6 ms·

Why does (consumer) monitor tech always seem to lag TV tech by a few years? It looks like the situation is still that in the 4k OLED space there are a few ~$40

Why does (consumer) monitor tech always seem to lag TV tech by a few years? It looks like the situation is still that in the 4k OLED space there are a few ~$4000+ monitors and dozens of ~$1000 TVs. Per the pcpartpicker link, maybe the Gigabyte FO48U will change that, but it's still out of stock. Besides, I feel like this has happened before with HDR and 4k and IPS. First it shows up in TVs, a year later it is cheap in TVs, a year later it is expensive in monitors, and finally it becomes cheap in monitors. But it takes years. Which seems odd, since surely they use the same panels? Is it an industry structure thing, where panel manufacturers integrate and co-develop with TV manufacturers but monitor manufacturers are separate, only get the panels after release, and need a year or three to turn things around?

bsedlm 5y ago
> Why does (consumer) monitor tech always seem to lag TV tech by a few years? because there's more money to be made selling TVs than monitors? consequentely, it's TV manufacturers pushing the entire display maker industry ahead? and so they get the newer tech first??
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  That's what I suspect, yes, but if that's the case it feels like integrating a monitor manufacturer would be a quick and easy business win for the TV guys.
  - antisthenes 5y ago
    > it feels like integrating a monitor manufacturer would be a quick and easy business win for the TV guys. What does this even mean? The same companies that make panels for monitors usually make panels for the TVs as well. They already have production facilities that can manufacture panel sizes ranging from cell-phone size to 200" commercial wall panels.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      Most people don't buy the volume to get a special size panel. Want a panel, you can save a ton of money buying one we already make. My company has obsoleted perfectly good embedded systems and had to redesign a new UI just because the panel we used went out of production. (I knew all along doing pixel perfect UI instead of one that scaled was a stupid idea, but I got overruled, now we spend a ton of money making our UI scale)
brtkdotse 5y ago
TV manufacturers can offset the lower price by selling ads to show you on your “smart” tv
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  That wouldn't explain the delay, and do they really expect to sell $3000 of ads per customer? I have doubts.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    They get money from the ads, they get money from selling your usage data, they get money by selling space on the remote for streaming apps, and probably through some other means as well.
    - jjoonathan 5y ago
      Sure, but my intuition says they might get a few hundred dollars that way, tops. Is my intuition off by an entire order of magnitude?
      - WillPostForFood 5y ago
        Vizio, as a public company, now has to share their ad revenue data: https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/11/10/22773073/vizio-acr-advertising-inscape-data-privacy-q3-2021 https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/11/10/22773073/vi...
        jjoonathan 5y ago
        > from $10.44 to $19.89. Yeah, I thought $3000 sounded silly, and my only mistake was that I thought it was one order of magnitude silly when in fact it was two orders of magnitude silly.
        cgriswald 5y ago
caymanjim 5y ago
TV display quality is dogshit compared to monitors. Even cheap low-end monitors tend to have better displays. They aren't the same panels at all.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Nope. I'm using an OLED TV as a monitor on my main PC, and it kicks the pants off any monitor I've ever used before, including the 2021 MBP monitor I'm typing this on right now.
  - onemoresoop 5y ago
    Which one are you using if you don't mind me asking?
    - jjoonathan 5y ago
      LG C1. I have to turn it off and on with a remote, take the usual OLED precautions, and tolerate its "smart" nonsense, but the color is gorgeous and the contrast is magical.
      - KptMarchewa 5y ago
        Does autodimming work decently on C1? It's really bothering me when I try to use my CX as a monitor.
        jjoonathan 5y ago
        Agreed, auto-dimming is rough. I turned it off. 60% constant brightness for work, uncapped HDR mode for play.
        WithinReason 5y ago
        How do you switch? Can you do it with just the keyboard?
8note 5y ago
Monitors are built for being an arm's length away. TVs are built for being several yards away. The pixel density changes accordingly
- cyberge99 5y ago
  And so does the ability to use IR or some other remote control mechanism. A “dumb tv” would just be a monitor with a remote to control power and volume.
- lodovic 5y ago
  There are monitors built specifically for digital signage, these have the same specs as large TVs but no tuner or adware.
kube-system 5y ago
Volume? Whether we're talking about TVs or monitors, the most competitive offerings are always the segments that sell in volume. Just because OLED tech "exists" doesn't mean the equipment exists to make it economically at any particular size, format, etc. We have affordable TV-sized and phone-sized OLEDs because LG has invested in the equipment to make those particular panels in those particular sizes.
iypx 5y ago
