Joe Biden's administration is going after big corporations with antitrust lawsuits.
It's an aggressive approach that makes Biden stand out compared to his predecessors.
High-profile cases include Live Nation, Google, Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, and others.
President Joe Biden is really leaning into his pro-labor image.
The Biden administration has launched investigations and antitrust lawsuits against several mega corporations, many in the tech sector, thatit accuses of behaving like monopolies — and it's setting him apart from his predecessors.
"This is definitely a different agenda than previous presidents," Rebecca Allensworth, an antitrust expert at Vanderbilt University, told Business Insider. "I think that Biden is saying … consolidation and the power that large companies have gotten over the last 20, 30 years isn't good for the American consumer or for Americans in general. I think it's very much a deliberate attempt to take away on some of that market power that these big corporations have accumulated."
Here are some of the biggest companies Biden has targeted.
Nvidia and OpenAI
Federal investigators have been given the green light to investigate the biggest names in artificial intelligence: Nvidia, the leading producer of AI chips, and OpenAI, which created ChatGPT. With a divide-and-conquer approach, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission will investigate Nvidia and OpenAI, respectively, to sniff out potential antitrust violations in the AI arms race, according to The New York Times. The FTC will also investigate Microsoft and its multibillion-dollar investment in OpenAI.
Live Nation
Rafael Henrique/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
In May, the Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Ticketmaster's parent company, Live Nation Entertainment,which Attorney General Merrick Garland accused of "anti-competitive and illegal" business practices that have stifled innovation and led to worse experiences for fans, artists, promoters, and vendors.
Arguments in the case concluded earlier this month, leaving the future of Google (and much of the tech industry at large) in the hands of a US district judge who may clear the company or find it liable and demand it make changes.
Apple
The iPhone 15 was launched at an Apple event on September 12.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
The Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple in March, accusing the company of taking over the smartphone market by "delaying, degrading, or outright blocking" the competition. The company has created a "smartphone monopoly," the Justice Department argued, using restrictive policies, accessories, and software.
Amazon
Jeff Bezos.
EMMANUEL DUNAND
The FTC took Amazon to court last year, accusing the company of luring customers into signing up for its Prime subscriptions. The FTC claimed that Amazon "knowingly duped millions of customers." A Business Insider investigation previously found that the company was aware of its confusing sign-up infrastructure for years but did not act on it. Meanwhile, an antitrust suit brought against Amazon by the FTC is set to begin in 2026.
Meta
The Meta logo.
Chesnot/Getty Images
The FTC and dozens of states filed suit against Meta, formerly Facebook, accusing the company of buying up Instagram and WhatsApp to quash competition.
"I think there's a reason why they have one big monopolization case, at least, against each of the four major American tech companies," Allensworth told BI. "Tech is too dominant. Tech has a dangerous level of market power, and it's oppressing competition and creating products that are more dangerous and more expensive than they need to be."
The Biden administration is targeting more than just tech, however. It has also intervened in the merger of JetBlue and Spirit Airlines, which a federal judge ultimately blocked, and Kroger's bid to acquire Albertsons Companies, which is still pending following an FTC lawsuit.
Collectively, it sends a clear message to companies that "the problem goes beyond tech,"Allensworth said. "Other sectors, too, suffer from concentration and could do with a bit of antitrust enforcement."
But while the administration can bring investigations and litigation, the outcome is out of its hands.
"It really lies with the courts, and the courts are not immune to political change, but less susceptible to the winds of politics," Allensworth said.
Have you worked at these companies? Do you have insight to share? Reach this reporter by email at kbalevic@businessinsider.com. Signal provided upon request.
When you buy through our links, Business Insider may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more
The LG C3 (left) and Roku Plus Series (right) are two of the best 55-inch TV models you can buy right now.
Amazon/Business Insider
When shopping for a new TV, size is one of the first things you'll need to settle on. Models are available across a wide range of options, with 55 inches being a popular pick for people who want a medium-sized display. Entry-level 55-inch TVs can be found for under $300, and many brands sell 55-inch versions of their top TVs with all the advanced features you'd get on a bigger size. The best 55-inch TVs provide excellent picture quality while still being large enough to show off the benefits of 4K resolution.
