Long ago, Google’s Android-powered wearables had hands-free navigation gestures. Those fell by the wayside as Google shredded its wearable strategy over and over, but gestures are back, baby. The Pixel Watch 4 is getting an update that adds several gestures, one of which is straight out of the Apple playbook.

When the update hits devices, the Pixel Watch 4 will gain a double pinch gesture like the Apple Watch has. By tapping your thumb and forefinger together, you can answer or end calls, pause timers, and more. The watch will also prompt you at times when you can use the tap gesture to control things.

In previous incarnations of Google-powered watches, a quick wrist turn gesture would scroll through lists. In the new gesture system, that motion dismisses what’s on the screen. For example, you can clear a notification from the screen or dismiss an incoming call. Pixel Watch 4 owners will also enjoy this one when the update arrives.

Read full article

Comments

It has been two months since Google released the Pixel Watch 4 and now the company is introducing new updates to the wearable. In our review, Engadget managing editor Cherlynn Low was impressed enough with the watch to give it an 86, but called out the lack of gesture-based interactions. The new one-handed gesture features, like double pinch and wrist turn, should make up for that. 

In an industry that involves constant borrowing of ideas, it should come as no surprise that these features are very similar to those available on the Apple Watch. Double pinch works much the same to the Apple Watch’s double tap. Pixel Watch 4 users should be able to pinch their fingers together twice on the same hand to do things like answer or end a call and pause timers. The Pixel Watch will also offer “context hints” on its screen about when a person should consider using double pinch. 

Then there’s wrist turn, Google’s answer to Apple’s wrist flick. It should allow Pixel Watch 4 users to take actions like dismissing incoming calls by turning their wrist. 

Currently, users can rotate their wrist to scroll through notifications. They can also summon Gemini by bringing their wrist to their mouth, but it’s a bit finicky, requiring them to start at the homepage and be extremely accurate in their movements. Google is rolling out a new step-by-step tutorial for this raise to talk feature, so hopefully it becomes a bit easier to use moving forward. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/wearables/google-pixel-watch-4-gets-double-pinch-and-wrist-turn-features-170024210.html?src=rss

Smartphone display issues are nothing new. Most of us have dropped our phones the wrong way one time or another, and had to deal with the pain (and cost) of getting them fixed. But when your smartphone’s screen starts acting up for no particular reason, it’s pretty frustrating—especially if the manufacturer still holds you accountable for the repair fees.

If that sounds like your experience with your Pixel 9 Pro, Pixel 9 Pro XL, or Pixel 9 Pro Fold, there’s good news: Google is now launching an Extended Repair Program for the Pixel 9 Pro line. According to Google’s announcement on Monday, the company has identified a “limited number” of Pixel 9 Pro and Pixel 9 Pro XL units that might exhibit display issues that impact the user’s experience with the device. Should your Pixel 9 Pro’s display show these symptoms, Google will fix the display at no cost to you.

What it takes for your Pixel 9 Pro to qualify

That doesn’t mean any and all display issues on your Pixel 9 Pro device qualify here. Google has identified two specific problems that this Extended Repair Program actually covers. The first is a vertical line present on the display. The line has to run from the bottom of the screen to the top, so partial lines won’t quality. The second is display flicker. If you notice your Pixel 9 Pro’s display quickly getting brighter and darker, as if someone was flicking a switch back and forth, you qualify for the repair program.

The Pixel 9 Fold is another story altogether. Like the 9 Pro and 9 Pro XL, Google is offering a free repair program for the 9 Pro Fold. However, unlike the other devices, there are no specific issues identified here. The problems may be display-related, but since the company won’t specify, you could bring your 9 Pro Fold in for just about anything that’s going wrong with it—as long as you didn’t cause the issue yourself. In addition, Google won’t actually fix your foldable, but will instead replace it entirely.

The company is also being strict regarding the quality of the display outside of these issues across all Pixel 9 Pro devices. If your Pixel’s display or cover-glass is cracked, that may disqualify you from the free repair. If Google finds liquid damage in your device, same story. In any of these cases, the company will still fix the display issues mentioned above, but they might charge you for it.

How to get your Pixel 9 Pro fixed

Affected Pixel 9 Pro, 9 Pro XL, and 9 Pro Fold units qualify for repair as of Dec. 8, and coverage will last for three years after the original purchase date of the device. You will need to have your device inspected at a Google walk-in center, Google-authorized center, or an online repair store before the company can confirm eligibility. You can get started on your claim from Google’s official repair site.

