
This channel really brings up the issues about Business and finance that no one talks about it makes you think but it also keeps you entertained great content
Glad to get the seal of approval from the FBI! 🙏
That's because it gets you called a commie or socialist by people who saw an Ayn Rand novel once and stopped thinking halfway through the title.
I want a high (30s) frame rate E-Ink monitor for work. LCD is burning out my eyeballs.
E-Ink monitors only became a thing this year and may not even survive long enough for me to afford them. Sadness
Ah, wasn’t familiar with e ink. Sounds interesting
Demand-side economics is like magic
I'm surprised a major factor not mentioned is how long a TV lasts. Phones only last a couple years at most, whereas most people may keep a TV for 10 to 15 years, and TVs rarely break down on their own, so a result of this is that consumers only buy new TVs when the tech is significantly different. Basically this video does not look well at the primary and basic reasons for TV usage. Many of the explanations here are secondary effects of primary reasons.
TVs also lower in price because the tech becomes cheaper to produce. OLED being introduced in 1980 does not mean it was cheap enough for a mass consumer product. Even the main reason 4k has become cheap is because the tech has matured and manufacturers have had time to optimize it and make it effecient. One thing in the video that is true is that Smart TVs they do pay for themselves.
Overall this video missed a lot of the real reasons why TVs are cheap.
It’s hard to market how much better picture quality is when they are watching the ad on their tv with lesser quality. Seriously showing off an 8k tv in an ad playing on a 1080 tv is going to show it in 1080, hence no distinguishable difference.
The highest price consumer computers today are at about the same prices they were thirty years ago. But when you adjust for inflation the computers of thirty years ago cost much more.
Problem with them selling a lot of TV's compared to phones or cars is that with phone and car you showing to other people and is more of a status symbol for people plus you using them more often than TV. Also getting higher resolution TV don't make much sense when most of content on internet and TV is still in 1080p, higher resolution make sense only in case of screen size, the bigger screen the bigger resolution needed to don't see single pixels. Another thing is that each year less and less people watch stuff on their TV's (people stopping watching television and watch more stuff on internet), more and more people watch most stuff on their phones, tablets, laptops or PC.
I want to know why there is SO little 4k content. Expecially SPORTS. They push 4K tvs yet I can't get a 4K football game.
TV will always be good enough because what we currently have is always better than what we grew up with and frankly, it's an annoying bill to replace them
Aside from TV's, computer's have also gone down in prices. Do you remember in the late 80's early 90's home computer systems cost between 2499 to 9k range. Now you can buy a laptop for as low as $150.
Indeed😊
yeah, 150 dollar laptops are very horrible, all chromebooks are ewaste, if you want something thats usable and snappy you're going to have to spend at least 400 dollars
@@DeAthWisH-li5ks Still, not as expensive as 5000 dollars for a laptop in the 90's and 5 grand was a lot of money during those times
My first PC costed around 1100€ back in 1998 and it was low end one. Add inflation and it would be equivalent to around 1800€ in today's value. Today, it would be enough for a cluster of low end PCs, except I don't need such thing. 🤣 Or a very capable gaming PC, except I don't "AAA game" much these days... because... AAA games these days 😭
Easy answer. Having a better processor in your tv will not massively enhance your experience, neither does a slightly better image quality. For a smartphone however after only 2 to 3 years it becomes very obvious that its slower doesnt have the same functions or has a planned obsolete date.
Also, the average person is on their smart phone over 4 hours per day (it really jumped up during the pandemic years) vs something like 18 minutes in 2008. That really cuts into TV time.
We can show off our new car or phone but it's harder to show off our TV.
Isn't showing off a bit childish, though?
A TV is an appliance though. I don’t think there’s much that would make people replace a microwave, toaster, fridge or any kind of home appliance on a near annual basis. Gadgets like a smartphone or headsets are somewhat of an accessory too and more susceptible to “fashion” trends.
You can’t really compare apples to oranges. TVs have one primary use, which is to watch things. Essentially, they are like big monitors. Smartphones, on the other hand, are devices that people carry with them all the time and have a higher chance of breaking. Additionally, smartphones have a shelf life with software support and security patches that need to be updated more frequently. Cars also have a chance of being totaled in accidents, in addition to all the parts that break down. People would then have to consider the cost of repair compared to replacement.
right. of course people will pay to upgrade their phones when companies stop supporting their devices because unlike my tv- my bank app is on my phone
If something has a high chance of breaking and to be replaced soon that's exactly the reason you'd not spend too much on it.