Based on a combination of hands-on testing and research bolstered by a decade's experience covering the home entertainment industry, we've picked the five best 55-inch TVs you can buy. Our top recommendation is the LG C3, which delivers fantastic contrast thanks to its OLED screen while often costing less than similar 55-inch sets from other brands. But if you want to spend under $500, we recommend the Roku Plus Series. It produces a wide range of colors and delivers solid brightness for the money.
Below are all five of our picks for the best 55-inch TVs, including a high-end option for home theater enthusiasts and a cheap entry-level model great for casual buyers.
Under most circumstances, we recommend Samsung's S90C as the best TV you can buy right now, but LG's C3 has an edge if you're specifically looking for a 55-inch display. The key factor at this size is price and availability. The 55-inch C3 is easier to find in stock and is often cheaper than the 55-inch S90C.
While the C3's peak brightness of 800 nits can't match the S90C's 1,000 nits, it still gets bright enough for average living rooms and delivers the same pixel-level contrast that all OLEDs are known for. This means you get deep black levels that disappear in a dark room and intense high-dynamic range (HDR) highlights without any of the halos that appear around bright objects on some QLED TVs.
And unlike even the best Samsung TVs, the C3 supports Dolby Vision to provide the most accurate HDR image from streaming services like Disney Plus and Netflix. We don't think Dolby Vision is a must-have, but it is a nice perk. Check out our HDR TV guide for more details on the differences between HDR formats. Viewing angles on the C3 are also excellent, so the picture doesn't noticeably fade or distort when you sit off to the side of the TV.
The display is also a great pick for gamers, thanks to its low input lag and fast 120Hz refresh rate for smooth gameplay on a PS5 or Xbox Series X. Though not our favorite interface, LG's webOS smart TV platform is solid as well. With the included Magic Remote, you can navigate through the menus via physical buttons or motion controls by pointing the remote at the screen and moving a mouse-like cursor.
If you can find it in stock, the 55-inch Samsung S90C is a strong alternative that can deliver a slightly more vivid image. However, inventory for that size is scarce and tends to be more expensive than the C3. LG also sells a 2024 version of the C3 called the C4. The new model can get a bit brighter, but it costs more. For now, we still recommend the C3 as the best 55-inch TV you can get.
Best under $500
The Roku Plus Series is an affordable QLED display powered by our favorite smart TV interface. The Roku operating system (OS) is simple and convenient, and the TV delivers solid image quality for its class. This is easily one of the best 55-inch TVs you can snag for under $500.
The display uses a QLED panel, which enables it to provide a wide range of colors. It also has local dimming to brighten and darken specific areas across its screen. This feature is rare to find in cheaper 55-inch TVs, and it provides a sizable improvement in black-level and brightness performance over less expensive displays, like TCL's Q5.
That said, the Plus Series' black levels can't match the pixel-level precision of an OLED, like the LG C3. And unlike pricier QLED models, the Plus Series uses regular-sized LEDs in its backlight rather than Mini LEDs. This leads to less control over the panel's contrast. During our review, we found the TV's dimming to be a little clunky, with slightly delayed shifts in brightness.
The display also has poor viewing angles, which means colors and contrast fade when you sit to the side of the TV. And the panel is limited to 60Hz, so you can't get 4K/120Hz support on consoles or gaming PCs. There's no motion-smoothing feature, either. Though we typically prefer to keep settings like that off, motion smoothing can benefit certain sports broadcasts.
But for the most part, the above shortcomings are par for the course on QLEDs in this price range. The TV also makes up for some of its flaws with its intuitive Roku OS, which provides easy and snappy access to every popular app. There are some usability perks here as well that you won't find on many other smart TV systems, like the ability to pause live TV from a digital antenna when you have a USB stick plugged in. The remote is also great, with hands-free voice search, a rechargeable battery, and an audio chime you can activate if you misplace it.
Buyers on the hunt for the best 55-inch TV on a budget should also consider the new Hisense U6N QLED. The 55-inch U6N has a list price of $600, but it's occasionally on sale for just below $500. The U6N is similar to the Roku Plus Series, but it has a Mini LED backlight, which should translate to better dimming performance. However, it uses the Google TV OS rather than Roku OS.
The Sony A95L is the best 55-inch TV for high-end performance. Competing displays from LG and Samsung get close, but the A95L has a slight edge if you're willing to spend top dollar.
