I’ll admit upfront that the headline is an exaggeration. I don’t hate ultra-thin TVs — obviously, in at least one way, they’re amazing compared to what I had growing up. As late as my early 20s, I was still using a 40-inch CRT that was so bulky it took two people to get it into an apartment, even with the help of a dolly. Conversely, the 65-inch version of Samsung’s The Frame Pro is so thin and light that I could hang it high on a wall without a stepladder if my arms stretched that much.
What made me think of this topic is the latest darling of the ultra-thin world, the LG evo W6. It’s dubbed the Wallpaper TV, primarily because it’s 9mm thick — about the same as the display on my laptop. It’s impressive on multiple levels, actually, at least from what was shown at CES. It’s not in stores yet as of early February 2026. But it reminds me that when ultra-thin TVs are done well, they’re still not a good value. They won’t be until thinness stops being a bulletpoint, a claim that should make more sense in a minute.
What’s so terrible about ultra-thin TVs?
Two paths, both sketchy
In many respects, nothing. Even if you gave me a small and (relatively) cheap one — like the 32-inch non-Pro Frame — I’d still enjoy watching it in the right context. The picture is going to be fine, and I’d appreciate the weight savings, having moved a surprising number of times in the past 15 years. I’ve lived in two countries and four cities. In Austin alone, I went through three apartments and my first house.
The overarching problem is that, one way or another, you’re paying a premium for the privilege. Devices like The Frame or Hisense’s Canvas TVs are what are known as “art” TVs — they’re thin because they’re meant to resemble (and show) framed paintings or photos, blending in with your room’s wall decor. They ship with decorative bezels, and have matte screens to cancel out reflections. That would be all well and good except that even that 32-inch Frame is $600, and larger sets from multiple brands are simultaneously more expensive than their non-art counterparts while frequently being inferior spec-wise.
Specifically, the recurring issue is that most of them use QLED. That’s an evolution of the standard LCD format, but one that’s already on the way out. It’s quickly being replaced by mini-LED, which provides superior color, contrast, and brightness. For less than $600, you can get a 55-inch mini-LED set which will blow any QLED out of the water if you care about picture quality over fashion.
The overarching problem is that, one way or another, you’re paying a premium for the privilege.
You might be wondering why more art TVs aren’t equipped with OLED, which is great for thinness while beating mini-LED in color and contrast. The explanation is that apart from being even more expensive, OLED is vulnerable to burn-in when static images are left onscreen for hours at a time. That makes the tech distinctly unsuited for mimicking art, no matter if you have a TV switch images every few minutes and take advantage of maintenance features like pixel refresh cycles.
Let’s say you’re willing to abandon the pretense of an art TV, though, and chase after an ultra-thin product with zero performance compromises. The LG evo W6 checks these boxes. It’s a 4K OLED set that offers 0.1ms response times, 77- and 83-inch sizes, and custom anti-glare tech to preserve the contrast most matte screens sacrifice. Its thinness is possible because it uses a high-speed wireless box for inputs — the only thing you need to plug into the TV itself is a power cable.
The catch is that it’s liable to be wildly expensive. While the W6’s pricetag has yet to be announced, the previous Wallpaper TV cost up to $20,000. It’s doubtful the new one will cost so much, but an equivalent 77-inch LG G5 is $3,500 without a wireless connection box. It’s not hard to imagine the W6 starting at $7,000, as some people online are speculating. Just $5,000 would be ridiculous, given that you could afford two or three conventional OLEDs with the same screen size.
An answer to a question no one asked
The value of being thin
In the phone market, there’s been some severe whiplash when it comes to ultra-thin designs. Heading into 2025, Apple, Samsung, and other brands were seemingly all-in on the idea, expecting the public to adore devices that were extremely comfortable to hold, no matter if it cost them extra and didn’t do as well in the camera and battery departments.
Then the iPhone Air launched. While it has its fans, the product has sold worse than Apple expected. So much so that Samsung and other rivals have reportedly scrapped plans for future imitators. As it turns out, no one was really complaining about how thick or heavy smartphones are, and the majority of people aren’t willing to pay nearly as much as they would for an iPhone 17 Pro for something that’s inferior in some respects to the iPhone 17.
Ultra-thin TVs have had more staying power, but I’d argue that there’s a similar bad premise behind them: that existing products are somehow too cumbersome. That argument might’ve been valid in the early 2010s. Indeed, when I originally moved to Austin, I bought a 40-inch LCD that was just barely thin and light enough to carry up three flights of stairs by myself. In 2024, however, I was able to buy a 65-inch mini-LED set that was actually lighter, and thinness wasn’t one of its selling points.
Five to 10 years from now, will you get more out of an ultra-thin TV, or one that won’t feel as outdated in terms of its performance or screen size?
Simply put, technology has evolved to the point where most TVs are already as thin and light as anyone needs. It’s no problem sitting one on top of an entertainment center, and you’re going to want help mounting a 65-inch one on your wall regardless of how much it weighs.
Naturally, further progress is welcome, and it’s no skin off my back if rich shoppers are willing to pay hundreds or thousands more for luxury designs. For the average shopper, though, there’s far more value in prioritizing specs that will maximize the experience of movies, shows, and games for longer. Ask yourself — five to 10 years from now, will you get more out of an ultra-thin TV, or one that won’t feel as outdated in terms of its performance or screen size?
Speaking of which, this entire debate could become moot in the next few years. Improvements in miniaturization inevitably become cheaper as production scales up. By the 2030s, what you see in current art TVs or the W6 could become de facto in regular models, or at least more commonplace. If so, there won’t be much reason at all to market TVs on their thinness, unless perhaps foldable and rollable models take off in a way they haven’t so far. And there’s a chance that some of us will be using AR glasses instead — if you’re not watching a movie with other people, who needs a 65-inch rollable when you can simulate a 100-inch TV anywhere you go?
