It’s electronics. Even the better companies all make quality products meant to last a long time, but can have some duds. You won’t find a manufacturer that makes a 100% fail free product, its just luck of the draw. I have 2 Samsung TV’s, one is 10 yrs old, and the other is over 15.

I recognise and agree it is statistics. I am not *merely* suggesting that Samsung makes shoddy TVs - that allegation has been well publicised in recent years: just Google "Samsung TV class action". I am also sharing Samsung's professional response to such an experience.

As a manufacturer, if your known fault rate is small, you can afford to offer repair or refund to the customer to protect your reputation as a brand. The power supply in my Samsung TV was fried in 4 years from purchase, and either the board or the power supplied is fried again 2 years later - that is an unreasonably short life for a TV, and I believe Samsung should recognise that and do something about it.

Unless these complaints happen far too often for Samsung to consider it financially feasible to behave in a responsible fashion.

By the way, for those with similar experiences, I would like to also share that we as consumers have access to small claim appeal court for what we consider unreasonable product durability or quality. The application fee for this process for compensation claim < $10k is only $50 - which is well worth your time and money if you get a full refund or repair out of it. Assuming your case is considered valid by the magistrate, of course.

Your TV was destined to last six years.

Go ahead and take Samsung to small claims, I would be interested to know how that works out for you. All appliances are throw away appliances today. If you want a good set pick just about any model "fat screen" older CRT television and it will probably last 20 years. Today's electronics are thrown together as cheaply as possible and sold for a premium. I have a 4K set LG OLED I paid a lot of money for three years ago and I consider it to be on borrowed time. Generally speaking if it is a bad piece of electronics on a power supply or control board, if it can be isolated and replaced with a quality piece it usually solves the problem in many cases. Problem is most people don't want to be bothered with that or simply lack the skill. It is simply cheaper to buy the next best thing and that is what the manufacturer is counting on. Not just for televisions, all household appliances fall into this category. Washers, dryers, dishwashers you name it. Chances are it will be broken in a few years. Does not matter if you buy the bargain model or the most expensive brand on the showroom floor. They are not designed to last.. Cowboy up, time to go shopping.

For the last 10-12 years Samsung has been making garbage TVs. I bought an LCD in 2008. 2 years later it suffered a blown capacitor issue and Samsung offered a complimentary replacement power panel that lasted exactly 3 years. I replaced it with a Sony Bravia which is still in perfect working condition.

So based on that experience, it appears Samsung designs their TVs to last 2 years.

I know nothing about electronics, but I have heard members in this and other forums cite dodgy capacitors as Samsung TVs' Archiles's heel.

I will keep this post updated with the progress of my claim, which I aim to lodge some time next week.

Ah, capacitors. Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

Your OP made me LOL. Cleverly written! Me, I am a Sony gal. That's not to say that my next Sony TV will last, because these days, as Kevinande said above, everything is made throwaway.

I would look at this as a fun opportunity to get a new TV with all the latest stuff. They've come a long way in 6 years.

My Samsung microwave lasted 16 months. Now I’m worried for my Samsung tv and stove.

I’m in the market for a new dishwasher and refrigerator, sales guy said stay away from Samsung because of parts issues.

I am usually not one to hold a grudge, but when I approached Samsung via FB to raise the issue and share my experience, they erased my public posts on their page and blocked me. I have been extremely polite to their staff (since it is not their fault) but stingingly sarcastic towards their brand (due to my obvious dissatisfaction at being sold a dud). Which is fair - their court, their rules.

I have been exploring my options in acquiring a new TV, but this experience has soured me towards buying major brands. I mean, I will certainly stay away from the latest glittery gadgets due to immature technology, but my last Samsung TV was not at the forefront of the TV tech curve when I bought it - it was pretty boring even 6 years ago. Who is to say the next TV from Panasonic or Sony will not - for the sake of the argument - catastrophically implode the minute it passes warranty? Who is to say the brand will look at the smouldering heap and then at me with compassion instead of contempt when and if that happens?

I do not accept, and do not feel we as consumers should accept the notion that just because once durable appliances are deemed throwaway commodities today, that we should not hold brands accountable. What next - cars that are expected to last 3 years?

You cannot judge reliability based on a sample of one. Toyotas are known to be reliable but there are probably a few people with troublesome ones. Just buy a new TV.