Maybe in the high-end only? Speaking of low to mid end tvs, the ones I saw on display in local shops, they were just overpriced junk.. Even though it's smaller, I installed my 7? year old 24" benq fhd e-ips monitor as a tv for my parents. $120 + $20 for the cheapest 2.1 sound (I think 2x10W + sub), cranked the bass much higher than advised, put the speakers behind the monitor and the sub on the floor + ISP tv box with remote. Speakers and monitor are always on, they got their own power saving stuff. My parents are ecstatic, guests are asking where they got the TV from... apparently it looks better that the ones you could buy for $500+... Last time I checked, I remember finding somewhere most tvs don't actually operate at the advertised resolution, they got all kinds of "prettifying" algos. Not going to trust them ever.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  The panels have the advertised resolution, but yes, for "smart" TVs you always have to figure out how to turn off the gross sharpening/compression filters that they use to win the Great Best Buy Screensaver Battle. It can be done, though, and certainly if the manufacturer wanted to omit them in a monitor offering it could.
  - ansible 5y ago
    Two of the most important settings: Game mode. This turns off most/all the image processing, which greatly increases the lag. Overscan. Also turn it off. This zooms in the picture a little to crop out artifacts around the edge.
    - jjoonathan 5y ago
      ^ This.
ksec 5y ago
>Why does (consumer) monitor tech always seem to lag TV tech by a few years?.... Monitor used to have "much" lower input latency, higher PPI, much higher refresh rate and generally higher reliability because they are expected to be constantly on. i.e Their panels have different specifications. Although I am not sure if most of the above are true anymore especially with OLED. Given how TV manufactures have also had focus on gaming. But reliability is still a thing on monitor. That is the similar to reference TV that uses panel from one of two years prior. Edit: I had to look up Panasonic TV set and panel and then I discovered they are pulling out of TV production and outsource to external partner. Sigh. https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1634887160 https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=...
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Yeah, I use gaming mode for my TV-as-a-monitor and if I don't the lag is noticeable even on the desktop. It has the nice side effect of disabling the obnoxious sharpening filters, too. My dedicated monitors have had dismal reliability: one died right after the warranty, one died inside the warranty and they flaked on the warranty anyway. My reliability expectations are rock bottom, my TV will have to work hard to undershoot them.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Why does (consumer) monitor tech always seem to lag TV tech by a few years? Well, “always” seems like an exaggeration; consumer monitors were far beyond 480i before consumer TVs were. > It looks like the situation is still that in the 4k OLED space there are a few ~$4000+ monitors and dozens of ~$1000 TVs. That’s not monitors being behind in tech, that’s TVs being cheaper because of economies of scale and opportunity for ad serving and data harvesting. > Is it an industry structure thing, where panel manufacturers integrate and co-develop with TV manufacturers but monitor manufacturers are separate AFAIK, LG, Sharp, Samung, and Sony are all four panel/TV/monitor manufacturers; I dont think that’s an issue.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Scale and ads are plausible explanations for why monitors are behind in tech, but they're still behind in tech.
  - antisthenes 5y ago
    What a weird nonsensical statement. Monitors and TVs are manufactured with the same "tech", just to different specifications to fit their desired purpose/niche, and to capture the maximum possible value from that market. You could maybe make an argument that Samsung panel tech is behind LG's or something, since companies have separate R&D labs and actually have different technology, but in order to do so you'd have to be an industry expert.
    - jjoonathan 5y ago
      In what world is a comparison "nonsensical"? They both displays pixels. Each can be substituted for the other with a modest amount of non-panel-related effort. They compete. We can compare them. > the same "tech", just to different specifications to fit their desired purpose/niche Clearly not. I am using a TV as a monitor right now, because 4k + OLED + HDR + 120hz was just not available for $1100 in the monitor space six months ago (I think there was a $6000 offering, lol). Looks like it still isn't. This situation has been going on for years. Before OLED it was HDR, before HDR it was 4k, and so on. TVs are always far ahead, monitors are always far behind. I'd rather not use a TV as a monitor because it's a PITA. I have to put up with substantial non-panel-related silliness to make this happen (turn the TV off/on with a remote, deactivate the laggy filters, tolerate the "smart" BS, etc). If monitors are so well tailored to their own niche, why are they losing so badly to a competitor who isn't even trying? > to capture the maximum possible value from that market That's the only explanation I can come up with: monitors are a backwater that the industry just doesn't care much about because volume is lower. Tech has to trickle down, and that takes years.
fragmede 5y ago
TV's are such a big business that they overwhelm the rest of the display manufacturing world. That's why 16:10 monitors basically disappeared - 16:9 is 1080p is a TV. On the other end of the spectrum is professional industry displays which are ahead of consumer facing devices, like are shown at NAB (vs CES) and there you'll find 8k monitors for tens of thousands of dollars.
mrzimmerman 5y ago
If I had to guess I’d say it’s just market size. I’d bet there’s a larger market if people who want a large, high definition TV for movies and shows than there is for people who want a high definition monitor. Most business uses for monitors don’t require high definition, so you’re really looking at specific industries and gaming.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  Excluding that Mac market, I don't think Apple sell anything new anymore that is under 200 PPI.

