Author Topic: After all, my TV was only $3000! And I'll get another one in a few years!!  (Read 4357 times)

Money Badger

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 352
I tried a search for this topic, so tell me if this is a duplicate so we close this.    Here goes...

In the "holy shit, how can anyone be so stupid" department, a buddy mentioned recently he paid $3K for a TV.   His words came back to me recently as I began to lust for a nicer, newer 4K TV with at least most of the latest goodies to replace my 11 year old plasma that's still working fine but showing its age in a few ways.   Simply put, when I went to shop TVs and saw the prices, I couldn't breathe!    Much worse, the major brands have cartels to dictate prices, even ensuring all retailers sales prices are identical and that prices go back UP after sales the same day.   How can this price-fixing be in America?!    Anyhoo, wht are your favorite TV MMM hall of shame moments?

penguintroopers

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 137
Somewhat connected, but there was a thread about scrapping a $3500 TV: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/scrapping-a-$3500-tv/

And as for you shopping, don't feel guilt over it. If you want a new TV thinking you'll enjoy it, go get it. Hubby and I just did an upgrade kind of like yours (720 p to 4k) and are blown away by the quality. We love it.

We got something like a 40 in Samsung for $350 on a cyber Monday deal from Best Buy. Worth it.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3716
  • Age: 28
TVs are not expensive anymore.  I bought a 43" Sharp fancypants 1080p with built-in Roku just over a year ago for $229.  I remember my parents paying triple that for a 27" SD CRT that weighed four times as much in ~2004.

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • Location: NZ
Iím still rocking a 1080p plasma and loving it. To get something better (color accuracy, black levels, refresh rate), Iíd need to go OLED, and theyíre still stupid expensive in NZ, and too new to be available in the second hand market.

I was tempted to go for a short throw laser projector so I can easily change the screen size (small for tv, large for movies). But the daylight performance isnít quite good enough yet. Oh well, Iíll be waiting patiently.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6032
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
I paid $3k for my TV (8 years ago). You can get it for under 500 bucks these days. I got suckered into the whole 3D HD LED LCD <insert TLA here> craze.

  Much worse, the major brands have cartels to dictate prices, even ensuring all retailers sales prices are identical and that prices go back UP after sales the same day.   How can this price-fixing be in America?!

You live in a country where you have decided not to impose proper regulation on your corporations. (Because anything that limits the free market in any way at all is socialism/communism/marxism/<insert ism here>)

So now that your lobbyists have sufficiently watered down competition law, the firms can get together raising prices on everyone.


NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2148
  • Location: Cleveland
We're on our third TV in the last ~4 years ... total cost to us is about $20 for some adapters when the input/output doesn't match up with the rest of our entertainment stuff.

Families keep buying new stuff and giving us their (barely used) ones. We have two perfectly good HD LCDs that we don't know what to do with. We'll probably try to sell on Craigslist or something.

Michael in ABQ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
    • Military Saints
How large is a $3,000 TV, 80 inches? I see TVs for sale at Costco and even the largest ones are maybe $1,500. Plenty of 50"+ TVs for $500 or so it seems.

We've still got a 32" Samsung TV I bought on Black Friday at Costco 8-9 years ago for maybe $300. It mostly gets used for the kids to watch one show a day on Netflix and once every couple of months a family movie.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 12:33:07 PM by Michael in ABQ »

EricEng

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 190
  • Location: CO
Spent $2,200 for our 75" 4k a couple years back and love it.  Plan to use it for a long while.  It gets a lot of use during cold, winter nights so I feel it was a good investment.  Spending that much with plans to replace soon is just silly.