Buying a new TV and sharing the disastrous experience of my last purchase is probably not mutually exclusive. The way I see it, if I find a cockroach in my soup, that is not *necessarily* indicative of a kitchen with poor sanitation. Though if I tell the server and they tell me to suck it due to restaurant policy, I will be sure to tell my friends not to go.

As consumers, I kind of hope everyone else would do the same so I can best avoid roaches in my soup.

Samsung is NOT equivalent to Toyota, and there are more than a few people who've had problems with Samsung TVs.

Addy, my Samsung was the same, just a basic model. You send a message by boycotting their products.

Curious if your Samsung tv was plugged into a surge protector. Surges within your home from things like HVAC, fridges will degrade sensitive electrical components in things like TV.

Quadesl

Good point. I completely forgot to mention those! All of my sets are plugged into a UPS. A bit bigger step than a surge protector. The UPS delivers more stable and "cleaner" power unlikely to fry sensitive electronics. Power is always delivered by the battery and not the wall outlet. Bonus is I can still watch the set for about 30 minutes after the power goes out. I never do as I always shut the set down as to not deplete and shorten the life of the batteries. There are always small power spikes and dips. Most of the time it is not enough of a surge or dip to trigger a surge protector. It is enough cause havoc with electronics if it happens enough. I passed along a 10 year 52" Sharp Aquos to a family member, never had an ounce of trouble from that set. It lived it's entire life with me on a UPS. I highly recommend them for your sets especially if you paid top dollar for them.

Thank you for your advice and insights.

My TV was plugged into the home power socket via a surge protector powerboard - I reasoned that $40 was a small price to pay after coughing up $175 for the extended warranty. I don't have any other appliance plugged into the same surge protector except a computer tower that is connected to the TV via HDMI.

I have not invested in a UPS for the home, though I will certainly keep that in mind if and when I decide to upgrade to a more expensive model.

I have also considered purchasing TVs on the cheap following this experience. Kogan is currently selling a 55" 4K LCD for $450, which makes good economic sense if it lasts 5 years. IF.

Hi Guys - So we actually stopped selling TVs to our customers as we had so many issues with Samsung, LG, Sharp, etc. We had brand new TVs that were failing after the first year-- usually because of the power supply or I/O board. Electronics have become disposable as many have mentioned above. The idea of any piece of electronics lasting 5 let alone 15 years will be rare unfortunately.

HI Addy,

To answer your question, Samsung TV's are designed to last as long as their original warranty lasts, not the extended warranty that you purchase on top of the original warranty.

This is on purpose, by the way, because TV manufacturers do not want you to keep your TV forever. They want it so that you replace it every couple of years, if not every year. That's the sweet spot for them.

Ever wonder why TV manufacturers phased out plasma TV's? It's not just because the cost to produce them is too expensive, which is partially true. It's also because they last forever. Remember the old Pioneer plasma TV's? Those literally lasted forever so not surprisingly, Pioneer's plasma TV division went under because no one (or more accurately, not enough people) was buying to replace their older models.

Plasma TV's, by far, was the superior TV technology for its time period and they dominated. Refresh rates? Far higher than LCD's or even 1st and 2nd gen LED TV's. Durability? Much longer than their rival LCD and LED counterparts. Energy efficiency? Even the "oldest" models were some of the most conservative energy-sipping TV's for its time. But the biggest downside to plasma's relative to LCD's/LED's was their weight. They are really heavy but for a reason--they used heavy duty parts, components, and TV panels designed to last in all sorts of conditions.

Modern day LED TV's are not designed like their plasma TV counterparts. They are designed to be lightweight, energy efficient, and most importantly, disposable. It sounds counter-intuitive on that last note but it does them no good if their TV's actually lasted as long as a plasma TV. It's good for business if a TV breaks and consumers choose to just replace it with a new one of an equivalent price range or repair an existing one at close to the original price at which one had purchased the TV from.

Neat Fact: the only TV manufacturer that still makes their own parts and TV panels is Sony. All other TV manufacturers are all, to varying degrees, re-branded Samsung's and LG's. LG makes practically all the TV panels and circuit boards that every other TV manufacturer use, even Sony's lower end models. Now, there are a couple of "Chinese" brands that are up and coming that source their own parts but their TV panels and the bare circuit boards are all from LG. Maybe, the top most end, they source and use their own circuit boards and TV panels but...it's not by a large margin and since consumers generally don't trust no-name brands, it won't matter either way--even if it is a superior product over the brands that have a bigger market presence.

We hope this information will help you make a more informed decision on your home needs.

