Tcl under fire: report suggests its QLED TVs might not have any quantum dots | Hacker News Reader

Tcl under fire: report suggests its QLED TVs might not have any quantum dots

tomsguide.com

43 pointsvo2maxer27 comments

> Update 9/13/2024: TCL explained to Tom's Guide that the TVs associated in these reports are not US-based models.

Oh, well then I guess it's okay...

If you conduct your own study suggesting that the accusing study was wrong, would you also bring up a flimsy argument like "don't get involved, because geography?"

> The QLED TVs in question are the TCL C755, C655, and C655 Pro. According to both SGS and Intertek, these models don’t contain any signs of indium and cadmium. These are elements used in the creation of quantum dots.

Cadmium? I thought we tried to get rid of that. Perhaps QLED was a bad idea? Or is it just TCLs QLEDs that are a bad idea, so they fixed the environmental problems for us?

It is being phased out. EU gave the industry an extended 6 month grace period this year to phase out the use of cadmium in qled TVs.

I am old enough to be taken aback by the first few words: what has happened to the Tcl/Tk language??

Same here - especially since the capitalisation in the HN headline is Tcl not TCL!

Tom's has it as TCL. The headline here is incorrect.

I’d bet Tcl language also doesn’t have any damn quantum dots. It’s a conspiracy.

Eggdrops, get your eggdrops here!

Faulty QLED film is a better outcome than my initial thought that they were redefining LED as QLED.

After a few months of picking out a new budget TV, I bought a 55" TCL 4K QLED TV with a miniLED backlight (basically equivalent to Samsung's "Neo QLED") for $700. One of the highest quality TVs I've ever seen - couldn't notice a difference between this TV and an OLED one. The blacks are perfectly black, looking at it from a 2m distance - even if I looked closer, I think I wouldn't notice that nearby LEDs are lighted up too. For $700 I didn't expect much, but it comes even with Dolby Vision (which Samsung infamously doesn't support!) and it has a 144 Hz panel. I don't know the exact price range for the TVs mentioned in the article, but if I can get this high quality in a $700 TV - I couldn't care less about some quantum dots.

I'm surprised more of this kind of validation doesn't happen on products out in the wild more.

I didn't know you still got colour without the presence of quantum dots in these kinds of panels, I thought they were integral to how the displays worked. (unless this is some kind of hybrid)

If their panels weren't performing up to QLEDs usual standard then I would expect RTINGS extensive testing to pick up on it, but it doesn't look like they've noticed anything amiss.

They reviewed one of the models mentioned in the OP: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/tcl/6-series-r655-2022-qle...

I was sure this as a link to the onion.

I mean, it would be very clever to call a feature you migth or might not include as quantum

Could definitely be a Monty Python sketch.

"I looked inside the TV, there were NO quantum dots."

"Well there's your problem right there - you've gone and collapsed the wave function by looking!"

They may or may not be pining for the fjords!

"The only reason why we knew the position of the particle in the first place was that it had been NAILED there."

Why would anyone care whether their TV literally has quantum dots in it? It matters how bright it is, how wide its gamut, how accurate the colour reproduction, how much power it consumes, how long it lasts, etc., and maybe all those tend to be different for panels with quantum dots in them, but it's those things that matter, not what technology is inside.

(I don't mean it doesn't matter whether they're lying. They shouldn't lie, and if they're lying that's bad. But this just seems such a weird thing for anyone to care about at all.)

Because they said it did. I don't like being lied to. If I don't know what type of TV it is I can't assess all those factors you mentioned in the first place.

If they say it's a quantum dot TV, I'm going to look up how long quantum dot TVs last. If I've been lied to I'll make a decision based on incorrect information.

If their claims don't matter, why do they make them?

It's not weird that people don't want to be lied to. And no one cares except for the lying part.

My first research project in undergrad involved quantum dots so buying one of these would largely be for sentimental reasons. (I haven't bought one because the last time I needed a TV they were pretty pricey but next time I probably will). So I'd be pissed. I imagine I'm a special case here though

Because if they’re lying about the quantum dots, they may also be lying about brightness, color gamut, and reproduction - all things I don’t have the ability to verify at home.

Alternatively, if their TV was designed to meet certain specs for the above with quantum dots, and faulty/fraudulent panels are missing said dots, it likely won’t meet all of those specs.

> all things I don’t have the ability to verify at home.

It's really noticeable that any stuff on shady online marketplaces will lie about any parameter typical consumers have no ability to test at home...

Eg. the "200,000 mAh" USB battery banks... Actual testing showed it to be 7,000 mAh...

Because knowingly lying about specs is fraud.

If it doesn't matter, they shouldn't hesitate to drop the claim from their marketing material, right? Right?? Oh... it does matter and that's why they're lying.

If you paid a price for a feature thats completely missing when you could have bought a different TV for less people tend to care.

If I paid for QKEDs I want QLEDs, not some regular LEDs with beefed up brightness using higher voltage that would fail prematurely.

Aren’t Tcl tv’s on the cheaper end? Not saying it makes deceiving customers justifiable, but I don’t think people buy their products looking for cutting edge quality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com