7 TV trends that were doomed to fail

I‘ve always been a fan of home theater and TV technology. Over the decades, I’ve tried many of the “next big things” the industry has offered: projectors, rear-projection TVs, a 43” tube TV that felt huge at the time, and for a short while a curved TV. Looking back, it’s been a fun ride, but many so-called “game changers” never lived up to the hype. Not all the trends covered here have made it into my living room, but I’ve experienced enough to recognize a pattern: TV makers are constantly chasing new innovations, and they don’t always pan out. Some ideas solved problems most of us never had, others had technical flaws that took you out of the experience, and others just couldn’t get consumers onboard. Rear Projection TVs: When Bigger Meant Bulkier Credit: Lucas Gouveia / How-To Geek Back in the early 2000s, rear projection TVs became popular because they were the most bang for your buck if you were looking for a big-screen TV. They were far less costly than plasma screen TVs, and there was an active used market. For many, it was the first time they could afford a TV that large in their home. For a home theater fan like me, they were hard to pass up. They dwarfed the biggest tube TVs, and watching sports, movies, and playing video games on them felt next level. But once you got one in your living room, the tradeoffs became apparent. They were huge and heavy, like the old stereo cabinets of the 60s. Add to that the fact that the picture only looked good if you sat right in front of the TV, and they required maintenance over time. In 2002, my projection TV started having artifacts on the screen, and after a TV technician pulled it all apart, we discovered algae had started to grow in the projection system’s cooling fluid. Thankfully, a costly cleaning and a coolant replacement fixed it, but it highlighted how finicky that technology could be. Between lamp replacements, weird optical problems, and the overall size, this style of TV was doomed. As soon as prices started dropping on flat-panel TVs, rear projections lost their mojo and consumers. 3D TV: The Future That Gave Me Headaches Credit: Lucas Gouveia / How-To Geek | Zdena Venclik / Shutterstock 3D TVs were expected to be the next “big thing” after HD. Movie theaters had a resurgence of 3D blockbusters like Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and Avatar. TV makers were convinced we’d all want that same experience in home theaters. For a couple of years, my local Best Buy’s home theater section had giant banners pushing 3D-ready sets, with bundled glasses, all promising to “immerse you like never before.” It sounded great, but in reality, it wasn’t. The glasses were awkward, many looked cheap, and some had batteries. And perhaps a bigger roadblock was that the content library never really took off. I never owned a 3D TV myself, but I’d tried them enough to know they weren’t for me. The picture clarity was always lacking, and the glasses themselves gave me headaches. Sitting through an entire movie with uncomfortable glasses, squinting much of the time was no fun. In the end, consumers never connected with 3D TVs. What was built up to be the future of TV turned into a niche fad that never really caught on. Avatar Release Date December 15, 2009 21:9 Aspect Ratios: The Movie Experience That Fell Flat Credit: Philips In 2009, Philips released the first 21:9 aspect ratio TV. The goal was to bring the big screen into the living room and get rid of the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen when watching your favorite films. It sounds great, but most TV content was produced in the standard 16:9 format, which resulted in pillarboxing on the sides of the TV, stretched video, or regular format switching on your TV. I never owned one of these sets, but I imagine they didn’t catch on because TVs are shared in homes, and the average person expects them to just work. These TVs added a layer of friction to people’s viewing experience. Consumers were used to their 16:9 format and didn’t want the compromise of black bars or weird stretching. From the manufacturers’ perspective, the costs of producing TVs with a different size panel for a niche slice of the market didn’t make sense. In the end, 16:9 has become the default for most TV shows, sports, and streaming platforms. You can still find ultrawide movies in places like YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, and Netflix. The 21:9 format lives on in gaming monitors, where the extra horizontal space is an advantage in games that support it. Unlike in the living room, computers support ultrawide resolutions, so you don’t run into the same content mismatch headaches that doomed 21:9 TVs. In that world, the format feels less like a gimmick and more like a genuine upgrade. In-TV Cameras: The Feature That Felt Like Surveillance Credit: Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock From the start, in-TV cameras had some hurdles to jump. In 2013, Smart TVs were becoming more popular and with an internet-connected TV, manufacturers assumed people would want video calls, motion sensing, and facial recognition on their sets, but the idea of a camera pointed at the living room was off-putting to consumers. I tried it on my Xbox, and it wasn’t for me. Back then, I was using my Xbox 360 with a Kinect camera as my media hub. At first, it seemed cool. It would recognize me and my wife when either of us walked into the living room. You could use voice commands to open apps, and more. Ultimately though, we both felt like we were being monitored. When I thought more deeply about the possibility of it being hacked, I decided it wasn’t worth the benefit. The Xbox remained my media hub but without the Kinect camera and its features. Gesture Controls: Looked Futuristic in Ads, but Felt Silly in Practice Credit: Shutterstock Gesture controls came bundled with many of the in-TV camera offerings, but they didn’t fare much better than the cameras themselves. Swiping through the air and pinching looked slick in the ads, but in reality, it often felt a little foolish to be waving at your TV just to change a channel or scroll through Netflix. Most people quickly realized they’d rather use something familiar, like an Xbox controller, a simple remote, or voice commands. On top of that, the gestures weren’t very reliable. What was supposed to be the “next step” in smart TV interaction ended up being a reminder that the remote wasn’t broken, and most consumers weren’t looking for a fix. Here we are, more than a decade later, most people still rely on a good old-fashioned handheld remote. Subscription with ads Yes, $8/month Simultaneous streams Two or four Curved TVs: Great for an Audience of One Credit: BaLL LunLa / Shutterstock.com Curved TVs showed up around 2013, pitched as a more immersive and cinematic viewing experience for home theaters, but they never really caught on with consumers. I owned one for a short while, and it looked great sitting right in front of it in my chair, but the moment I shifted to the couch in the corner of the living room, the image looked distorted, making it frustrating to watch. That was the big problem: they only worked well if you sat dead center, and that’s not how most people watch TV. Additionally, they looked awkward mounted on the wall, and they lacked any real benefits over a flat-screen TV. Over time, TV manufacturers quietly dropped them. But, like the 21:9 format, the curved display lives on in gaming monitors, which makes sense when you have one dedicated screen, and you’re sitting right in front of it. LG UltraWide Curved Monitor This spacious 34-inch ultrawide monitor gives you more than enough room for productivity work, watching movies, or playing games at your desk. VR Movie Watching: The Theater That Lived in Your Headset Credit: Plex Not too long ago, I picked up a Meta Quest VR headset, curious to see what the state of VR gaming was and to see if watching movies in a ‘virtual theater’ lived up to the promise. The pitch is a good one, slip on a headset and suddenly you’re sitting in front of a massive screen floating in your own private cinema. On paper, it sounds like a dream for movie fans, especially if your living room TV is lacking, or you don't have the room to support a big screen. In reality, it didn’t take long for the novelty to wear off. The headset was uncomfortable to wear for more than short bursts, and it just wasn’t sharp enough to trick my brain into believing I was really watching a giant theater screen. After about an hour, the straps dug in, my face felt hot, and there were more than a few VR games that left me queasy. Meta Quest 3 Resolution (per eye) 2064 x 2208 (pixels per eye) Storage 128GB or 512GB Discover Meta Quest 3: the ultimate VR headset with cutting-edge performance, stunning visuals, and an all-in-one design. Explore immersive games, apps, and experiences like never before.