Tai Truong

Elements of Design

3400 Medford Street

Los Angeles, CA 90063

tai@lusivedecor.com

www.elementsofdesign.com

Plasma did have its advantages, but energy efficiency wasn't one of them. Those things got really hot. Once you shrink screen size, overall efficiency goes down for all of these technologies. So, older and smaller CFL backlit screens were in the same ballpark as smaller plasma displays. Maybe, that's what you were looking at. But I can't remember a single example, where plasma actually used less energy than a comparable LCD panel. And for any of the more popular sizes (i.e. 50" and up), plasma used noticeably more energy.

Modern backlights have gotten much more efficient than those 15 year old numbers. But plasma hasn't really changed. So, these days, it's really no comparison.

Where plasma was better was with regards to black levels. But again, modern OLED, QLED, or DLP displays all come close. And they all can do much more brilliant images. In fact, I don't recall plasma ever achieving HDR color gamut. But maybe, I didn't follow the technology closely enough.

Also, early plasma models had serious problems with burn-in. Their life expectancy was really short. But that fortunately got fixed eventually. We had our Panasonic plasma display for more than 10 years. It still worked fine when we retired it. But it was also hopelessly obsolete a long and had been that way for years. It didn't even do FullHD, at 50" it was small by today's standards, it had a limited color gamut and limited brightness. But yes, it had great black levels.

Hi M,

A plasma TV's temperature is not an indication of lower energy efficiency. Modern day TV's are generally operating at a higher temperature than their analog CRT TV counterparts, by sheer design. And it makes sense because modern day TV's have a more complicated design using a combination of circuit boards with TV panels 'talking' with each other continuously. Coupled with its slimmer design with no internal fans or heat sinks? It's a recipe for disaster but hey, those TV manufacturer claim, it's slimmer and lighter weight so they are less hot, they say. (Ahem>>Not according to the law of thermodynamics).

The above is only true if people turn on their TV's for 2-3 hours at a time and then turn them off to let it cool but the average person that watches TV typically leave their TV's on for much longer than 2-3 hours, easily double that number or longer, which is much longer than is recommended by TV manufacturers. And at those time frames, it's burning just as hot as a plasma, if not more.

Plasma TV's used large heat sinks and many times, internal fans and plenty of spacing between circuit components, to cool the CPU and the surrounding circuit boards. Those large heat sinks and internal fans made the TV heavier, yes, but allowed it to be much more durable, albeit heavy, as a result of all those cooling components. This was all by design as well.

It's very true that Plasma TV's suffered the "burn-in" problem on their TV screens. That's just a by-product of its TV panel design. LCD's and LED's suffers the same problem as well but it's less noticeable, especially for those models that use individual pixels like a computer monitor, which is basically a "smaller TV", if you think about it. Then OLED and QLED came along and completely solved that problem by using multiple different layers of TV panels within a single TV panel. Don't get this twisted though. The burn-in problem still exists even in these TV panel technologies but because they've added additional layers within a single TV panel and putting electrical current only through the "layer" or "pixel" that they need to generate the colors that they need to put an image on the screen, it's much, much less noticeable than all the previous TV panel technologies.

The idea of FullHD is an illusion. The human eye cannot process the colors that "FullHD" purports to put out onto a TV screen. The human eye can only process at most, 480p, which coincidentally is the same resolution of those old CRT TV's that you may recall as big, bulky, and super heavy. So when 720p and shortly after 1080p came out and TV manufacturer heavily marketed it like it's something new, which it was, and that it's so much better than 480p, which it wasn't, technically, but people eventually bought into the idea due to sheer marketing.

Plasma TV's have already been phased out and are no longer in production for over 5 years now. Panasonic was the last one to pull out of producing plasma TV's. They reigned king as the primary producer of plasma TV's for the longest time since Pioneer's plasma TV division went under so for them to pull the plug basically signals to every other TV manufacturer that plasma TV's golden era is over and gone for good at that>>much the same way when computer manufacturers were competing to see whether flash drives, solid state drives or mechanical hard drives will reign supreme at the end of the day for the production of PC's going forward. It just happens to be the case that flash drives and solid state drives are dominating the PC market just as LED, OLED and QLED happen to be dominating the TV market right now.

We hope this information will help you make a more informed decision on your home needs.

Tai Truong

Elements of Design

3400 Medford Street

Los Angeles, CA 90063

tai@lusivedecor.com

www.elementsofdesign.com

Wow, what a bunch of mis-information in a single comment. I normally would leave it at this, but I don't want people to search the archives and get confused.