The TV uses a QD-OLED panel to offer pixel-level contrast and industry-leading color performance. The A95L is also one of the brightest OLEDs we've tested. We measured a peak of around 1,500 nits in our brightness test pattern, a whopping 500 nits more than its predecessor, the A95K. The A95L can only hit that number when displaying small bright elements on the screen, but that's still an impressive feat for an OLED display.
This high brightness allows the A95L to deliver exceptional HDR images. Black levels disappear into a dark room, while specular highlights shine with pinpoint accuracy and no blooming. If you watch TV in a home theater setting, the A95L simply dazzles.
Samsung's new S95D OLED can get even brighter with a peak of around 1,700 nits, but Sony's proprietary picture processing enables image accuracy that edges out rival brands. This processing also offers impressive upscaling that minimizes flaws in lower-quality sources, like HD feeds from streaming services, cable, and indoor TV antennas. Viewing angles are also top-notch, so you don't have to worry about colors distorting when sitting off-center.
The A95L's Google TV operating system works well, too. The included Google Assistant voice remote has a premium feel and a handy backlight that automatically turns on when you pick it up. A webcam is also included, which supports video calls and gesture controls. The TV's stand can even be configured in a high- or low-profile mode depending on whether you want to put a soundbar in front of it.
The only notable feature missing is 144Hz support, which Samsung, Hisense, and TCL offer on some of their higher-end TVs when paired with a gaming PC. But if you're using a console, like a PS5 or Xbox Series X, you can rest easy knowing you'll still get full 120Hz support.
Given its price, the A95L is geared toward big home theater enthusiasts willing to pay a premium for top performance. Most buyers will be satisfied with any of the less expensive 55-inch TVs we recommend, but if money is no object, the A95L is the TV to get.
Best anti-reflective display
Samsung's high-end S95D has a unique matte screen that sets it apart from nearly every other 55-inch TV you can buy. Most competing displays use a glossy or semi-glossy panel, but the S95D's matte display enables it to reduce glare and reflections significantly.
In fact, the S95D is the best anti-glare TV we've seen. If you have a room where reflections are a big problem, this set could be the solution you're looking for. However, there is a notable drawback. While the S95D's matte screen combats glare, it gives black levels a slightly elevated look in bright rooms. This can give dark scenes a hazy and flat quality when you watch TV with the lights on. So, there's a clear tradeoff, and whether you prioritize reducing reflections or preserving black levels comes down to personal preference.
Thankfully, in a dark room, the S95D's black levels look just as impressive as any OLED's. The TV delivers exceptional picture performance that holds its own against top competitors from Sony and LG. It's also the brightest OLED we've measured, with a peak of 1,700 nits. Sony's A95L still has an edge when it comes to overall image quality and accuracy, but the S95D is easily one of the top high-end TVs there is.
The TV's design is also premium, with a uniformly thin profile and a One Connect Box to house its inputs instead of building them into the panel. Gamers get cool perks like a 144Hz mode when paired with a PC, and access to the Xbox Game Pass app to stream games.
Samsung's cheaper Frame TV uses a similar matte screen, but that model can't match the S95D's image quality. The brand also still sells the 2023 version of this display, called the S95C. The S95C offers similar performance for less money, but it doesn't have the S95D's new glare-free panel. Though pricey, the S95D is the best 55-inch TV you can buy if you want the most effective anti-reflective screen on the market.
Though we previously recommended TCL's step-down S4 model in this spot, a price drop has made the Q5 a much better value in this class. At under $300 for the 55-inch size, the Q5 is an excellent entry-level TV for buyers who favor affordability.
And despite its low price, the Q5 uses a QLED panel with quantum dots to provide a wide color gamut, just like the pricier picks in this guide. However, the Q5 doesn't have local dimming to control contrast across specific areas. Instead, it has a standard direct-lit backlight. As a result, the TV's contrast is lower, and its black levels aren't as deep as the other displays we recommend. This means dark scenes could look washed out if you watch TV with the lights off. Colors and contrast also distort if you sit to the side of the screen, but that's common for any TV this inexpensive.
Peak brightness is limited to around 400 nits, which is fine for standard dynamic range (SDR) content but on the low side for HDR playback. We recommend you pay more for the Roku Plus Series if you want a budget-friendly TV with HDR in mind. Gaming performance is also a mixed bag. The panel can support 120Hz when displaying 1440p or 1080p resolution, but it's limited to 60Hz with 4K.