This is good news for any Pixel 9 Pro users who have these specific issues—or any issues at all for Pixel 9 Pro Fold users. It joins a host of other Extended Repair Programs for Pixel devices, including the Pixel 4a battery program, the Pixel 6a battery program, the Pixel 7a repair program, and the Pixel 8 repair program,

A collaborative report from Consumer Reports, Groundwork Collaborative and More Perfect Union has uncovered pricing experiments within the Instacart app that yielded higher or lower prices for different users on the exact same items from the same store location.

The organizations partnered to enroll 437 shoppers in an experiment across four cities, where each shopper added the same items to their carts within Instacart from the exact same store. Almost 75 percent of grocery items were shown to shoppers at multiple price points, with as many as five different prices shown for the same item. The average difference between the highest and lowest price shown was 13 percent, while the highest delta on an individual item was a whopping 23 percent.

Engadget reached out to Instacart and received the following response. It reads in part: “Just as retailers have long tested prices in their physical stores to better understand consumer preferences, a subset of only 10 retail partners — ones that already apply markups — do the same online via Instacart. These limited, short-term, and randomized tests help retail partners learn what matters most to consumers and how to keep essential items affordable.” An Instacart spokesperson added that this is not dynamic pricing (insofar as it is not based on supply and demand), that no personal demographic data is used in the process and that these experiments are random.

The bulk of the tests were conducted at Safeway and Target stores, which both yielded similar results. A Target spokesperson told the New York Times that the company “is not affiliated with Instacart and is not responsible for prices on the Instacart platform.” Instacart told the Times that they were “evaluating different approaches” to cover the platform’s costs at the time of the study, but have since discontinued pricing tests on Target orders.

Instacart published a blog post today attempting to explain how these tests that showed higher prices are actually meant to help retailers invest in lower prices. It also waxes poetic about Instacart’s commitments to affordable groceries for consumers.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/study-shows-that-instacart-was-charging-different-amounts-for-the-same-items-165108224.html?src=rss

Microsoft’s Xbox consoles were conspicuously absent from Black Friday’s winners, failing to crack the top three in U.S. sales during one of the retail calendar’s most important weeks. According to Circana analyst Mat Piscatella, the PlayStation 5 captured 47% of Black Friday week console sales ending November 29, followed by the Nintendo Switch 2 at 24% and — somewhat remarkably — the NEX Playground, a Kinect-like Android device aimed at children, at 14%.

Microsoft ran no promotions on its consoles during the period. The Xbox Series X currently retails for $650 following this year’s price increase, up from its $500 launch price in 2020. Sony, by contrast, discounted the PS5 by roughly 40% at some retailers. Piscatella noted on Bluesky that products without price promotions typically see no seasonal lift. Costco has removed Xbox consoles from its U.S. and UK websites.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

We may earn a commission from links on this page.

Garmin has released an end-of-year summary of users’ stats, Spotify Wrapped-style. But it’s only available to people who pay for Garmin Connect+, the new paid subscription that Garmin has offered since March of this year. I’ll show you what’s inside the Year in Review, and give you my thoughts on how the subscription service has weathered its first almost-year. Spoiler: The more things Garmin adds, the less they seem to know what they’re doing.

What’s in the Year in Review? 

Credit: Beth Skwarecki/Garmin

Garmin’s Year in Review feature shows you a bunch of cute visuals of your activity throughout the year. For each metric, there is usually a summary or a total, followed by a graph showing that metric for each calendar month (January through December) with the “best” month for that metric highlighted. Sometimes a particular workout was called out for that metric, such as your longest run. The metrics included:

• Total steps

• Sleep score average

• Body Battery average daily high

• Number of activities, and your most common types

• Total activity time

• Total activity distance

• Total activity ascent

• Total activity calories (put in terms of “slices of chocolate cake” for some reason)

• Badges earned

• Personal records earned

There are shareable cards for each, so it’s certainly fulfilling the function of a yearly recap, but it’s a bit boring to page through. I’m not sure why I’m supposed to care about my average Body Battery, and it’s not exactly a revelation that I did more gym workouts than bike rides. Perhaps this will get more polished in future years.