A plasma TV's temperature is not an indication of lower energy efficiency.

Temperature isn't an indicator of energy efficiency, but heat output very much. Any energy consumed by the device has to be released somehow, either as mechanical energy (not applicable for a device that doesn't have a motor), as light energy (a smaller percentage, even for a TV), or as heat (the bulk of the energy). As this is hard to quantify, I looked at watts/h instead. That's the definition of energy efficiency. And with the exception of really small screen sizes, plasma TVs are consistently a lot more wasteful than any modern technology.

[ Lots of hand-wavy vague discussions how TVs are complicated. ]

If anything, the reverse is probably true. Older TVs had tons and tons of discreet parts, whereas modern TVs are highly integrated and frequently only have a very small number of highly integrated components. This has been a general trend and explains why TVs can be built so much cheaper today.

Just to put this into perspective, if you look at the size of a settop box from only about 15-20 years ago, it was the size of a small shoe box, and it probably cost on the order of $100. Today, the equivalent device is the size of a USB stick and costs on the order of $20 -- and it probably does a lot more, too. You'd observe the same thing, if you opened up a modern TV. Very little electronics that are left in there.

I have a hard time finding a tear-down of a modern TV, as it simply is so boring that nobody wants to document it. But here is one for a 4 year old model: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Changhong+UD42YC5500UA+4K+42-Inch+LED+LCD+TV+Teardown/64167 Notice how little there is to making a TV.

[ Statements equating weight with quality. ]

The bulk of the weight of a plasma TV came from the insanely heavy front glass panel that is needed to build all the plasma cells. That simply isn't necessary with LCD or OLED technology and explains both the smaller depth and the much reduced weight. And while weight isn't really an indicator of quality, being lightweight is a real advantage for many consumers. A modern TV can easily be hung on the wall, but a plasma TV is almost impossible to mount that way. That also partially explains why larger format plasma TVs never took off in the market. Nobody would be able to carry a 90" plasma TV without hiring professional movers.

[ Then OLED and QLED came along and completely solved that problem by using multiple different layers of TV panels within a single TV panel. ]

What a bunch of crock! There is no such thing as multiple layers of panels. A plasma TV had an array of pixels that had alternating colors of phospors in front of each adjacent plasma cell. A LCD (that includes QLED) panel has a white backlight and alternating color filters in front of each adjacent LCD pixel. An OLED display has alternating colors of adjacent organic LEDs. Do you notice a pattern? Exactly! It's all a similar design of differently colored pixels right next to each other. But some of these pixels are more efficient than others. OLED are by far the best approach, but they are costly to manufacture. LCD is cheap to manufacture at scale, is lightweight and very thin, and color quality is close enough when using a good backlight and good color filters. This is where QLED comes into the picture.

The idea of FullHD is an illusion. The human eye cannot process the colors that "FullHD" purports to put out onto a TV screen.

I really hope that was a typo. FullHD has absolutely nothing to do with colors. But yes, there are difference in color gamut and in dynamic range. Historically, that was one of the areas where plasma had a distinct advantage. It used to have a much better dynamic range than LCD technology, only OLED was equivalent (or better). But OLED didn't really exist as a viable consumer product at that time.

Color gamut is the big elephant in the room though. Traditional standard definition TV has a really narrow color range, and that's really noticeable when compared to film. These days, you can get a similar visual experience, if your TV is HDR capable, and if the source material includes the necessary information. In general, this is only available for 4k-enabled systems. So, independent of resolution, 4k does bring important picture improvements. And even if you no longer have 20/20 vision, most people will easily be able to tell the difference between standard and high dynamic range. All of a sudden, details in dark scenes are possible to be made out without washing out bright spots in the same scene.

A good starting point to learn more about high dynamic range and color gamut is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_video Make sure to click on the links though. There is a lot more information hidden on Wikipedia that is relevant to this topic.

The human eye can only process at most, 480p

It should be self-evident that this statement is obviously incorrect. The human eye doesn't have a fixed resolution in pixels. It does have a limit though as to what the smallest detail is that it can discern. This means, the closer you sit to the screen the more pixel you can discern.

But nobody sits a foot away from their screen. In fact, because of our limited field of vision, there are guidelines how far away you should sit given a particular screen size. In practice, many people sit back a little more than the optimal distance. The average distance from the screen in the US is about 9 feet.