Also smart TVs can do a lot just like smart phones so it is a fair comparison.
Smartphones don't have a shelf life with official support and security patches. A high end Android phone from 10 years ago is still very much usable today, so long as you replace the battery with a new one.
That's when the tech was progressing far faster than today. Meanwhile, a 2017 high end phone will probably still be even more usable in 2027 unless web development gets assigned to more and more diversity hire that writes really bloated code that the main programmer only has to clean up for it to work.
The shelf life depends mostly on the growth of diversity hire in app and web development, as any performance issues can be dismissed with having an older device. The fact that the Switch with its 2015-2016 era smartphone hardware can still have decent AAA title ports squeezed onto it, with better quality than 99% of iOS and Android games on flagship devices, tells everything.
@@fungo6631 Everything has a shelf life. While developers can create ROMs that continue to support or prolong the life of a device, electronics are still electronics. Other hardware components will experience wear and tear, and while some devices might be “usable,” the experience won’t be great. Over the years, I’ve owned many devices, and sometimes they just stop working. I’ve had a few phones that wouldn’t turn on even with a new battery, such as my Note 4, HTC One, and LG V10. I also have a working Nexus 7 tablet that I flashed with a newer Android 12 ROM. While it works, the experience is subpar and not usable, so I ended up letting it sit in a drawer. Sure you might have some outliers where the hardware, build quality, software developed could last a lot longer but that's probably a small percentage of devices. Most people won't go through the hassle of researching, tinker, or go through the process.
@@fungo6631 Man i tried using my Note 3 for a while when my note 10 broke.
No, a 10 year old flagship will not work just fine. It will not even work even slightly fine. Many functions won't even work at all and it's generally not useable.
I find working flat screens in dumpsters all the time and some of them work. I got 3 of them in my apartment right now. I remember growing up hearing about rich people having flat screen plasmas.
Excited to reach peak smartphone so the prices will come down like TVs
Wonder if that change will occur in smartphones, will be interesting to see
It's called market saturation. When everyone has a TV the only ways to get people to replace a perfectly fine TV is to either offer something new that they want (colour, HD, etc) or reduce the price for something bigger. TVs aren't at all alone though, many areas of computing have followed similar trends, storage being a major one (HDDs, SDDs, RAM, FLASH, etc).
Its a status thing I believe. A car sends a message to Society, so does a cell Phone that unlike a TV(still in an indoor space), can acumulate a lot of wear. The change from boxy TV sets to flat TVs and I remember this distinctly going to more wealthy friends house when I was a Child, it was a status symbol and a very important one since this is a center piece of a living room. My Mother liked it(she wasnt bad herself financially better than most here), and the 1080p TV she bought in 2007 lasted a very long time, until it went dead. At the time we had another old TV from my late grandmother and that is what I am using now, neither me or my Mother care, the TV is good enough.
It works like this if I have to buy, I look for something nice, if I dont, I dont care. TV is mostly to track news and watch movies or something.
another part of it, to deal with the delayed adoption side of it, is that TVs aren't smart... that is to say you don't expect them to help you with your taxes or remember hundreds of numbers for you that you may need to access at a moment's notice, the other devices that do deal with these things are much more important and if they're slow or even just percieved to be slow, people will be ready to move on as soon as you provide something supposedly better. TVs do the job well enough for most for many years after the initial model was produced so why waste money on upgrading? This means that the only way to sell them is to price them low enough that people can impulse buy them. No other tech sector has that problem as there are far more levers for companies to pull everywhere else to convince you to shell out money and upgrade.
I don't think so. The reason is that TV-s, despite their huge innovations in recent years, are still just a "home appliance". Just like a washing machine you don't buy a new one until the old one breaks down (or becomes so outdated it's no longer useful). And by the time you do buy a new TV, anything is a big upgrade, so marketing won't have as much effect as the pricing.
Even Apple would need to price its phones more competitively if the only ones buying them, would be those updating from decade old iPhone 5-s and Blackberry-s. As for cars, unlike phones and TV-s, they (sadly) do actually get worse with use, and require more frequent (and costly) repairs. If not for that I do think most people would never buy a new can.
