I’m not talking about picture quality. I have a Samsung and the picture is indeed very clear but I need another tv for a rental condo and a longer life would be good. I can buy a 55 inch LG for the same price as a 50 inch Samsung. Which would you buy? Oh, and the first question: Does LG have as long or longer life as Samsung?
Consumer Reports gave them both equally good grades.
I’ve never had a TV fail, and only one monitor (after seven years). All of the monitors have been Samsung (best color values and image, IMNSHO).
LG is fine low to mid-grade stuff, positioned about where Samsung was ten years ago (unknown name in the US, rising fast). Their whole market strategy is likely to undercut Samsung and be better than the other low/no-names, and I think they’re succeeding.
I don’t think either brand is superior across the chart. I’ll still buy Samsung monitors ahead of any other brand, but for everything else, I’d do the test/review/user comment homework before spending more than trivial dollars on any item. And I’d never, ever listen to a floor salesman about anything, at all, including whether it’s raining outside at the moment. The combination of ignorance, store pressure (to sell certain brands and models, for reasons that benefit the store and no on else) and commission-based income makes them utterly unreliable.
if there’s any appreciable difference in the average lifespan of TVs between the major brands, I’d be surprised. The salesperson either stands to make more on selling the Samsung or is just plain bullshitting.
I’ve had my samsung plasma 55" for 4 years now. It’s been all night every night almost continuously that time. Still works great.
Meant to add: A large TV is about more than lifespan, as well. LG and Samsung are likely to have very different display characteristics. Do the homework on things like actual resolution and video defects, and then take some time to look at both (in a more natural setting than a store, if you can manage) and see which one you like better. Five more inches of a grainier, stuttering, or motion-afflicted image won’t be an improvement.
I’d like to take a poll and see who owns their current TV simply because the last one failed? The last TV I had that failed was a gigantic tube TV; and I’ve purchased a bunch of TVs since then. In other words, the salesman is full of shit. It sounds to me like he’s giving you a useless stat to sway your thinking. I’d be inclined to to tell him to stick it up his ass and stop making bullshit generalizations that won’t matter.
Flat panel monitors (plasma, LED, LCD) seem to be well past the point of working out longevity defects in their development phase. To the point where it has almost become neglible among name brands.
Todays sets now seem to compete on, in descending order: price point, features, picture quality.
Can’t say – the JVC I bought 20some years ago just won’t break and let me test anything else.
LG has been in the U.S. longer than a lot of people realize. Goldstar just decided to change its name to LG. GoldStar - Wikipedia
[QUOTE=california jobcase;18046471Goldstar just decided to change its name to LG. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldStar[/QUOTE]
“Just decided” as in they’ve been LG in the USA for 20 years.
I read that as a moment of decision (“up and decided”) rather than being a timing designator.
Good move, though. GoldStar built a reputation as cheapest-of-the-cheap. No way to scale that up to a decent, low-cost image. Better to rebuild under a new brand.
That’s why I’m still using my old CRT TV: it still works as well as it ever has, and it’d be a pain in the butt to dispose of.
I own a LG (bought in 2011, I think) to replace an Insignia LCD that failed once under warranty and was showing signs that it was about to do so again. I doubt there is much of a difference these days between the major brands.
I don’t know that I’d go that far unless you mean in the narrow category of longevity. There are certainly quality and feature differences, especially for those that use premium licensed technology over generic solutions.
But for general durability and suitability to purpose, I’d agree that TVs are largely in the same category as refrigerators: Even CR says there are no bad ones, just varying values and varying suitability for different users. Even the cheapest ones “work” fine.
My mom had a Samsung LCD. It lasted less than two years before the screen went out. Their customer service said it would cost more than buying a new one to repair. She didn’t buy another Samsung.
This could hint of the reason. IIRC Samsung was heavy into plasma’s long after most abandoned that ship, and plasma’s did have their longevity issues with back light lifespans issues to burn in. However none of these applies to LED’s, which is what the OP was comparing, just a hold over from the days of a technology bygone.
Just an aside: do you know that LG stands for Lucky Goldstar?
J.
A client of mine repairs electronics, including flat screens. He says that most of the flatscreens needing repair were inadequately ventilated, such as flush mounted on a wall. Some parts overheat. Avoid that and they should last quite a while.
Since at least 11:55 AM 