There's no new small OLED TV from Sony this year, and I'm gutted

By
published

The A90K trundles on for a third year

Sony XR-42A90K
(Image credit: Sony)

While most of the controversial column inches dedicated to Sony's new TV launch will be around the lack of a replacement for the A95L, there's something else about which I'm even more disappointed: the absence of a new small OLED model.

Sony explains the lack of a new flagship QD-OLED by pointing out that the A95L didn't come out until late last year (we were among the first to review it, in October), so it still has plenty of life left in it. There may also be a desire to let the brand's new next-gen Mini LED model, the Bravia 9, have the 2024 limelight all to itself. While Sony won't confirm that, it would make sense in its own way, too.

What doesn't make sense to me is why Sony wouldn't launch new 42-inch or 48-inch OLED TVs. 'Small' OLEDs are hugely popular and LG is selling them by the truckload, yet Sony is relying on the A90K to trundle on for a third year.

I'm not saying that the A90K is a bad TV, because it's far from that, but it's always been a niche choice next to LG's C2 and C3, which are invariably available for quite a lot less.

And it's not as if development at this size is stagnant, either. While we're yet to test the 42- or 48-inch versions of the new C4, LG tells us they're much brighter than their predecessors and almost as bright as the larger models in the range – something that hasn't been true in previous C-series generations.

It's rare for a modern TV to continue in a range beyond one year (Sony is practically the only brand to have taken such an approach in recent years), let alone into a third. TVs just aren't designed to live this long, and I imagine the A90K rather like a Mr Meeseeks from Rick & Morty, wondering when its work will be done so it can die.

Sony is looking at 2024 as something of a reset for its TV and soundbar ranges, unifying them under the Bravia banner, and the Bravia 8, which replaces the excellent A80L, would make all sorts of sense in smaller sizes. Alas, it's not to be, and the C4, like the C3, will be allowed to dominate the small OLED TV market without a new Sony challenger.

MORE:

Read our Sony Bravia 8 hands-on to understand why we wish it was available as a smaller model

Here's our review of the 65-inch version of the LG C4

And here are the 42-inch Sony A90K and 48-inch Sony A90K reviews

Tom Parsons
Tom Parsons

Tom Parsons has been writing about TV, AV and hi-fi products (not to mention plenty of other 'gadgets' and even cars) for over 15 years. He began his career as What Hi-Fi?'s Staff Writer and is now the TV and AV Editor. In between, he worked as Reviews Editor and then Deputy Editor at Stuff, and over the years has had his work featured in publications such as T3, The Telegraph and Louder. He's also appeared on BBC News, BBC World Service, BBC Radio 4 and Sky Swipe. In his spare time Tom is a runner and gamer.

8 Comments Comment from the forums
  • manicm
    Nonsensical, why a 42 or 48 instead of a 55", especially hung on a wall? It's going to give you a much more cinematic experience, and they're about the same price really.

    Unless you have a really small room.
    Reply
  • podknocker
    You need to consider your viewing distance and you would need to sit a good few feet to appreciate a 55" screen. This size is probably too big for most living rooms. Also, if you have the same 4k resolution on a smaller screen, like 42 or 48", then the size of the pixels is smaller and they will be closer together. It's known as the dot pitch and 4k films on a smaller screen, at the right distance, will look incredible. Bigger isn't a guarantee of better picture quality.
    Reply
  • Friesiansam
    What Hi-Fi? said:
    There won't be a new small OLED TV from Sony this year, and I'm gutted
    Saying you are "gutted", is just bloody silly...
    manicm said:
    Nonsensical, why a 42 or 48 instead of a 55", especially hung on a wall? It's going to give you a much more cinematic experience, and they're about the same price really.

    Unless you have a really small room.
    Not everyone wants a big TV, or a "cinematic" experience or, want to go to the faff of wall mounting. If you don't care about films, there is sod all 4k content to watch anyway. And, if you don't care about films or sport, most of what's left is just dross, not worth the cost of a big TV to watch.
    Reply
  • podknocker
    Friesiansam said:
    Saying you are "gutted", is just bloody silly...

    Not everyone wants a big TV, or a "cinematic" experience or, want to go to the faff of wall mounting. If you don't care about films, there is sod all 4k content to watch anyway. And, if you don't care about films or sport, most of what's left is just dross, not worth the cost of a big TV to watch.
    I've not owned a TV for nearly 4 years and watch all my content on my 34" monitor provided by my employer. I have my work PC and my own PC connected to it and it does the job. I sit about 2 feet away and get a decent picture. It also sounds decent. If I had pots of gold and enough space to install a nice sized TV again, I don't think I'd bother. Most of the stuff you can watch is dreadful banality and I think many people do other things now. The days of families all sat together, staring at middle of the road dross, are coming to an end I think. The TV doesn't play such a large part in many people's lives now and leisure time habits are changing.
    Reply
  • 12th Monkey
    podknocker said:
    The days of families all sat together, staring at middle of the road dross, are coming to an end I think
    The days of them sharing brilliant stuff (that everyone would be talking about the next day) are also gone - I'm thinking Life on Earth, The World at War, Roots etc.
    Reply
  • manicm
    Friesiansam said:
    Saying you are "gutted", is just bloody silly...

    Not everyone wants a big TV, or a "cinematic" experience or, want to go to the faff of wall mounting. If you don't care about films, there is sod all 4k content to watch anyway. And, if you don't care about films or sport, most of what's left is just dross, not worth the cost of a big TV to watch.

    In which case you're not going to bother with a premium 42 or 48" 4K TV anyway, but for those of us who do watch movies, as I did with my wife, then I still stand 100% by what I said, and the wall mount is not really a faff, and frees up space, assuming one has free wall real estate.

    And as someone who frequently watched YouTube for various purposes I appreciate a good TV - and I've sometimes come to appreciate various 4k content when I think it calls for it.

    You're painting everybody with the same brush - but remember many of us are not in the UK or EU hemisphere either.
    Reply
  • Friesiansam
    manicm said:
    In which case you're not going to bother with a premium 42 or 48" 4K TV anyway, but for those of us who do watch movies, as I did with my wife, then I still stand 100% by what I said, and the wall mount is not really a faff, and frees up space, assuming one has free wall real estate.

    And as someone who frequently watched YouTube for various purposes I appreciate a good TV - and I've sometimes come to appreciate various 4k content when I think it calls for it.

    You're painting everybody with the same brush - but remember many of us are not in the UK or EU hemisphere either.
    With respect, many people who do watch films and like a big TV, seem to assume everyone shares their preference, reviewers often seem guilty of this. We’re all different…
    Reply
  • podknocker
    It's true we all have certain preferences, but I don't understand why anyone would want a stonking great telly, dominating their living room, especially when they could be sat too close to it, to really get the best out of the picture. Another reason I would never own a huge TV is because they can be a 2 person lift, to enable cleaning and the upgrade and installation of other components etc. I live on my own and although modern TVs are not very heavy, you'd need 6ft long arms to pick the damn things up. Anyone would struggle if they lived alone. Many people have them on the wall and I would find this really annoying, constantly looking up to see the picture. With your head level, under the least amount of strain, your eyes naturally fall at just under horizontal. This is why it's more comfortable having a TV just below your head. Bringing your head back to look up at a TV is not going to do your neck any good.
    Reply