However, the Q5 is a solid option if you just want basic 4K playback. Its color performance is noticeably better than most competing TVs in this price range. Integrated support for the Google TV platform and a voice remote round out the package, offering reliable playback from all the best streaming services.
How we test 55-inch TVs
A test pattern used to measure a TV's peak brightness.
Steven Cohen/Business Insider
To select the best 55-inch TVs, our team relies on a combination of hands-on testing and research informed by more than 10 years of experience reviewing home entertainment products.
When we review TVs, we focus on 65-inch units since that size is considered the industry's flagship offering. However, a TV model's overall performance usually remains comparable across sizes 55 inches and above. For instance, a 65-inch Sony A95L OLED and a 55-inch A95L have the same basic specs and capabilities. The only notable difference is the size of the screen.
However, some TVs that use local dimming, like the Roku Plus Series, employ fewer zones in smaller screen sizes versus larger ones. This can lead to differences in contrast performance when comparing a 55-inch model to another size, but not enough to alter our general impressions of that model. Occasionally, there are bigger differences across sizes, and we note those details when applicable.
To test TVs, we look at picture clarity, contrast, peak brightness, color performance, viewing angles, gaming capabilities, smart TV navigation, and overall value. We measure HDR brightness with an X-Rite iDisplay Plus colorimeter and use test patterns on the Spears & Munsil UHD HDR Benchmark 4K Blu-ray disc to evaluate other objective display parameters.
But test patterns can only reveal so much, so we watch plenty of actual movies and shows to see how a TV performs with real-world content on a day-to-day basis in both dark and bright rooms. We revisit various scenes on each TV we test that we've specifically chosen to examine black levels, shadow details, HDR highlights, and upscaling. Our demo content includes 4K, 1080p high definition (HD), and standard definition (SD) material from various sources like Blu-ray discs, streaming services, and cable TV.
55-inch TV FAQs
Ryan Waniata/Insider
Is 55 inches a good size for a TV?
A 55-inch screen is a solid choice for various rooms. This size is still big enough to feel immersive in smaller living rooms while offering a more compact alternative to 65-inch models that might be too big for some spaces.
A 55-inch TV is also a good fit for a bedroom where you might want something smaller than what you've got in your living room but not so compact that you must sacrifice picture quality features. Most brands' best 4K TVs are available in 55-inch options, but many top displays are not sold in sizes below that. For instance, if you want one of Samsung or Sony's best OLED TVs, 55 inches is the smallest size available.
How much should a 55-inch TV cost?
The best 55-inch TVs vary in price, with entry-level options starting at under $300 and high-end options costing $2,000 or more.
If you want a midrange 55-inch TV, you should plan to spend about $400-$700. Several great 55-inch QLED models in that price range have quantum dots, local dimming, and Mini LED backlights to deliver good contrast and peak brightness levels as high as 1,000 nits.
Shoppers who want a 55-inch OLED TV rather than a QLED will have to pay more, with prices starting at around $1,000. Though notably more expensive than their QLED counterparts, OLED TVs offer pixel-level brightness control for superior contrast and black levels.
How far should you sit from a 55-inch 4K TV?
The smaller a 4K screen is, the closer you'll need to sit to the display to see the full benefits of its resolution. To see the extra detail that 4K offers over 1080p Full HD, you'll want to sit at a distance of about one to 1.5 times the size of your display. For a 55-inch 4K TV, the recommended viewing distance is between 4.6 and 6.9 feet from your TV.
Of course, you can still sit farther away from your TV and enjoy its image quality, but the recommended distance will allow you to see the best level of detail.
If you need to sit even closer to your TV or just have a small room to work with, check out our guide to the best 50-inch TVs.
And for rooms where you'd need to sit farther from your display, we recommend opting for a larger screen size to get the full benefits of 4K. Check out our guides to the best 65-inch TVs, best 75-inch TVs, and best 85-inch TVs for our top recommendations.
Should you buy a soundbar to pair with a 55-inch TV?
Even the best 55-inch TVs tend to have mediocre built-in speakers. Audio drivers integrated into most TVs are small and often placed in areas that can lead to a muddy sound that lacks range and deep bass. For this reason, we recommend pairing your TV with a soundbar or full surround sound system to get the best audio quality for movies, TV shows, and video games.