bsedlm 5y ago

> Why does (consumer) monitor tech always seem to lag TV tech by a few years? because there's more money to be made selling TVs than monitors? consequentely, it's TV manufacturers pushing the entire display maker industry ahead? and so they get the newer tech first??

jjoonathan 5y ago
That's what I suspect, yes, but if that's the case it feels like integrating a monitor manufacturer would be a quick and easy business win for the TV guys.
- antisthenes 5y ago
  > it feels like integrating a monitor manufacturer would be a quick and easy business win for the TV guys. What does this even mean? The same companies that make panels for monitors usually make panels for the TVs as well. They already have production facilities that can manufacture panel sizes ranging from cell-phone size to 200" commercial wall panels.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Most people don't buy the volume to get a special size panel. Want a panel, you can save a ton of money buying one we already make. My company has obsoleted perfectly good embedded systems and had to redesign a new UI just because the panel we used went out of production. (I knew all along doing pixel perfect UI instead of one that scaled was a stupid idea, but I got overruled, now we spend a ton of money making our UI scale)

brtkdotse 5y ago

TV manufacturers can offset the lower price by selling ads to show you on your “smart” tv

jjoonathan 5y ago
That wouldn't explain the delay, and do they really expect to sell $3000 of ads per customer? I have doubts.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  They get money from the ads, they get money from selling your usage data, they get money by selling space on the remote for streaming apps, and probably through some other means as well.
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    Sure, but my intuition says they might get a few hundred dollars that way, tops. Is my intuition off by an entire order of magnitude?
    - WillPostForFood 5y ago
      Vizio, as a public company, now has to share their ad revenue data: https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/11/10/22773073/vizio-acr-advertising-inscape-data-privacy-q3-2021 https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/11/10/22773073/vi...
      - jjoonathan 5y ago
        > from $10.44 to $19.89. Yeah, I thought $3000 sounded silly, and my only mistake was that I thought it was one order of magnitude silly when in fact it was two orders of magnitude silly.
        cgriswald 5y ago

caymanjim 5y ago

TV display quality is dogshit compared to monitors. Even cheap low-end monitors tend to have better displays. They aren't the same panels at all.

jjoonathan 5y ago
Nope. I'm using an OLED TV as a monitor on my main PC, and it kicks the pants off any monitor I've ever used before, including the 2021 MBP monitor I'm typing this on right now.
- onemoresoop 5y ago
  Which one are you using if you don't mind me asking?
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    LG C1. I have to turn it off and on with a remote, take the usual OLED precautions, and tolerate its "smart" nonsense, but the color is gorgeous and the contrast is magical.
    - KptMarchewa 5y ago
      Does autodimming work decently on C1? It's really bothering me when I try to use my CX as a monitor.
      - jjoonathan 5y ago
        Agreed, auto-dimming is rough. I turned it off. 60% constant brightness for work, uncapped HDR mode for play.
        WithinReason 5y ago
        How do you switch? Can you do it with just the keyboard?

8note 5y ago

Monitors are built for being an arm's length away. TVs are built for being several yards away. The pixel density changes accordingly

cyberge99 5y ago
And so does the ability to use IR or some other remote control mechanism. A “dumb tv” would just be a monitor with a remote to control power and volume.
lodovic 5y ago
There are monitors built specifically for digital signage, these have the same specs as large TVs but no tuner or adware.

kube-system 5y ago

Volume? Whether we're talking about TVs or monitors, the most competitive offerings are always the segments that sell in volume. Just because OLED tech "exists" doesn't mean the equipment exists to make it economically at any particular size, format, etc. We have affordable TV-sized and phone-sized OLEDs because LG has invested in the equipment to make those particular panels in those particular sizes.

iypx 5y ago

Maybe in the high-end only? Speaking of low to mid end tvs, the ones I saw on display in local shops, they were just overpriced junk.. Even though it's smaller, I installed my 7? year old 24" benq fhd e-ips monitor as a tv for my parents. $120 + $20 for the cheapest 2.1 sound (I think 2x10W + sub), cranked the bass much higher than advised, put the speakers behind the monitor and the sub on the floor + ISP tv box with remote. Speakers and monitor are always on, they got their own power saving stuff. My parents are ecstatic, guests are asking where they got the TV from... apparently it looks better that the ones you could buy for $500+... Last time I checked, I remember finding somewhere most tvs don't actually operate at the advertised resolution, they got all kinds of "prettifying" algos. Not going to trust them ever.