For people with normal 20/20 vision and with a normal ~50" screen, that means that can easily distinguish between 480 scan lines, 720 scan lines, and even 1080 scan lines. But most of us wouldn't be able to tell the difference of 2160 scan lines in a 4k image.

But don't take my word for it. Have a look at this very informative Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

Hi M,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. You said:

[Any energy consumed by the device has to be released somehow, either as mechanical energy (not applicable for a device that doesn't have a motor), as light energy (a smaller percentage, even for a TV), or as heat (the bulk of the energy).

This is a true statement. It is the law of thermodynamics--in more detail.

But then you go on to quantify something that you just said is hard to quantify. This sounds like a contradiction. Is it quantifiable? Or not quantifiable? You seem to be suggesting that it is via the 'watts/hr' and 'heat output' remarks but that’s rather odd to say that, on the one hand, it's hard to quantify yet somehow, on the other hand, easily arrive at the conclusion that it can be measured by looking at the watts/hr.

In any case, we're just saying that a modern day TV's design is a bit more complex and due to its complexity, its core operating temperature has the tendency to be higher as a result.

The reader has to understand that there are a few common misperceptions about Plasma TV’s. The reality is that a Plasma TV is about as energy efficient as an LCD or LED TV, give or take a couple of watts. The “energy costs” like those shown on the black and yellow Energy Star labels are misleading. It assumes that the kWh usage stays constant across all ranges. It doesn’t take into account where one lives wherein the cost of electricity may be significantly higher like living in a major metropolitan area as opposed to a rural area. It doesn’t take into account the display settings like the level of brightness, contrast, etc. It doesn’t take into account the power-saving features that are often times built into the TV when on standby mode, in use, in different TV modes, etc. And it assumes that the TV is performing at maximum output.

Under these conditions, the Plasma TV will lose on almost all counts for energy efficiency, if you strictly mean it in the narrow, confined sense of what you end up paying on your electric bill. On this front, M, you are correct in saying that it is more “wasteful”. But that “waste” of energy is negligible at best; and downright misleading at worst. Ultimately, any real differences in energy costs basically amounted to how the consumer used the TV.

Moving on.

[If anything, the reverse is probably true. Older TVs had tons and tons of discreet parts,... ]

This is false. Not sure what “older TV’s” that you’re referring to but CRT TV’s is basically an electron tube gun, a screen, and a power source.

[...whereas modern TVs are highly integrated and frequently only have a very small number of highly integrated components.]

This sounds like you’re not too sure about what you’re talking about. You used the phrase “highly integrated” twice in the same sentence. So either you have little to no idea about the anatomy of a modern day TV or you’re pulling one of those “hand-wavy vague discussions about how TV’s are complicated” that you pointed out to us earlier. In either case, it’s not helping your credibility or your position on this topic.

[The bulk of the weight of a plasma TV came from the insanely heavy front glass panel that is needed to build all the plasma cells.]

Not exactly. The glass can be removed and the TV panel would still work. The glass is probably the lightest part of a Plasma TV. It’s the parts inside that were heavy because of the heat sinks, fans, metal casings/cages and the physical circuit boards themselves.

[What a bunch of crock! There is no such thing as multiple layers of panels.]

That’s fine with us, if you believe that there are no such layers in a TV panel, just as it is fine with us that you believe that older TV’s have ‘tons and tons’ of discreet parts. It just goes to show that there is a lot of mis-information out there on the internet and this is a perfect example.

As for the rest of your points, we wouldn’t recommend readers to look up Wikipedia as a source of reliable information on these technical topics but what we would recommend to readers on the Houzz Discussion Forums is to take everything said in this forum or other internet forums with a grain of salt, do your own research, and arrive at your own conclusions that best meets your needs.

All that being said, please have a great rest of your day!

Tai Truong

Elements of Design

3400 Medford Street

Los Angeles, CA 90063

tai@lusivedecor.com

www.elementsofdesign.com

Hm. All I Can say is I have Two Samsung TV s that have been working perfectly for the past 10 + years.

I am surprised by negativity about Samsung. My experience with two Samsung Tav is the same as of AnimalAre BeautifulPeople.

Love my Samsung TV. So far, 6 years+

I have a Sony Bravia that I bought back in 2007 and it's still going strong. I have never had a tv last this long and keeping my fingers crossed!

My aforementioned Panasonic plasma hit 18 years on 9/28/2020, continues to work nicely.