Your Year in Review says more about Garmin than about you

More companies than ever are offering an annual summary this year, and it seems like each of them is having a little identity crisis. Is the summary meant to provide free marketing when you share the screenshots with your friends? Engage you more deeply with the algorithm, to encourage you to consume more content? Or is it just a reward for being a loyal customer? 

Garmin, by making theirs a premium feature, doesn’t seem to be prioritizing any of the above. I see two things going on here: They’re competing with Strava, and grappling with what it means to exist as a hardware company in a subscription-based world. 

The Strava part is easiest to understand. Strava offers a premium subscription, and the main draw is that it comes with mapping tools and training analytics. People may gripe about having to pay to see their spot on a leaderboard or build a running route, but this model fundamentally works because people like and want those features. Strava’s “Year in Sport” is a premium feature as well, but people don’t subscribe just to get Year in Sport. It’s a little perk, not the whole point. 

Comparing Garmin’s recap to Strava’s, Strava’s feels more cohesive. There are fewer cards in the carousel, and they’re more relevant to things I care about. I get my activities and distance in the same card, find out how long I’ve kept my weekly streak (over a year!), see the days I was active, get reminded of one highlight run (definitely a memorable one), see my PRs for all the major distances, and get a shout-out on the one QOM and couple of Local Legend titles I earned. It’s easier for Strava to do this well because their platform is tailored to people with specific goals: to run or bike more and faster. Garmin tries harder to be everything to everybody. 

And then there’s the question of what Garmin is doing here. It’s always been a hardware company, starting out with GPS devices (back when “GPS device” was a standalone product category) and eventually becoming a maker of sports watches as well as gadgets like bike computers and boat navigation systems. The company seems to be having trouble finding its place in today’s subscription-based world. I appreciate that it isn’t removing features from existing products, but that makes me wonder what the point of Connect+ is supposed to be.

Garmin’s Connect+ subscription doesn’t seem to be the paywall people are afraid of (or the cash cow Garmin is probably hoping for)

Garmin has always been a hardware company at heart, but that model has been harder and harder to fit with the modern wearables market. Now that we all have smartphones, many of the features we expect from a Garmin watch are really features of a phone app. So to keep selling watches in different pricing tiers, Garmin ties specific features to the hardware you’ve bought. You’ll only get a “training status” in the app if you’ve paired a training status-capable watch, for example. (The Forerunner 265 counts, but not the 165.)

I have to imagine Garmin execs wish they could start over, make just a few physical devices, and sell software features as subscription tiers. Everything in 2025 seems to be sold on a subscription basis or with some features paywalled behind a premium tier. So of course Garmin tried to move into that space.

Garmin has long sold subscriptions for some devices, but those were always specific things like satellite messaging or high-definition marine charts, where the purpose and the cost made sense. Garmin Connect+, which launched this year, is basically a subscription for software features of the phone app, not a device. 

That’s good for Garmin users—no actual features of the watches get paywalled this way. Whatever features your Forerunner 265 had when you bought it, you get to keep those. New watches don’t seem to be missing any features (yet)—if anything, new releases like the Forerunner 570 and the Venu 4 seem to be adding features to justify their higher prices. 

But that leaves the Connect+ subscription without anything vital to offer. I’ve gone through and listed all the features you get, and I think the only one that’s really worthwhile is mirroring data to your phone, which both Apple and Coros will give you for free. The rest are all “huh?” features, like unlocking special badges or gaining access to an AI feature that is surely the least useful of all fitness apps’ AI features (and that’s really saying something). 

Garmin seems to be hoping that people will upgrade to the subscription because of its cool amazing attractive features, while carefully avoiding putting anything useful or essential in the subscription. That doesn’t seem to be a tightrope they can actually walk, unless they come up with new app features that don’t fit into their hardware models, but are actually useful and interesting. Features worth paying for are expensive to build, which explains why Garmin Trails is a dud so far—it’s just an empty shell of a service that users are supposed to fill with data, eventually, I guess. 

Year in Review must have been easy to build, but it doesn’t give us anything worth paying for. Garmin has been advertising the Year in Review to non-subscribers, suggesting that we pay for a subscription to access it. I just don’t think it’s working, Garmin.

Pebble just announced the Index 01, a smart ring for recording thoughts. It’s a little ring with a built-in microphone and that’s about it. The Index 01 is almost anti-tech in its simplicity. There’s no needless AI component shoehorned in, aside from speech-to-text. It’s a ring with a microphone that you whisper ideas into and I want one.