Part of this is also caused by the fact that the newer generations (the ones that buy a new phone every few years) kinda lost interest in TV's. I've used the family TV maybe like 5 times in the past year and this number will probably go down to 0 this year.
The reason TV prices keep falling is because the LCD tech keeps maturing more and more and is very well documented. Same for the CRT TVs, the tech was maturing and the manufacturing processes kept being refined more and more.
It's not just TV. Tech in general is getting cheaper for the same capabilities. The reason other tech is more expensive is that it keeps getting more advanced too. Meanwhile TV resolutions haven't changed much. 1080p TVs became available around the mid 2000s. 4K TVs became available in the early to mid 2010s.
The jump from 1080p to 4K is definitely noticeable, much more so than from 4K to 8K. Not to mention that 4K content is still not widely available. 4K is also about the limit of what your eyes can see. At 8K you probably won't notice much of a difference compared to 4K.
As far as data collection is concerned, data collection isn't super effective, as it only takes someone to not connect the TV online or for an ISP to introduce ad blocking for an additional monthly fee and it all shits itself.
I want myself a bigger tv. Those walmarts keep on pumping out tv with coffin sizes and cheap price, but only to think that they do the same thing as my old tv. So, even walmart still can't get my money.
Me, who bought a 4K 120Hz QLED in 2021: I do exist. Now I feel lonely.
At casinos they call you a Mark 😂
I bought mine in 2023 so that's technically behind the times.
This is why Apple has tried to expand all their digital services and focus heavily on software compatibility across all products and services. Apple knows that in the long-run they too will eventually fall into the same economic trap as TVs. However, I will argue that TVs have one major disadvantage: they last a long time. I have a 27 inch Samsung LCD TV that I bought in 2014 and it still works. That is almost 10 years. I have also had a Sony DVD player last that long as well. TVs plug into the wall whereas Cell Phones have batteries. I have bought three iPhones so far in my lifetime for my wife and every time I bought her a new one was because the battery was not working well. If there was a more durable battery in iPhones, then Apple would probably sell less iPhones. The catch is, Apple is probably not going to invest in improving battery technology unless its competition forces them to change. It is like car manufactures that design cars to last long enough under a manufacture warranty, but as soon as it is past the warranty, the car begins to have serious mechanical problems.
It makes more sense that we're a lot more conscious when we purchase a TV because it's not just a piece of technology, but also a piece of furniture--you have to decide where it's going to go, if it's going to be mounted, what's going to be connected to it, etc. Your phone goes wherever you go, and even computers--particularly those with wi-fi--can be shifted around, but TVs remain stationary. You normally have either a media console or a mount, maybe a sound bar to go with it, and maybe game consoles attached to it. It's a whole thing, and to change it up every year when a new one comes out is going to be too much of a hassle. The juice has to be worth the squeeze.
For what it's worth, I think we're becoming more savvy when it comes to phones, too. I was an annual iPhone upgrader through the XS but I ended up skipping the 11 and only bought the 15 because my 12 started having overheating issues. Seems like market saturation has reached its peak and we're all starting to feel the fatigue when it comes to having the latest and greatest.
The next step for TVs will be Vision Glasses with emersive experiences, that puts even more pressure on TV market. Until then, no real change should be expected. The real issue is movie quality and that writers are paid too little, not screen resolution.
Agree. VR/AR/Vision is the future but hot damn those modern massive OLED panels in a dark room is quite breathtaking and impressive today.
Wow I've never been this early before! Keep up the great work 🎉
Thanks for being early bro!
I remember when I first got a job in my own place in 2007 I bought a 55 inch Samsung LCD TV and a 42 inch Samsung LCD TV neither one of them were smart but the total cost was over $5000. what’s funny about it I still have them, and even though I don’t use them on a daily basis because one is in a spare bedroom and the other is out in the garage they still work great I just stuck Apple TV devices on them. You’re right though I really don’t care about new technology when it comes to televisions.
Ah, have a similar tv from the same period as well haha
Passing 100" will sell quite a few units I believe, usually numbers like these draw in customers. If TCL can figure out how to bring their 115" TV to EU/US, not just China they'd move some serious units.
It's only 4k though and at 115" 4k isn't enough really.
At that point you start running into the limits of what people can physically fit in their home. My friend got an 85'', and if it was any larger he would not have been physically able to get it through the door into his apartment. Nor would it have fit on his wall. And that 85'' TV is already comically oversized for the size of his living room. I just don't think TV's can get much larger outside of niche uses.