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Location: State: Denial
Much worse, the major brands have cartels to dictate prices, even ensuring all retailers sales prices are identical and that prices go back UP after sales the same day.   How can this price-fixing be in America?!
I suspect this is a result of Minimum Advertised Price policies set by the manufacturers.  It sounds terrible until you take the time to research it.  Manufacturers want as wide a distribution network as they can, since that gets their product in front of the most people.  Some retailers, for example Walmart, are of a size and scale that they can run with much tighter margins than other smaller retailers.  Without MAP, Walmart can sell a widget for less than a mom-and-pop down the street.  As a result, Walmart (or Amazon, or whatever other big company) would get all the sales, and the Mom & Pop store would be unable to make a profit on the widget, so they stop carrying it.  The manufacturer loses that part of the distribution network as a result, and the widget gets less visibility in the marketplace, leading to lower sales.  The rise of internet commerce has exacerbated this tremendously.

So manufacturers require Minimum Advertised Price on their retailers.  That puts all the retailers on the same footing, in terms of being able to sell the product.  As a result, more dealers are willing to carry the product, so the product appears on more store shelves, so more consumers see it, so sales are higher.

If there's competition for producing the widget, MAP isn't a problem--if the manufacturer sets it too high, consumers will opt for the competition.  However, if there *isn't* competition, then there are antitrust issues that come into play.

penguintroopers

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 137
Spent $2,200 for our 75" 4k a couple years back and love it.  Plan to use it for a long while.  It gets a lot of use during cold, winter nights so I feel it was a good investment.  Spending that much with plans to replace soon is just silly.

Interesting.

I don't think they read this article: https://priceonomics.com/televisions/

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2541
Great article. TVs have always been one of those things my family buys and uses until they cease to function. Then replace and upgrade at the same time. A regional thing perhaps?

I guess that would be too slow for the folks who are enthusiastic about this year's new technology and want to buy. And then repeat sooner than later.

We're on year five perhaps with our 42" Samsung TV that I purchased for $375 from Sears.

BDWW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
  • Location: MT
Maybe I'm misreading, but I'm confused on the OP's point. Is he claiming TVs are "price fixed" and incredibly expensive?

As others have alluded to, prices for TVs have never (in my memory) been cheaper. Our current TV is a 1080p 47", bought in 2007 for $1300. Just walking through costco a couple weeks ago, and a 4K 50" was $379.99. 4K 65 inchers were in the $600-900 range.

To get into the $3K range, you have to be looking near top of the line huge OLED, or be getting suckered.

bridget

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 567
My husband bought a $3k TV a few months ago.  I do not understand it at all, but he swears up and down that he sees a very big difference in the picture quality.  Something about the pixels actually turning off when the color is supposed to be black, to make it the "blackest black."  It was not worth $3k to me, but it was for him.  He has very frugal habits in almost every other area, and we save much more than 50% of our (high) income, so I decided it wasn't worth resisting. 

EricEng

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 190
  • Location: CO
My husband bought a $3k TV a few months ago.  I do not understand it at all, but he swears up and down that he sees a very big difference in the picture quality.  Something about the pixels actually turning off when the color is supposed to be black, to make it the "blackest black."  It was not worth $3k to me, but it was for him.  He has very frugal habits in almost every other area, and we save much more than 50% of our (high) income, so I decided it wasn't worth resisting.
My wife used to say swear couldn't see the difference between her old dvds and the blueray and 4k movies for months and said I was being silly about it.  After 6 months of watching my 1080p and 4k movie collection, she has been unable to watch her old DVD movies at 420 and 720p quality.  She fully admits now how dramatic a difference it is.  Just depends on what you are used to.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2148
  • Location: Cleveland
My husband bought a $3k TV a few months ago.  I do not understand it at all, but he swears up and down that he sees a very big difference in the picture quality.  Something about the pixels actually turning off when the color is supposed to be black, to make it the "blackest black."  It was not worth $3k to me, but it was for him.  He has very frugal habits in almost every other area, and we save much more than 50% of our (high) income, so I decided it wasn't worth resisting.

You know what else makes your blacks seem darker? Putting a small light behind the screen.