Here’s how it works. You get an idea while walking down the street, so you quietly whisper it into the ring. The ring sends the idea to a notes app or saves it for later review. Pebble founder Eric Migicovsky calls this an “external memory” for the brain, but I call it a nice way to avoid having to dig the phone out of a pocket or bag just to utter something like “pizza, but for cats.”

The ring doesn’t record unless a button is pushed, so it won’t be listening in on private conversations, and it doesn’t require a paid subscription of any kind. It’s on the smaller side, about the size of a wedding band, and is water-resistant.

The battery also lasts for “years” and never needs to be charged. The ring is designed to be worn at all times, so users develop the muscle memory of holding down the little button when they have something to share. See what I mean? I want one, and I’ve quite literally never worn a ring in my life.

Pebble

Migicovsky says this is an open source product and that Pebble is “leaving the side door open for folks to customize.” He envisions people will integrate AI voice agents and that the ring will eventually work with stuff like ChatGPT, Beeper, Google and other services.

The Pebble Index 01 works with iPhone and Android and is available for preorder right now. It costs $75 during this preorder period, but the price jacks up to $99 when shipments start going out in March.

This is just the latest product by Migicovsky and Pebble. The company unveiled the Core 2 Duo and the Core Time 2 smartwatches earlier this year.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/wearables/pebble-is-making-a-weird-little-smart-ring-for-recording-thoughts-161723645.html?src=rss

In February, a six-month-old baby named KJ Muldoon became the first person ever to receive a CRISPR gene-editing treatment customized specifically for his unique genetic mutation, a milestone that researchers say marks a turning point in how medicine might approach the thousands of rare diseases that collectively affect 30 million Americans. Muldoon was born with a type of urea-cycle disorder that gives patients roughly a 50% chance of surviving infancy and typically requires a liver transplant; he is now a healthy 1-year-old who recently took his first steps.

The treatment’s significance extends beyond one child. Scientists at UC Berkeley’s Innovative Genomics Institute and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia are now planning clinical trials that would use Muldoon’s therapy as a template, tweaking the molecular “address” in the CRISPR system to target different mutations in other children with urea-cycle disorders. Last month, FDA officials Marty Makary and Vinay Prasad announced a new drug pathway designed to accelerate approvals for such personalized treatments — a framework inspired in large part by Muldoon’s case. Current gene-editing delivery mechanisms limit treatments to disorders in the blood and liver. Many families will still go without bespoke therapies.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Despite claims of environmental leadership and promises to preserve the Amazon rainforest ahead of COP30, Brazil is stripping away protections for the region’s vital ecosystems faster than workers dismantled the tents that housed the recent global climate summit in Belém.

On Nov. 27, less than a week after COP30 ended, a powerful political bloc in Brazil’s National Congress, representing agribusiness, and development interests, weakened safeguards for the Amazon’s rivers, forests, and Indigenous communities.

The rollback centered on provisions in an environmental licensing bill passed by the government a few months before COP30. The law began to take shape well before, during the Jair Bolsonaro presidency from 2019 to 2023. It reflected the deregulatory agenda of the rural caucus, the Frente Parlamentar da Agropecuária, which wielded significant power during his term and remains influential today.

Read full article

Comments

Back in 2023, we reported on MIT scientists’ conclusion that the ancient Romans employed “hot mixing” with quicklime, among other strategies, to make their famous concrete, giving the material self-healing functionality. The only snag was that this didn’t match the recipe as described in historical texts. Now the same team is back with a fresh analysis of samples collected from a recently discovered site that confirms the Romans did indeed use hot mixing, according to a new paper published in the journal Nature Communications.

As we’ve reported previously, like today’s Portland cement (a basic ingredient of modern concrete), ancient Roman concrete was basically a mix of a semi-liquid mortar and aggregate. Portland cement is typically made by heating limestone and clay (as well as sandstone, ash, chalk, and iron) in a kiln. The resulting clinker is then ground into a fine powder with just a touch of added gypsum to achieve a smooth, flat surface. But the aggregate used to make Roman concrete was made up of fist-sized pieces of stone or bricks.