Though the input latency on my friend's giant TV is painful, so there is some room for improvement there. But only weirdos like myself seem to care.
@@fnorgen I agree, but homes are all different, my friend just got a 98" and that was easy as could be to get in and install. I measured my house ffor the 115" box and it wouldn't be a problem either, around 140" is when I run into problems here.
This is mostly an American suburbia thing to have enough space for 100“ TVs I don’t think this will shake up the market at all. This is ultra high end for the general public
Another big reason is that with the improvement of manufacturing techniques, less waste panels are made. Any of the lower quality panels can simply be binning and sold for a lower price allowing them to make back more money per sheet.
Actually all electronic appliance prices are going down. TV/refrigerator/laundry machine/microwave and the list goes on. These appliance technology are saturated to the point that better version does not increase that much value to daily life.
I have fallen for this!! Thanks for the clarity!
I think it can also be the fact that TV's are not needed anymore just like cable. From 2012 to 2022 we didn't even have a TV. There was no need for one. 1 the space in the apartment, lugging it around when you move and at the end of the day a TV is just a big window into the entertainment world. We are in an age where a phone can do the same thing and so much more, a laptop can be a TV, a PC will serve the same function, a tablet or Ipad, and the list goes on. Plus the main thing TV's provided were channels and cable. But cable is just dead now so all the shows and movies can be watched on everything else now. Most of the people I know have a TV that they just use as a second screen even me.
Love your videos man, you always get an instant like from me 👍🏾
Thanks man! Really appreciate that!
Great video as always
Thank you as always Balpreet!
i like how engaging this video is good job bro
I have a 60" Pioneer Kuro, last of its time. Forward facing speakers attached to sides, plugged in a chromecast, still going strong. And the metal remote still have all the white on the buttons! My LG Oled remotes have basically rubbed off within the year 😢
Bro. I’m binging your channel. Just love love love your content. Recommending to my colleagues and friends. I never knew I cared about tvs this much lol 🤣
Well done! From Australia. 😊
Thank you bro! 🙏
OLED has been too expensive with burn-in issues, along with questions of durability. LCDs are dirt cheap and they have gotten better over the years. There was a very interesting video comparing evolution of crab-like bodies to modern televisions -- basically, all TV technologies are going to the same place.
Saw that video too, was super interesting. Crabs pop up everywhere
Yep. I have an OLED but it's in my den and used mostly for movies in the evenings. The TV that I keep on all day is LCD and always will be until something else comes along without the risk of burn in. There's something to be said for technology that has proven itself over time to be reliable. It may not be the cutting edge, but you know what to expect many years down the road.
@MrMoogle TVs have really reached their peak tbh, nothing much to improve at this point and they are also cheaper than ever.
Check out RTINGS real world burn-in test you'll see it's no longer an issue on modern OLED TV's. OLED is so damned worth it, it's amazing especially in darker scenes.
Micro LED will become the ideal format for a TV.
Hari, I think you should consult with some economists when tackling these topics. The content is good but it's missing some depth. Prof. Antony Davies has a podcast discussing these issues you should check out called Words and Numbers.
Ah, appreciate the constructive feedback man. Will check it out.
@@LogicallyAnsweredlol that doesn't look constructive to me, just sounded rude
@@minimatterspodcast Not rude at all. Generally, his stuff is on point, but when it comes to economics, many journalists, experts, and historians are vastly uninformed, which can lead to issues with video explainers not having the right source information.
Yes, consumer aspect is cover more growth for commercial would have aided content interesting 😅
0:59 - Note that there is no such word as "costed".
For the verb "to cost", the form of the past participle is "cost".
"Ten years ago, both of these would have cost you thousands of dollars."
And the same is true for the form of the simple past tense.
"When I bought this, it cost me $100."
The prices of TVs have constantly declined since in the modern days as they are competing with other portable screens like devices known as mobile phones, tablets and laptops. These devices weren't available during or immediately after WWII. In the same way prices of land driven cars are expected to be under a constant decline when we get into the world of flying cars a.k.a Coruscant. It's that simple.
They've also kind of lost part of their initial point with younger demographics; actually watching TV. The internet is something you'd pay for anyway and there's effectively infinite content on it, so why pay for cable? Gaming is most of the reason anyone under the age of 45 would buy a TV, the rest overlapping with being whatever streaming service of choice is on it. Considering the absolute minimum requirement streaming even needs to comfortably work and gaming being preference-based, the price of the TV most bought is going to be the one that satisfies the most for the least.