I can typically see the difference between a high end set and a cheap one, but I do video for a living. I have to really resist the urge to turn off the high refresh rates and vivid color profiles when we visit family, because it drives me totally bonkers (everything looks like home video, basically).

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3716
  • Age: 28
My husband bought a $3k TV a few months ago.  I do not understand it at all, but he swears up and down that he sees a very big difference in the picture quality.  Something about the pixels actually turning off when the color is supposed to be black, to make it the "blackest black."  It was not worth $3k to me, but it was for him.  He has very frugal habits in almost every other area, and we save much more than 50% of our (high) income, so I decided it wasn't worth resisting.
Yeah, he's talking about OLED, and that definitely is the "next big thing" on its way as far as TV display tech goes, but not worth $3k to me either.

Really though, once you're past a certain acceptability threshold (maybe 32" 720p/50" 1080p? modern LCD) it's hard for making the case that a bigger or better picture makes a difference in actual enjoyment of content.  And I say this as a total tech dork about this kind of thing.  The best contrast ratio in the world won't make Adam Sandler any funnier.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 01:19:45 PM by ketchup »

VaCPA

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
How large is a $3,000 TV, 80 inches? I see TVs for sale at Costco and even the largest ones are maybe $1,500. Plenty of 50"+ TVs for $500 or so it seems.

We've still got a 32" Samsung TV I bought on Black Friday at Costco 8-9 years ago for maybe $300. It mostly gets used for the kids to watch one show a day on Netflix and once every couple of months a family movie.

A 55-70 inch tv could go for $3k if it's one of the newest technologies, like OLED or QLED. Most 4k tvs have come down in price dramatically the last few years though.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2148
  • Location: Cleveland
The best contrast ratio in the world won't make Adam Sandler any funnier funny.

FTFY ;)

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3716
  • Age: 28
The best contrast ratio in the world won't make Adam Sandler any funnier funny.

FTFY ;)
I was trying to be diplomatic. :P

Michael in ABQ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
    • Military Saints
I just walked past the TV section at Costco yesterday and the highest price I saw was $1,800 for a 75" TV. It was Vizio which I know is a cheaper brand so I guess a better brand would probably be over $2,000. There were other 55"-65" TVs for well under $1,000 though that seemed to have a lot of bells and whistles.

dividend

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
My husband bought a $3k TV a few months ago.  I do not understand it at all, but he swears up and down that he sees a very big difference in the picture quality.  Something about the pixels actually turning off when the color is supposed to be black, to make it the "blackest black."  It was not worth $3k to me, but it was for him.  He has very frugal habits in almost every other area, and we save much more than 50% of our (high) income, so I decided it wasn't worth resisting.
Yeah, he's talking about OLED, and that definitely is the "next big thing" on its way as far as TV display tech goes, but not worth $3k to me either.

Really though, once you're past a certain acceptability threshold (maybe 32" 720p/50" 1080p? modern LCD) it's hard for making the case that a bigger or better picture makes a difference in actual enjoyment of content.  And I say this as a total tech dork about this kind of thing.  The best contrast ratio in the world won't make Adam Sandler any funnier.

We recently replaced my husband's 9 year old, 50 inch plasma.  Repeated burn-in from playing Mario Kart for 10 hours at a stretch or me falling asleep with with the Netflix logo front and center was starting to impact the picture quality.  We host a lot of movie nights and watch parties for stuff like Westworld and Game of Thrones, and watch a lot of dark sci-fi, so that whole "blackest-black" thing meant that, for us, the OLED was the logical successor to the plasma technology.  We spent about a year casually looking, and researching.  And I ended up standing in front of a Sony Bravia and the "comparable" LG for like an hour, after making the sales guy turn off the vivid mode bullshit and put them on the exact same settings.  I'm convinced that I could see the difference in picture quality, and it didn't make sense to me spend that much on a new TV and not spend the relative little bit more to get the best in class.  So yeah.  Count me as another one with a >50% SR (of a high income), who bought a $3k TV.  No regrets.  The picture is beautiful.  We enjoy it.  Our friends enjoy it.  My husband enjoys it from his exercise bike for at least an hour a day.