For the most immersive experience, we suggest finding a system that supports Dolby Atmos, which can enable sound effects from all directions, even above your head. Performance varies depending on the model you get, but there are entry-level Atmos systems that can still provide a nice upgrade over your TV's built-in speakers.
Check out our various soundbar guides to see our top recommendations for different needs:
Under most circumstances, we recommend the Samsung S90C as the best TV you can buy, but LG's C3 has a slight edge if you're specifically looking for a 55-inch display. The key factor at this size is price. The 55-inch C3 is often at least $200 cheaper than the 55-inch S90C, while the 65-inch models of both TVs are typically sold at matching prices.
When they cost the same, the S90C is the winner since it has a brighter image and higher color volume. But when you can save a couple hundred bucks going with the C3, we veer toward recommending LG's TV. While its peak brightness of 800 nits can't match the S90C's 1,000 nits, it still gets bright enough for average living rooms and delivers the same pixel-level contrast that all OLEDs are known for. This means you'll get deep black levels that disappear in a dark room, along with intense high-dynamic range (HDR) highlights without any of the halos that can appear around bright objects on some QLED TVs.
And unlike even the best Samsung TVs, the C3 supports Dolby Vision to provide the most accurate HDR image from streaming services like Disney Plus and Netflix. Viewing angles on the C3 are also excellent, so the image doesn't dramatically fade or distort when you sit off to the side of the TV. The display is a great pick for gamers, too, thanks to its low input lag and fast 120Hz refresh rate for smooth gameplay on a PS5 or Xbox Series X. LG's webOS smart TV platform is solid as well, and with the included Magic Remote, you can navigate through the menus via physical buttons or motion controls by pointing the remote at the screen and moving a mouse-like cursor.
If you don't mind paying a bit more, the Samsung S90C is a strong alternative that can deliver a brighter, slightly more vivid image, but for the money, we think the LG C3 is the best 55-inch TV overall. Buyers should keep in mind that LG will be releasing a 2024 "C4" version of this display later this year, but we don't expect a big performance increase and see little reason to wait for the updated model.
Best entry-level
The TCL S4 is a solid entry-level display for buyers who just want a basic smart TV but don't want to pay more to get better image quality. At under $300 for the 55-inch model, the S4 delivers good performance for the money but makes some key concessions to get there.
The S4 uses a regular 4K LED panel, which means that it doesn't have quantum dots for expanded colors, and it doesn't have local dimming to dim and brighten its image across specific zones. Instead, it has a standard direct-lit backlight. As a result, the TV's black levels aren't as deep as the other displays we recommend, and it's more prone to uneven brightness across the screen, which can cause dark scenes to look washed out if you watch TV with the lights off. Colors and contrast also distort if you sit off to the side of the screen, but that's common for any TV this inexpensive.
Peak brightness is limited to under 300 nits, which is fine for standard dynamic range (SDR) content. But while the S4 technically supports HDR10 and Dolby Vision playback, its low brightness and lack of wide color support severely undercut its ability to render HDR videos properly. HDR content will still look better than SDR videos, but this isn't the model to get if you're buying a TV specifically for HDR capabilities.
However, the TV still delivers a decent 4K image with solid contrast, considering its lack of dimming. The model we're recommending here comes with Amazon's Fire TV operating system built in, along with an Alexa voice remote, but TCL also sells a version of this same display that uses Google TV instead. App selection varies slightly between each platform, but they both support the most popular streaming services, so deciding between them depends on which ecosystem and interface you like the best.
For under $300, the TCL 55-inch S4 offers good value, but only if you just want a simple TV for casual viewing. However, if you're willing to pay a bit more, you can get substantially better image quality with other budget-friendly models like the Hisense U6K, our "best under $500" pick. Before buying the S4, you should also check for what TCL's step-up model, the 55-inch Q5, is selling for. Though that model has a higher list price than the S4, both TVs are sometimes on sale for nearly the same amount. The Q5 is a similar TV but uses quantum dots for better color performance.
Best under $500
Buyers who want the best 55-inch TV under $500 should look no further than the Hisense U6K. Though the 55-inch model technically carries a full retail price of $580, it's almost always on sale for $450 or less.
Unlike most TVs in this price range, the U6K doesn't skimp on advanced picture quality features. It's the most affordable TV on the market that has a Mini LED backlight with local dimming and quantum dots. This gives it unmatched color and contrast performance for the money. With a max of around 600 nits, the display gets bright enough to show off the benefits of HDR content, and it has solid black levels with minimal blooming.