In his treatise De architectura (circa 30 CE), the Roman architect and engineer Vitruvius wrote about how to build concrete walls for funerary structures that could endure for a long time without falling into ruin. He recommended the walls be at least two feet thick, made of either “squared red stone or of brick or lava laid in courses.” The brick or volcanic rock aggregate should be bound with mortar composed of hydrated lime and porous fragments of glass and crystals from volcanic eruptions (known as volcanic tephra).

Read full article

Comments

Sending astronauts to the red planet will be a decades-long activity and cost many billions of dollars. So why should NASA undertake such a bold mission?

A new report published Tuesday, titled “A Science Strategy for the Human Exploration of Mars,” represents the answer from leading scientists and engineers in the United States: finding whether life exists, or once did, beyond Earth.

“We’re searching for life on Mars,” said Dava Newman, a professor in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and co-chair of the committee that wrote the report, in an interview with Ars. “The answer to the question ‘are we alone‘ is always going to be ‘maybe,’ unless it becomes yes.”

Read full article

Comments

We may earn a commission from links on this page.

We’ve reached the end of television. Since the invention of the technology in the 1920s, TV screens have gradually grown larger, pictures clearer, and sets cheaper, until now: For all intents and purposes, we’re at the end of the road. This “nothing special” 65-inch Samsung unit, is, for most people, as good as a TV ever needs to be. It displays an image more highly detailed than most viewers can perceive from a couch-length viewing distance, its screen is as big as the average American living room can handle, and it costs less than $500. For 100 years, manufacturers and consumers have been chasing screen size and image clarity, so what happens now that the dog has caught the mail truck, and just about everyone has a TV that’s essentially perfect?

A brief history of big-screen TVs

Television has come a long way. If we traveled back in time to 1986 with the equivalent of $500 to buy a TV, we would only be able to afford the cheapest set from that year’s Sears catalog. For $159.99, the same relative cost as a 65-inch Samsung today, you could snag a set featuring a 13-inch, 4:3 screen with an equivalent resolution of around 480i. (CRT televisions don’t have pixels, but their screens displayed roughly 330–480 lines of usable detail depending on the signal.) By comparison, the Samsung has a 65-inch, 16:9 screen with a 3840×2160 resolution.

Those CRTs originally displayed images by firing electrons at a phosphorescent screen inside a vacuum-sealed glass tube. The cathode ray tube (hence CRT) had to be deep enough for the electron beams to accelerate, with glass thick enough safely contain them. The result: heavy, deep, fragile machines that couldn’t practically support screens much larger than 40 inches without being prohibitively expensive and heavy. The 1981 Sony KV-3000R, a 30-inch model that cost $10,000 ($36,500 in today’s money) and weighed over 500 pounds, was at the top of the big CRT consumer market. It was technically possible to go bigger—Trinitron created a 45-inch CRT in 1989 that sold in Japan for $40,000—but these were not the kind of screens you’d find in anyone’s living room.

The projection TVs that followed were able to achieve their unheard-of screen sizes by using internal projectors and mirrors to project the cathode ray image onto a translucent screen, but this came with significant drawbacks. The sets were massive and could weigh up to 500 pounds, and the projected image was blurrier and dimmer than a typical CRT’s already “standard definition” image. Viewing angles were limited—you basically had to sit directly in front of it to see anything clearly—and projector bulbs had a limited lifespan and were expensive to replace.

The limitations and cost of rear projection TVs didn’t dissuade people from adopting the technology, especially as they came down in price. By the 1990s, improvements in rear-projection optics, CRT projectors, and production efficiency made big-screen, rear projection TVs into a status symbol, resulting in 50-, 60-, and even 70-inch behemoths appearing in suburban living rooms. They were still heavy, fuzzy, and crazy expensive—a 61-inch Magnavox rear-projection television cost $2,999.99 in 1993—but everything changed in the late 90s with the release of the first plasma TVs.

The flat screen revolution

Plasma and LCD TVs weren’t just better ways of displaying images, but worked on entirely differently principles altogether. In a plasma TV, each pixel is a tiny gas-filled cell that emits ultraviolet light when charged with electricity, which then excites phosphors on the display to create visible colors that resolve into an episode of Friends. LCD TVs use liquid crystals to control the passage of light sourced from a backlight behind. Each pixel contains a liquid crystal layer that can twist or block light, allowing precise control over color and brightness and thus a much more detailed look at Rachel’s hair. Both technologies supported far brighter and more defined images than rear projection TVs all without weighing 400 pounds, making big screen, high-definition displays obtainable for average consumers.