Ananas

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Only 3000$ for a TV, that's far too cheap for my wannabe rich relatives. They bought a B&amp;O Avant TV. Prices starting at 9000Ä for 55" and 12000Ä for the 75".
https://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/collection/televisions/beovision-avant



« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 08:14:32 AM by Ananas »

jeroly

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 64
When I split from my ex five years ago and moved into my own place I splurged and bought a 70" 1080p Visio TV for $1500 through Amazon. It's still got a more than good enough picture but I will eventually replace it - when I can get a 100" OLED 4k TV for $1500, which I figure will be in about 5 to 7 years.

charmonkie

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 10
My cousin recently spent just over $3k on a TV.  I like to joke with him that the 4k on the box was just the resolution and not the price tag :)

A coworker spent an unknown amount on a TV + sound system.  But he DID mention he spent $1,000 to have someone come into his house and set it up "properly" for him.  Not running new wires, but using some machine to determine the proper placement for each speaker and bass levels, and the contrast/whatever setting for the TV based on lighting.  The guy had to come at night so they could properly do it the same time of day he would be watching movies in the evening.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2148
  • Location: Cleveland
But he DID mention he spent $1,000 to have someone come into his house and set it up "properly" for him.  Not running new wires, but using some machine to determine the proper placement for each speaker and bass levels, and the contrast/whatever setting for the TV based on lighting.  The guy had to come at night so they could properly do it the same time of day he would be watching movies in the evening.

I may have missed my calling ...

NoVa

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 127
But he DID mention he spent $1,000 to have someone come into his house and set it up "properly" for him.  Not running new wires, but using some machine to determine the proper placement for each speaker and bass levels, and the contrast/whatever setting for the TV based on lighting.  The guy had to come at night so they could properly do it the same time of day he would be watching movies in the evening.

I may have missed my calling ...
It's probably ISF calibration, stands for the Imaging Science Foundation. They have been around since the 90's. Overkill for most people, but if you truly care about picture quality and are not technically inclined it can make a big difference. Not usually worth the expense on a TV, most people I know who got it done were setting up a projector in a home theater.

ISF is just for video, the audio portion I am not familiar with, there is THX calibration but I have never seen it done. Usually audio problems require some sort of actual treatment, things like sound absorbing panels, etc.,  not just moving speakers around.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 01:03:49 PM by jfolsen »

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 839
My husband bought a $3k TV a few months ago.  I do not understand it at all, but he swears up and down that he sees a very big difference in the picture quality.  Something about the pixels actually turning off when the color is supposed to be black, to make it the "blackest black."  It was not worth $3k to me, but it was for him.  He has very frugal habits in almost every other area, and we save much more than 50% of our (high) income, so I decided it wasn't worth resisting.
My wife used to say swear couldn't see the difference between her old dvds and the blueray and 4k movies for months and said I was being silly about it.  After 6 months of watching my 1080p and 4k movie collection, she has been unable to watch her old DVD movies at 420 and 720p quality.  She fully admits now how dramatic a difference it is.  Just depends on what you are used to.

Sort of like when CDs became a thing and everyone suddenly noticed how awful and hissy cassette tapes were.

dcheesi

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
I can't remember if I saw this here or on another site, but it certainly belongs in this thread:

https://www.nirandfar.com/2018/02/distinction-bias.html


nouveauRiche

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
  • Location: HCOL - USA

Families keep buying new stuff and giving us their (barely used) ones.

Us too!  We have a nice Sony flat screen that was free from a friend who was upgrading.  It's waaaay nicer than the CRT behemoth it replaced. 

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Location: MA
I donít really watch a ton of TV.  We have a 7 or 8 year old Samsung flat screen that is 46Ē and works great.  4K is tempting, but I will probably wait until my TV breaks.