you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Twenty-seven years ago that 27 inch TV was huge!

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Now most people need massive TVs, but still spend most of the time looking at the small screen on the phone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Same, I got a 65 inch OLED big boy for the cinematic experience. I’m going to use the bastard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I got a CX too but I have no ads by just not signing the user agreement lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    Then they put that massive TV so close to where they sit that it's just painful to actually watch anything on it because there is just no way you can get the entire image in your field of vision comfortably.

    Maybe I am old, but I miss the days when people had some sense and bought TVs actually sized for the distance they will be sitting from it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    Because unless you're buying a quality panel the difference between a 45 inch and 65 is usually $150. For something that you need 3 or 4 of (tops, if you have a family or large house) that'll last 5+ years, the value proposition is high enough to spend the extra money.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Those TVs were in a lot of middle class homes. I think huge is pretty exaggerated. Having a house on the block with those 4 person 40-50 in TV's was pretty common in a lot of areas IMO.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    They weren’t huge at all. They were huge for that day.

    Sure there was 40+ inch tvs if you were willing to shell out 10k plus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Not that expensive at all.

    In the 90s you could get a 40in for maybe like $500.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    $500 in the 90s would be equivalent to around $1000 today. That's a very expensive TV and more than I've spent on displays in total across my adult life (which includes some nice IPS computer displays)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I have a 75 in lg c1 in my theater and gaming room. Plenty of folks buy nicer displays. There are plenty of high end displays selling in volumes to support a very healthy display market.

    This was true in the past as well. As stated, you talk to most middle class Americans and they knew at least one guy hosting a Superbowl party with a big ass TV.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    I think it's more a question of individual values in where to spend money. From my memory as a kid in the 90s I did not see very many TVs bigger than 30" in family's homes. I did see a couple of projection screens that were comparatively massive but those of course had their own problems

  • source
  • parent