6% profit is comparable to what sony makes off of a ps unit sold. based on an article from 2019 that stated the cost to build each playstation 4 came out to $381 dollars, leaving just $19 for profit
You know it will be an excellent video when you hear: 'taking a look back'
Hahaha
Part of this could also be due to the emergence of smart phones and computers as media consuming devices. There just isn't as much demand for TV's if you are already watching stuff on other machines as a mode of market competition.
I mostly use my tv for playing PS4. Other than that there's very minimal value in a tv. CZcams app doesn't let you change playback speed, same with Netflix and whatever else there is out there. Not like there are much media produce per year that's worth consuming. If I paid for everything I consumed, I would watch like 4 movies, 2 tv show seasons, and like 3 video games per year if all those industries had banger years. Plus if it's gets expensive enough, might as well use my laptop that I require regardless.
Me and my wife bought a mini PC for 150USD, plays 4k no problems, hook that up to your TV via HDMI, buy a cheap wireless mini keyboard and mouse, now you can play youtube, skip, do whatever, on your tv, and all in all it'll set you back at most 200USD and it'll work with your next TV too.
TVs are appliances. You rarely get to compare how well the new model works unless you happen to be in someone else’s house- unlike new cars and smartphones which you see every day. The most common reason to buy a new TV is that the old one broke.
If apple dominates TV, they would remove hdmi port and have game system built-in, forcing users to upgrade every year 😂
I mean, you also can not carry your tv to a club, mall, or work, so it doesn't really work as a social status item. On the other hand, clothes, phones, and cars are all visible when we are in public. Hence, they are treated as social status items. The majority of people do not even know the difference between the latest gen and precious gen iphone, and cars change very slightly between years. Yet we gravitate to new cars for social status.
This is super minor but 45 cents in 1965 is about $4.43 today, which would mean a Big Mac actually has not increased in price significantly
Amazing content! I don’t miss any of your videos. One observation though. “Logically Answered” why to “logically explained”? Who is asking the questions!!!
But something that was forgot or maybe I missed … don’t all the apps included on TVs help to subsidize Big Tech TVs since the late 2000s upon the arrival of SmartTVs ?
Yeees😊
A lot of what keeps them cheap is that people aren't willing to spend to much on tvs and they're adding features that they dont put as much effort into making so they can use the TV to serve ads to the audience i personally hate modern TVs so i go out of my way to get non smart options(i currently use a 1k Samsung TV from 2009)
Yep, I Purposely got the one I’ve been using(2011 46in Sony Vizio)for the last five years now just because of all the crap that’s embedded into the new ones like cameras. I mean seriously CAMERAS??? I don’t care if it’s a million k there’s no way I’m paying for a government camera and a remote with a mic on it. When I first heard that all new tv’s were going to have this I thought that surely people in mass would take a stand against it. It literally blew my mind when I realized nobody cared about having a gov camera in their living room with a mic on their remote that you can’t even turn off. That’s also the time(2018) when I started seeing the fast approaching cliff that in 24 we’ve already gone past the point of no return from.😕Things today are just ridiculous.🤨
Interesting... good points but just this week I was lamenting the opposite. if I want a flagship phone from a few years ago it's very cheap but a 2020 65 inch 4k TV cost the same as it did back then.
TV is one of those things that people consider optional but essential, it is a sign you have some disposable cash. Some people will have a house that is empty but they buy a TV. They are going to buy a TV it just does not have to be the latest
05:30 I saw an article about over a decade ago, they basically said the bigger the thing the less likely people are to replace it. A new television costs as much as a new mobile telephone, but while people replace their telephones every few years, many people use the same televisions for over a decade or even multiple decades.
🇨🇦 Many will love how this is original & vintage.
The best advice is to buy a computer monitor, not a TV. You get what you pay for without selling your data. Of course there are the over hyped "bleeding edge" monitors, but for the most part you end up avoiding a lot of the negatives associated with TVs.
yeah Big Mac used to cost 45 cents in 1960, but the median household income in 1960 was $5,600 a year. Median household income for 2022 is $74,580. So if the cost is constant, a Big Mac today would cost $6, but the average cost is $5.15 in the US, less than it should be. Basically goods that are mostly commodity based (such as food, olil) are not going to get cheaper like technology based goods. Technology advance, but a burger is still a burger, made of wheat, beef, and a 16 year old flipping it one by one.
