Sony’s 84-inch LED TV with 4K resolution costs $24,999, ships in November

BGR ^ | 9/06/12 | Raymond Wong

[Libloather]

Sony’s 84-inch LED TV with 4K resolution costs $24,999, ships in November
By: Raymond Wong | Sep 6th, 2012 at 11:35PM

As if there was any doubt Sony’s (SNE) giant 84-inch 4K resolution LED TV would be expensive, Sony has finally priced its upcoming XBR-84X900 TV. The flat screen with a whopping 3840 x 2160-pixel resolution and integrated speakers will sell for $24,999. While Sony will start taking preorders for the TV beginning Thursday, September 6th, it won’t actually be available until November.

[Libloather]

In other TV news - TV With 16 Times Resolution of HDTV Passed by UN Standards Body

UHDTV, or Ultra High Definition Television, allows for programming and broadcasts at resolutions of up to 7680 by 4320, along with frame refresh rates of up to 120Hz, double that of most current HDTV broadcasts. The format also calls for a broader palette of colors that can be displayed on screen.

[GeronL]

Give it a few years, that price will likely drop very very steeply

[GeronL]

Who exactly broadcasts at that resolution?

[FreedomPoster]

I don’t care, I just want something significantly higher than 1920x1080 to become standard so that it will help drive down the price of higher-res large computer monitors, say in the 27” and up range. Apple Thunderbolt displays (at 2560x1440) and the similar Dell models still run pretty expensive.

[shibumi]

"Give it a few years, that price will likely drop very very steeply"

As in $2,349+tax at Sam's Club, circa 2016 - 2017.

[this_ol_patriot]

Res nice, wider color gamut great.

[metesky]

Linky no worky...

[driftless2]

Here is the problem for these new tvs: how good of a tv do you really need? I've read various reports that 3-D tvs are not selling well. Why not? Isn't 3-D the next new great thing? It's not selling that well because people most people are quite satisfied with what they have at a much cheaper price.

I relate it to ice cream. There are various expensive ice creams that their backers tout as being the best-tasting ice cream in the world. And maybe they are. But so what? If you're satisfied (as I am) with a much cheaper brand that tastes almost as good, why buy the very expensive brand? That goes for all products. I don't have to eat at the most expensive steak house in town to be satisfied with a good steak dinner.

As with these other examples, I don't need the latest, greatest gadget (in this case ultra-huge tv) to be satisfied. My wife and I are more than happy with out 46" Toshiba hdtv that was a vast improvement over our old 37" analog. The price will surely go down with this latest galactic-sized innovation, and maybe I'll buy one when it gets down to something affordable. But it won't because I absolutely have to have one because it's superior to the one I have now. It might be (and probably is) superior, but ....so what?

[ronnie raygun]

Just think our dear leader on an 84 inch tv, sends shivers up my leg

[Walkingfeather]

$24,000 + 500 channels still = not a bit worth watching in high resolution.....

[ClearCase_guy]

Our consumer society often makes illogical choices.

In science fiction stories, sometimes a wall or a window will turnout to be a TV screen. Imagine sitting at home in Oklahoma and looking out the window and enjoying the pounding Atlantic surf on the rocky coast below. Blue sky, puffy clouds stretching off to the horizon. A perfect day. Or, for a change, the pristine, snow-capped mountains of Colorado -- right before your eyes. Best view in town.

Are these super-fancy TVs destined to become nothing more than a window offering an illusion that we live in a nice place? Quite possibly.

[moovova]

I think a couple of the women on The View look wide enough already.

[Krankor]

Give it a few years, that price will likely drop very very steeply

I'm ordering mine from Amazon.com. You get free delivery for anything over $25.

[reed13k]

I agree.... Though I have two tvs one is 20 years old and the other 15 and neither is larger than 26”. But guess what Santa’s bringing me this year? The actual drive is to open up space in the house and eliminate the cabinet the current TV sets in.

[reed13k]

I agree.... Though I have two tvs one is 20 years old and the other 15 and neither is larger than 26”. But guess what Santa’s bringing me this year? The actual drive is to open up space in the house and eliminate the cabinet the current TV sets in by putting a flat screen on the wall.

[Lionheartusa1]

I guess i’ll take 3 of them at that cheap price , Living Rm. , Family Rm. and Bed Rm . What the hell is $75k now days ?? (sarc).

[dangerdoc]

I will buy one when the price comes down. It would be a great way to display family photos and our phones will likely be taking 4k video by then.

[MachIV]

I would love to get either a new Sony or Samsung 40” LED LCD, 1080p, 120hz, TV, but I have a 20 year old 22” Sony Trinitron that still works pretty well and with the scrambler devices for pulling in digital broadcasts, I can’t justify junking it for a new set. Fiscal discipline I guess.

[Cvengr]

Wt not yet shown.

These large screen HDTVs generally weigh over 300lbs and with a mount installed crest the 400lb above 4ft over finish floor height mandating seismic design for their installation.

Also their mounting height can be tricky inside a single story 8ft ceiling room, to allow full viewing with other furnishings.

I just installed 5 similar systems in a Data Center made by Samsung and Panasonic. Panasonic was Plasma, but twice the power requirement, but less than 250lb. Samsung required 60% more power than this Sony, and LCD, but weighed over 350 lbs.

[Tuanedge]

I don’t “do” TV but I sure know what to do with 25 grand...