Both LCD and plasma TVs had advantages and drawbacks—plasmas had faster response times (how quickly a pixel can adjust) and darker blacks than LCDs, but LCD TVs lasted longer (around 50,000 hours vs 30,000 hours), used less power, work better in brighter rooms, and weren’t as prone to “burn in” as older plasma and CRT monitors. Ultimately, LCD won out, and plasma TVs became a thing of the past by 2014.

In 2004, Sony introduced the first LED TVs. Where older LCD TVs use cold cathode fluorescent lamps for back lighting, LEDs use light-emitting diodes as backlighting. They’re much more energy efficient and produce a brighter image, more accurate colors, and greater contrast than either LCD or Plasma displays. LED and other technical improvements also solved problems like narrow viewing angles, motion blur, and uneven backlighting that plagued earlier generations of flat screens.

Flat panel displays were expensive at first, but prices fell rapidly. A 42-inch plasma cost around $20,000 in 1997, but cost less than $1,000 a decade later. As prices fell, resolution rose, from 720p (1,280 pixels wide by 720 pixels tall) to 1080p (1,920 pixels wide by 1,080 pixels long) to 4K (3,840 pixels wide by 2,160 pixels long), making it feasible for anyone to mount a giant TV on their living room wall and enjoy a level of realism and image quality previously only available in movie theaters. 

Fine tuning your television: All about backlighting

As screen size and resolution improved, so too did the qualitative aspects of TV images—contrast, color accuracy, and brightness. Older LCD TVs use fluorescent lamps to shine light through liquid crystals, but the crystals can’t block all of the light, so no pixel is ever truly black. That’s why you can tell whether an older LCD TV is on, even if there is no picture. LED displays are built with local dimming—backlights that can light up or dim zones of the screen as needed. The result is less light leaking through the pixels, and thus darker blacks. Mini-LED displays have many more backlighting “zones,” sometimes thousands, further refining the darkness. QLED displays slide a film of “quantum dots” between the LED lights and the LCD front that dilate to improve color saturation and brightness.

Organic light-emitting diode TVs (OLED) take it even further. Many OLED televisions don’t have a backlight at all. Instead, each pixel in the display contains an organic material that lights up individually when electricity is applied. So when a pixel is black, it’s off, which means it’s totally black. OLED televisions aren’t perfect—they tend to be less bright than LED or mini-LED displays—and the emerging technology of microLED TVs promises to solve that problem, but current six-figure price tags make them prohibitively expensive.

We may have achieved peak television

The difference between a color image and a black-and-white one were immediately obvious when the first color TVs hit the market in the 1950s, as was the difference between high-definition and standard definition in late 1990s, but the distinction between an OLED and a QLED display are fine enough to be almost indistinguishable to the average consumer. I’m sure some people are passionately devoted to OLED over mini-LED, or feel you haven’t really experienced Breaking Bad if you haven’t seen it on a $100,000 microLED TV, but for the rest of us, midrange TVs are so close to “as good as they can possibly be” that granular technological improvements are meaningless.

Now, no technology is perfect for everyone. CRT TVs, for instance, are better than the best LED TVs for old school gaming, and a 4K TV might not be detailed enough for some technical uses, but if you’re just talking about the needs and desires of standard, living-room-dwelling watchers, current TV technology is all but perfect. Here are some reasons why:

The limits of vision

A standard 65-inch 4K television delivers a resolution of 3,840 x 2,160 pixels, a density high enough to create an image that is pixel-invisible to a typical viewer sitting at reasonable distance from a television. You can buy an 8K TV (7,680 pixels wide by 4,320 pixels tall), but those extra pixels won’t make the picture look clearer or more highly defined in a practical way; they’ll only add more detail than you can physically see from your couch. For reasonable viewing, even 4K screens are overkill.

Then, there’s the question of size. TVs always could get bigger, but there’s a point where it doesn’t add value to the experience of watching. The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers has determined that the best screen viewing experience for most people is achieved when sitting at a distance where your display screen is taking up 30 degrees of your vision. That’s about 8.5 feet away for a 65-inch TV, more than adequate for most living rooms, and even if it isn’t, commercially available televisions go up to 115-inches, which is big enough for all but a cathedral-sized rec room.