jjoonathan 5y ago
The panels have the advertised resolution, but yes, for "smart" TVs you always have to figure out how to turn off the gross sharpening/compression filters that they use to win the Great Best Buy Screensaver Battle. It can be done, though, and certainly if the manufacturer wanted to omit them in a monitor offering it could.
- ansible 5y ago
  Two of the most important settings: Game mode. This turns off most/all the image processing, which greatly increases the lag. Overscan. Also turn it off. This zooms in the picture a little to crop out artifacts around the edge.
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    ^ This.

ksec 5y ago

>Why does (consumer) monitor tech always seem to lag TV tech by a few years?.... Monitor used to have "much" lower input latency, higher PPI, much higher refresh rate and generally higher reliability because they are expected to be constantly on. i.e Their panels have different specifications. Although I am not sure if most of the above are true anymore especially with OLED. Given how TV manufactures have also had focus on gaming. But reliability is still a thing on monitor. That is the similar to reference TV that uses panel from one of two years prior. Edit: I had to look up Panasonic TV set and panel and then I discovered they are pulling out of TV production and outsource to external partner. Sigh. https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1634887160 https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=...

jjoonathan 5y ago
Yeah, I use gaming mode for my TV-as-a-monitor and if I don't the lag is noticeable even on the desktop. It has the nice side effect of disabling the obnoxious sharpening filters, too. My dedicated monitors have had dismal reliability: one died right after the warranty, one died inside the warranty and they flaked on the warranty anyway. My reliability expectations are rock bottom, my TV will have to work hard to undershoot them.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Why does (consumer) monitor tech always seem to lag TV tech by a few years? Well, “always” seems like an exaggeration; consumer monitors were far beyond 480i before consumer TVs were. > It looks like the situation is still that in the 4k OLED space there are a few ~$4000+ monitors and dozens of ~$1000 TVs. That’s not monitors being behind in tech, that’s TVs being cheaper because of economies of scale and opportunity for ad serving and data harvesting. > Is it an industry structure thing, where panel manufacturers integrate and co-develop with TV manufacturers but monitor manufacturers are separate AFAIK, LG, Sharp, Samung, and Sony are all four panel/TV/monitor manufacturers; I dont think that’s an issue.

jjoonathan 5y ago
Scale and ads are plausible explanations for why monitors are behind in tech, but they're still behind in tech.
- antisthenes 5y ago
  What a weird nonsensical statement. Monitors and TVs are manufactured with the same "tech", just to different specifications to fit their desired purpose/niche, and to capture the maximum possible value from that market. You could maybe make an argument that Samsung panel tech is behind LG's or something, since companies have separate R&D labs and actually have different technology, but in order to do so you'd have to be an industry expert.
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    In what world is a comparison "nonsensical"? They both displays pixels. Each can be substituted for the other with a modest amount of non-panel-related effort. They compete. We can compare them. > the same "tech", just to different specifications to fit their desired purpose/niche Clearly not. I am using a TV as a monitor right now, because 4k + OLED + HDR + 120hz was just not available for $1100 in the monitor space six months ago (I think there was a $6000 offering, lol). Looks like it still isn't. This situation has been going on for years. Before OLED it was HDR, before HDR it was 4k, and so on. TVs are always far ahead, monitors are always far behind. I'd rather not use a TV as a monitor because it's a PITA. I have to put up with substantial non-panel-related silliness to make this happen (turn the TV off/on with a remote, deactivate the laggy filters, tolerate the "smart" BS, etc). If monitors are so well tailored to their own niche, why are they losing so badly to a competitor who isn't even trying? > to capture the maximum possible value from that market That's the only explanation I can come up with: monitors are a backwater that the industry just doesn't care much about because volume is lower. Tech has to trickle down, and that takes years.

fragmede 5y ago

TV's are such a big business that they overwhelm the rest of the display manufacturing world. That's why 16:10 monitors basically disappeared - 16:9 is 1080p is a TV. On the other end of the spectrum is professional industry displays which are ahead of consumer facing devices, like are shown at NAB (vs CES) and there you'll find 8k monitors for tens of thousands of dollars.

mrzimmerman 5y ago

If I had to guess I’d say it’s just market size. I’d bet there’s a larger market if people who want a large, high definition TV for movies and shows than there is for people who want a high definition monitor. Most business uses for monitors don’t require high definition, so you’re really looking at specific industries and gaming.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Excluding that Mac market, I don't think Apple sell anything new anymore that is under 200 PPI.