However, the U6K isn't as bright as more expensive QLEDs, and its contrast control isn't anywhere near as precise as an OLED. The display also demonstrated mediocre viewing angles during our testing, which means colors and contrast fade when you sit to the side of the TV. Hardcore gamers may also want to splurge for a step-up model since the U6K only has a 60Hz panel rather than a 120Hz one.
The U6K uses the Google TV operating system, and its interface and Google Assistant voice remote are solid. However, navigation can be a bit sluggish compared to higher-end models. But despite a few drawbacks here and there, the U6K's picture quality beats every other TV in its class. This is the best 55-inch TV to buy if you want a budget display that doesn't sacrifice HDR performance.
The Hisense U7K is a midrange 55-inch TV that punches way above its class. Like the cheaper U6K, this model uses a QLED panel with a Mini LED backlight. But the U7K steps things up with a higher peak brightness of 1,000 nits and a refresh rate of up to 144Hz, which makes it an excellent gaming display.
The TV's local dimming delivers high contrast with great black levels, and its bright highlights allow it to deliver a more realistic HDR experience than the U6K. It still has fewer dimming zones than more expensive QLED models, which could create some brightness fluctuations. But for the money, the U7K's performance is impressive.
On the downside, like the U6K, the U7K's Google TV OS can be a little sluggish, and the display's image quality degrades if you sit too far off to the side of the screen, but these issues are common for QLED models in this price range. The display is also prone to some minor uniformity issues that can cause a subtle "dirty screen" effect during some panning motions. However, this was rarely noticeable during our tests.
The 55-inch U7K's price fluctuates, but it's almost always $650 or less, which makes it tough to beat. The TV's closest competitor is the 55-inch TCL Q7, which delivers similar performance but uses regular-sized LEDs rather than Mini LEDs. This gives the Q7 less control over local dimming. That said, if you find the Q7 on sale for less than the U7K, it's a worthwhile alternative.
The Sony A95L is the best premium 55-inch TV you can buy. Competing displays from LG and Samsung get close, but the A95L has an edge.
The TV uses a QD-OLED panel to offer pixel-level contrast and industry-leading color performance. The A95L is also the brightest OLED we've ever tested. We measured a peak of around 1,500 nits in our brightness test pattern, which is a whopping 500 nits more than its predecessor, the A95K, and just slightly more than this TV's closest rival, the LG G3. The TV can only hit that number when displaying small bright elements on the screen, but that's still an incredible feat for an OLED display.
This impressive brightness allows the display to deliver exceptional HDR images. Black levels disappear into a dark room, while specular highlights shine with pinpoint accuracy and no blooming. If you watch TV in a home theater setting, the A95L simply dazzles.
Sony's proprietary picture processing enables image accuracy that edges out rival brands, with impressive upscaling that minimizes flaws in lower-quality sources, like HD streams and cable feeds. Viewing angles are also top-notch, so you don't have to worry about colors distorting when sitting off-center.
The A95L's Google TV operating system works well, too, and the included Google Assistant voice remote has a premium feel with a handy backlight that automatically turns on when you pick it up. A webcam is also included, which supports video calls and gesture controls. The TV's stand can even be configured in a high- or low-profile mode depending on whether you want to put a soundbar in front of it.
The only notable feature missing is 144Hz support, which is something that Samsung, Hisense, and TCL offer on some of their higher-end TVs when you pair them with a gaming PC. But if you're using a console, like a PS5 or Xbox Series X, you can rest easy knowing you'll still get full 120Hz support.
Given its price, the A95L is geared toward big home theater enthusiasts willing to pay top dollar for top performance. Most buyers will be satisfied with any of the less expensive 55-inch TVs we recommend, but if money is no object, the A95L is the TV to get.
How we test 55-inch TVs
A test pattern used to measure a TV's peak brightness.
Steven Cohen/Business Insider
To select the best 55-inch TVs, our team relies on a combination of hands-on testing and research informed by more than 10 years of experience reviewing home entertainment products.
When we review TVs, most brands typically send us their 65-inch screen size, considered the industry's flagship offering. However, a TV model's overall performance usually remains comparable across sizes 50 inches and above. For instance, a 65-inch Sony A95L OLED and a 55-inch A95L have the same basic specs and capabilities. The only notable difference is the size of the screen.
