Yes, because TV prices are heavily subsidized by ad systems installed directly on the OS and not reflective of the true cost of manufacturing. Good monitors still do not have this problem.

I don’t think they’re making $3600 off of showing me ads

Maybe they're also monitoring what you are watching making you part of the greatest Nielsen ratings group of all times?! Content producers and advertisers would pay a lot for that.

Joke’s on them, all I do is code all day, I barely even shower and I don’t buy anything except licenses for JetBrains products and productivity apps.

I have couple of big TVs for people to watch movies, play games. All hooked up to PC and disconnected from any networks. They're essentially dumb monitors. No ads at all.

Interesting thought. Most tvs have a vesa mount, so you can put it on a monitor stand. Are there some major drawbacks I might overlook?

I just sent back to the store a 42" Samsung LCD TV for two reasons:

1) It didn’t go into sleep and I always had to fiddle with the remote to bring back the desktop image after a wake up (select source, etc).

2) The color (LED lighting?) wasn’t uniform near the frame even if it was a higher end model.

But the 120 Hz frame rate was interesting and the text extremely sharp. I kept it around 1 meter from my eyes and I liked the extra space. I connected it to an older MacBook Pro through an eGPU.

I've used a 43-inch 4k monitor for 4 years. First a Samsung and now a TCL. I love it. Some people worry about frame latency for high performance gaming, but that's not me. It handles my level of PC gaming just fine, in addition to being my programming workhorse.

> Are there some major drawbacks I might overlook?

You have to watch out for burn in with some TV technologies like OLED.

True, there is a reason why there are close to none PC monitors with OLED screens.

IPS Black with twice the contrast compared to previous IPS models, 35% deeper blacks, probably a lot of the UltraSharp line's conveniences thrown in...yeah I can see people wanting that.

Reliable reviewers say it makes even average Joe stuff like movies and photos look noticeably better. So I want to at least try it.

If you are telling us what kind of display you personally don't need, I guess that's another thing...

Where did you get that $3800 number? I'd expect it to be priced significantly lower..

My mistake. I was looking at the street price for their current 8K monitor.

Those are not comparable. This has about 2.5x the pixels of a comparably sized 4K TV which means lower yields for manufacturing, plus it doesn't have the same economy of scale of a discounted consumer TV. Also it integrates a stand with USB hub, a webcam, far superior color gamut than your $200 screen and Thunderbolt 4 with PD.

But if the extra pixel density and other features aren't useful to you, then no reason not to get the vastly cheaper device.

Check the color gamut and black levels on the $200 4K TV. You won't find anything remotely comparable in the three figures, I expect.

if you want 220dpi, then any TV isn't an option. Even if you just want 160dpi, then current 27" 4k screens are your only option.