The limits of light, color, and comfort

Contrast, the difference in brightness between the darkest blacks and the brightest whites that a screen can display, helps determine how vivid and detailed an image looks. OLED TVs don’t have contrast ratios, because the contrast is infinite. Each pixel in an OLED TV is its own light source, so when a pixel is told to be black, it is literally off, and it doesn’t get blacker than that. In terms of color, modern OLED TVs can reproduce 98 to 100% of the colors used in movies and TV shows, so what you see on screen is all the color there is in source material. While other display types don’t have OLED’s infinite contrast ratio, they get pretty close: Some mini-LED TVs have a contrast ratio as high as 10,000,000:1.

TVs are also brighter than ever. Displays designed for use outside are bright enough to be watchable in full sunlight, and their peak HDR brightness of 1,400 or so nits is far brighter than then the 250 nits of typical screen viewed indoors, which is already more than bright enough to be comfortable for your living room.

The limits of content

As far as what we watch on TV, if you define perfect TV as “the ability to watch anything I want, whenever I want,” we’re practically there. Viewers used to have a scarcity problem; you’d watch whatever happened to be on one of three channels and you’d like it. Now, our problem now is abundance. We’re overwhelmed with content to watch—there are millions of instantly available things to stream on your TV, from shows to movies to YouTube videos. While programming spread over thousands of channels and across dozens of pay and free streaming services is messy, almost every film or TV show ever produced is available somewhere, although it might take a little work (and monthly subscription fees) to find it.

What’s next for TV? 

Consumer demand for bigger-screened televisions with higher quality displays has essentially driven the industry for the last 80 years, so what happens now that the race is almost over and we can all watch whatever we want on an all but-perfect TV?  A marketing person might answer that TV makers will create reasons for people to want new TVs by expanding what TV actually is. You can see this happening with things Samsung’s The Wall or Sony’s Crystal LED—systems that let you cover an entire wall with seamless TV panels (if you have a spare $100,000 sitting around).

But do people really want a TV wall enough to buy one, assuming they become more affordable? Some people would, sure, but a wall screen wouldn’t really make sitting on the couch watching TV better for most of us. A more down-to-earth potential future for TVs is represented by Samsung’s Frame, a “a lifestyle TV” designed to turn your screen into a gallery of digital art when you’re not watching Netflix. It’s cool, but if it doesn’t improve the experience of watching Pluribus, I’m not rushing out to replace my TV.  

When “big TV” tries to create a desire for TVs that do something other than just work like TVs, the results haven’t always worked. Back 2010, perhaps sensing the need for a “gotta have it” feature, the industry rolled out the first 3D TVs. Despite years of hyping the technology as the next big thing, consumers didn’t bite, and by 2017, 3D TV was a dead technology. It was cool, but not cool enough to justify buying a new TV when people just wanted to watch Game of Thrones. Another example: the “screenless screen” represented by AR/VR devices like the Apple VisionPro or Meta Quest 3. It’s too early to say for sure, but these much-hyped devices seem to be meeting with lukewarm consumer response as well. 

The one way your TV isn’t perfect

Don’t get too smug about your perfect TV, though, as it’s probably going to break soon. The profitability of the TV industry requires a lot of people buy new TVs every few years, so your 65-inch Samsung isn’t designed to last as long as the clunky CRTs of yore. Older sets were fairly simple machines that could last for decades (if Elvis didn’t shoot them), but modern flat-panels are packed with LEDs that dim and LCDs that flicker out. Maybe more importantly, almost all new TVs are smart TVs, which introduces new ways of adding obsolescence—manufacturers could stop updating your TV’s operating system and streaming services could drop support too. Even if the display still works, you might find navigating your TV to be such a slow, cumbersome, and useless experience that you’ll go out and pick up a new one, far earlier than you otherwise would.

There’s also the matter of privacy: These TVs are constantly watching what we do, and collect our data when connected to the internet. It’s part of why TVs don’t cost as much up front: You are subsidizing the price with your data. Disconnecting these TVs from the internet helps, but many streaming devices aren’t much better, so you need to choose wisely. Choosing the right one, however, can expand the life of an old, otherwise functioning TV—until the hardware gives out, of course.

The TVs we have today are brilliant, cheap, and enormous, but they’re also designed for a world where replacing your screen every five-seven years is normal, even if a “better” set doesn’t necessarily exist.