However, some TVs that use local dimming, like the Hisense U7K, will employ fewer dimming zones in smaller screen sizes versus larger ones. This can lead to slight differences in contrast performance when comparing a 55-inch model to another size, but not enough to alter our general impressions of that model. Occasionally, there are bigger differences in design and features across different sizes, and we note those details when applicable.
To test TVs, we look at picture clarity, contrast, peak brightness, color performance, viewing angles, gaming capabilities, smart TV navigation, and overall value. We measure HDR brightness with an X-Rite iDisplay Plus colorimeter and use test patterns on the Spears & Munsil UHD HDR Benchmark 4K Blu-ray disc to evaluate other objective display parameters.
But test patterns can only reveal so much, so we watch plenty of actual movies and shows to see how a TV performs with real-world content on a day-to-day basis. We revisit an assortment of scenes on each TV we test that we've specifically chosen to examine black levels, shadow details, HDR highlights, and upscaling. Our demo content includes 4K, 1080p high definition (HD), and standard definition (SD) material from various sources like Blu-ray discs, streaming services, and cable TV.
55-inch TV FAQs
Ryan Waniata/Insider
Is 55 inches a good size for a TV?
A screen size of 55 inches is a great choice for a variety of different rooms. This size is still big enough to feel immersive in smaller living rooms while offering a more compact alternative to 65-inch models that might be too big for some spaces.
A 55-inch TV is also a great fit for a bedroom where you might want something smaller than what you've got in your living room but not so small that you must sacrifice picture quality features. Most brands' best 4K TVs are available in 55-inch options, but many higher-end displays are not sold in sizes below that. For instance, if you want one of Samsung or Sony's best OLED TVs, 55-inches is the smallest size available.
How much should a 55-inch TV cost?
The best 55-inch TVs vary in price, with entry-level options starting at below $300 and high-end options costing $2,000 or more.
If you want a midrange 55-inch TV, you should plan to spend about $400-$700. Several great 55-inch QLED models in that price range include quantum dots, local dimming, and Mini LED backlights to deliver good contrast and peak brightness levels as high as 1,000 nits.
Shoppers who want a 55-inch OLED TV rather than a QLED will have to pay more, with prices starting at around $1,200. Though notably more expensive than their QLED counterparts, OLED TVs offer pixel-level brightness control for superior contrast and black levels.
How far should you sit from a 55-inch 4K TV?
The smaller a 4K screen is, the closer you'll need to sit to the display to see the full benefits of its resolution. To see the extra detail that 4K offers over 1080p Full HD, you'll want to sit at a distance of about one to 1.5 times the size of your display. For a 55-inch 4K TV, the recommended viewing distance is between 4.6 and 6.9 feet from your TV.
Of course, you can still sit farther away from your TV and enjoy its image quality, but the recommended distance will allow you to see the best level of detail. For rooms where you'd need to sit a lot farther from your display, we recommend opting for a larger screen size to get the full benefits of 4K. Check out our guide to the best 65-inch TVs for our top recommendations.
X is trying to get advertisers to use Grok, the platform's sarcastic AI chatbot.
The platform that was Twitter is still trying to lure back advertisers. Grok holds no appeal.
"X isn't even mentioned as an option anymore," one advertiser said.
X employees have been pushing advertisers to use the platform's AI chatbot Grok.
Grok, is being compared to OpenAI's ChatGPT or even Meta's new AI ad tools that can write digital copy and create imagery for online ad campaigns, according to two people in advertising who have heard X pitches and a video from X for advertisers seen by Business Insider.
Grok, part of Xai, cannot create imagery, and one of the advertising sources described its ability to answer prompts and create ad copy as, "basic" and ultimately unhelpful for experienced social or brand managers. Grok's responses are limited to writing text for X posts that can be run as ads on the platform.
While many advertisers are not opposed to using AI in their work, one big issue with Grok is that the chatbot was trained explicitly to be "sarcastic" and flippant in tone, and even to curse in its responses to user queries.
When it launched late last year, Elon Musk said Grok was "based & loves sarcasm" and designed to be the antithesis of what he refers to as "woke," which is typically used by political conservatives to describe social justice and inclusion efforts. Both sources noted that the typical brand looking to place ads on a digital platform like X does not want copy that is crude, sardonic, or intentionally ignorant of modern social mores.
