Oct 13 2008Sony Unveils Ultra-Thin 40" LCD Television
The Sony Bravia ZX1 is not only 9.9mm thin, but "40% more efficient per panel inch compared to conventional flat panel technology" and allegedly uses less power than a light bulb. I'm not sure what kind of lightbulb, but probably not the 5-watt nightlight in the bathroom I use to prevent pissing on the floor. You know, I was just thinking the other day, "self, this LCD flat panel just isn't thin enough -- I really need something in the 9-10mm range." Thanks Sony, I'll take a 40". $6,055? No prob....wait, problem. Huge freaking problem.
Hit the jump for a video of the mother.
Sony Unveils World's thinnest Television [techcityinc]
Thanks to my brother Frank, who wants me to do the dishes because he's letting me crash at his place for a while, but I'm not going to.
Reader Comments
1. Popadopolis - October 13, 2008 3:32 PM
Damn.
F***ing.
Straight.
2. wr - October 13, 2008 3:32 PM
First. First. You're a faggot. I'm first.
3. blp - October 13, 2008 3:32 PM
I'll take one for the bedroom ceiling so I can jerk it to Sarah Palin on the news, a fine figure of a woman (and MILF.)
4. NES--still-the-best - October 13, 2008 3:39 PM
As long as a TV is just thin enough to be wall-mountable, that's as thin as I'll ever need it to be. This constant attempt to narrow screen depth more & more by the day, until our TVs will end up literally paper-thin, isn't worth the price of a halfway-decent used car.
5. Uncle Eccoli - October 13, 2008 3:43 PM
What's the point of this? I mean, it isn't as if the television is no more than 9.9mm deep at every point along its length and width. Until you can roll it up and carry it in a tube, what difference does it make how thin it is?
6. blackf0rk - October 13, 2008 3:55 PM
@5: Weight? The thinner the better? Then again - once it's on the wall - who gives a frick about weight, right? I have to agree with you. At some point, the TVs thinness doesn't really add any value to the TV.
7. blackf0rk - October 13, 2008 3:57 PM
Also, can someone please post a true profile picture of these "thin" TVs? The video came close, but I have the feeling they're hiding something by not doing a full-on profile; maybe the TV bows out dramatically in the middle. Kind of like how the new iPhones are thinner on the edges.
8. No.6 - October 13, 2008 4:14 PM
@7 my thoughts exactly. I picture a big bulbous hump in the middle of that thing! I still wouldn't mind having one though...
9. Elmo - October 13, 2008 4:17 PM
really, what is the point of all these thin things? if you press on the damn thing to hard, it would break! I want a better picture, not something I can show off to all my dumbass friends saying "Look how thin that sucker is! It must be better then any other tv!"
10. WANGLOOKER - October 13, 2008 4:26 PM
I LIEK TO LOKO AT TEH PNEIS
11. Dix Hauser - October 13, 2008 4:31 PM
That TV is thicker than Rico's penis... and by Rico, I mean me. *sigh*
12. dliup - October 13, 2008 5:15 PM
So what if the BEZEL is thin? Notice how they never turn it so you can see the whole profile.
In addition, the video has been squeezed to make everything look thinner.
WTF? They think people are that gullible?
13. Series of Tubes - October 13, 2008 5:17 PM
*Waits for Daisy to tell us how the shadows look wrong and how this is from Never Back Down"
14. ahha - October 13, 2008 6:01 PM
I'm with everyone else on the pointlessness of it being so thin. I'll also add, until every other component of my home theater experience is 9.9mm thick, it won't make a damn bit of difference how thick the tv is.
15. Brian - October 13, 2008 7:39 PM
Part of the reason companies make things smaller, thinner, etc is shipping cost... lighter TVs = less shipping cost = more profit.
16. qoqonut.com - October 13, 2008 11:26 PM
Wow, that's almost as thin as the thinnest phone.
17. ahha - October 13, 2008 11:46 PM
@15
I like where you are going but I can't imagine that an extra even $100 in shipping could do much to the profit on these things. If it costs them a little more to ship do you think whoever is going to pay $6,055 for this thing is going to care much about paying $6,155?
I think it is all about the "wow" factor. There are always a bunch of people out there that want to be first on the block to own something special. Once those sales are exhausted, repackage the technology in a more affordable form and sell it to the masses. Something like that...
18. Daisy - October 14, 2008 8:03 AM
Fake!
This is a complete photoshop job. You can tell because the shadows are all wrong. It kinda looks like a scene from "Never Back Down III - Tokyo Drift"
19. Momboelitist - October 14, 2008 11:14 AM
@4, at 6 grand it cost way more than a decent used car.
OK, reduction in weight and size is a major advantage, not only for shipping but packaging and mobility. Imagine a TV that a small woman can move around in the home by herself. Also, you will no longer need to spend big money on heavy duty mounts to put it on the wall. Furthermore, you won't have that fear of a very expensive investment falling off the wall and getting destroyed.
As for them hiding something, I think most of the guts are in that round base. Also, I did at one point see what looked like a corner jutting out near the center of the back when they turned it a little too far.
IMHO, I do think there is advantage to making TV's thinner to a point. However, just like in the past, I'll wait it out and then strategically find the very best price I can. I love buying refurbs and have lots of them which I have never had one problem with. Refurbished is why I now have a 32" HDLCD monitor for my PC. I say to those that fear refurbs, keep fearing them as it means more for me. In fact my first ultra thin TV will be a respiffed one for likely less than half the cost of one off the shelf.
20. javizzy - October 14, 2008 4:12 PM
sweet...............