I don't know who you're talking to that thinks 8k is stupid, or who thought that 4k was stupid. I have never heard anyone say that. I have heard that it might not be worth it to buy a higher resolution display when the hardware you use to drive it can't handle it anyways, but never that higher resolution is stupid.
Great video!
Thanks man!
I litterally have never paid for a TV in at least 20 years, I get them all for free from my neighbors who upgrade every few years and just give me their old TVs.
Basically, people can not show how well off they are with TVs (since nobody carry their TVs around). They can however show off with cars and phones
A few people which visited us at home told us that we need a bigger TV, and that was the main reason we upgraded :D But yes, I got a cool Samsung smart TV for some 350 EUR - nice!
im back. again. good topic
Glad to have you back Aaron!
I'm waiting for the day that the TV manufacturers pay me to take the TV!
In the CRT TV's, the cathode's emission material degraded. The plasma TV's had a screen burn-in problem. The LCD TV's had failing backlights. And the (X-)LED TV's have failing PSU's and logic boards. 3D caused headaches. Smart TV's are privacy nightmares. Onwards from the beginning, it made sense to just use the TV for as long as it would go, because the next thing is not necessarily a good thing.
In fact, in past and present, these are the only reasons people got/get a new TV:
1. replacing a CRT box for a flatscreen, which needs less space.
2. replace a broken TV
3. replace for a bigger one than what friends/family/neighbors currently own
Content availability always lagged behind the newest technology. It doesn't make sense for the media industry to invest in 8K tech if the majority of the public still has 4K TV's. The public won't pay extra for 8K if there's no content available. The public will only buy 8K if the price is approximately the same. Except maybe for the people that also use the TV for their newest gaming rig.
TV production cost became a lot cheaper. Just take a look inside TV's from through the years and you'll see. In cars, you'll see quite the opposite: in old ones, you'll see quite a lot of empty space under the hood, while modern ones are crammed to the point that some components are relocated, like the battery in the rear, washer fluid down in the bumper/fender.
I do follow TV prices and they have fallen through the ground. Laptops and computers have also come down while cell phones are creeping up.
I bought an 86” LG tv 3 years ago from Best Buy for $2,500 and thought it was the coolest thing ever. Last month my dad bought an 86” LG from Sam’s club for $1,100 it’s amazing. TVs are the only thing that’s affordable anymore
The features do not sell but appearance does is interesting. If that is the case, then it back to our basic instinct, follow the crowd and do not want to be left behind.
Just FYI I think there's much less market place interference with TVs compared to computer chips... With computer chips it's sanction by governments who can get what foundry what not. TVs just seem like the wild west, where there's no restrictions holding back development or production.
Great stuff. Plus how do you show your superior status with a TV when your TV sits in the livingroom, huh?
A big reason I think it's the TVs have next to no resale value. With an iPhone you can sell it for a good amount the next year and trade in for a new one for a couple hundred $. No way you can do that with a TV.
It takes a idiot to buy a crapple phone to begin with.
Why would you buy a new phone each year? They don't change that much.
Don't forget that a huge amount of data utilization has subsidized the prices of TVs. You definitely mentioned it but it's a big element... The fact that most TVs are now tech service billboards within people's homes where they are served content, without consent, and their usage data is likewise collected without consent, is an actual service that can be thought of as a subsidy to TV prices.
This most certainly is happening in smartphones as well, the general population has no concept for how much cost and engineering goes into designing these devices, much less building them. The data theft/utilization is a huge subsidy.
Just dont connect it to the internet
Mobile phone prices work the same way. If you ignore the premium phones and just look at the regular models, you will see that the quality and features of a modern phone are light years ahead of phones from ten or twenty years ago ... and at a lower price.
You became my go to watch before sleep…overtaking Joe Rogan! Good stuff bro
I’ve a 150 inch screen and the difference between HD & 4K is Day and night. So I’m optimistic on 8K
It's not just TVs, it's consumer electronics as a whole. Do you want to know why? Electronics are all but completely unregulated by government. Other than a few housekeeping regs by the FCC, they can do whatever they want. So the stuff gets better and better, and prices are in freefall. Practically no other market in the USA has this level of freedom.