"What advertiser or brand would want Grok writing for them?" one asked. The other referred to X employees pushing Grok as a "desperate" move by a company that no longer has broad appeal for brands.
"I can say this honestly: X isn't even mentioned as an option for a single one of our clients," one of the people said. "It was never a first choice, but it used to be always mentioned."
Grok has two modes, "fun" and "regular," with the latter set to respond in a more straightforward manner. In a video presentation seen by BI, an example is shown of Grok responding to a prompt asking for X posts for a flower shop in New York City. Its first suggestion for ad text starts with "Spring has sprung in NYC!"
A representative of X did not respond to an email seeking comment.
Musk acquired the platform as Twitter in late 2022 and has since struggled to keep users and advertisers, through which Twitter made the vast majority of its revenue. That year, although Musk took Twitter by surprise by first attempting a hostile takeover and then agreeing to acquire the platform for $44 billion, then fighting for months to get out of the deal, the platform made roughly $4 billion in ad revenue. That number fell in 2023 by about half, according to Bloomberg.
Linda Yaccarino arrived as CEO a year ago to run advertising, while Musk continued to run almost everything else at X. The launch of things like live video and an appeal to more right-wing conservative influencers and personalities has not done much to appeal to advertisers.
After Disney and other major brands stopped advertising on the platform, given a continual rise in hate speech on the platform and Musk's own support and bolstering of racist propaganda and conspiracy theories, Musk, at a conference, publicly told advertisers to "go fuck yourself" for leaving X.
Now, X is trying to appeal to small and medium-sized businesses to advertise on the platform as large advertisers, previously the bulk of Twitter's business, have yet to return. Meta has dominated this segment of the ad marketplace where most businesses of this size choose to spend their ad budgets. Digital ad spend has been climbing since last year, and companies like Meta and Google have seen their digital ads-based businesses soar again. X is currently offering all advertisers a $200 discount on any ad buy.
Are you a tech employee or someone with a tip or insight to share? Contact Kali Hays at khays@businessinsider.com or on secure messaging app Signal at 949-280-0267. Reach out using a non-work device.
Some researchers are advocating the benefits of VR therapy for psychosis treatment.
A clinical trial showed VR therapy reduced anxiety and agoraphobia in people with psychosis.
This article is part of "Build IT," a series about digital-tech trends disrupting industries.
In May 2022, Daniel Freeman, a psychology professor at Oxford University, published the results of a landmark clinical trial. For years, Freeman had been developing and fine-tuning the use of gameChange, virtual-reality cognitive-therapy software. Guided by a virtual coach, users walk through a series of everyday scenarios, from getting on a bus to stepping into a coffee shop, rating their fear levels at every stage.
The trial included 346 people with psychosis, who often experience severe anxiety and agoraphobia.
"Psychosis is not a mental illness but a symptom that appears as part of different mental illnesses," said Kai Conibear, the author of "The Myth-Busting Guide to Psychosis," out later this month. These mental illnesses include, but are not limited to, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Anywhere from 15 to 100 people out of 100,000 develop psychosis annually, according to the National Institute for Mental Health. Conibear pointed to the widespread perception that people with psychosis are inherently violent.
"In reality, most people who are psychotic are extremely vulnerable," he said. "They're more likely to hide away and isolate themselves than be out on the street running around and making noise, but that's what draws media attention."
Freeman's trial specifically focused on people suffering "extreme agoraphobic avoidance" as a result of psychosis. The treatment is a kind of exposure therapy, in which a virtual therapist guides users through stressful scenarios to help alleviate their fears and regulate their thoughts.
The study found that participants who used the gameChange software experienced significantly less distress and avoidance, reporting that they felt less threatened in their environments. The more severely anxious patients experienced the greatest benefits, researchers said. These results were deemed so successful that last year, the UK's National Health Service approved gameChange as a treatment option.
The use of VR in healthcare stretches back to the early 1990s, when it was first tested as a treatment for anxiety. It's taken a while, but researchers are steadily building a case to prove that VR — especially in combination with more traditional therapeutic methods — can exponentially improve the lives of people with psychosis.
The barrier to VR treatments
Kim Bullock, a Stanford University researcher who studies neuropsychiatrics, said she only learned about VR advancements through her own research. "I found out there was 30 years of evidence that none of us ever heard about in training," she told Business Insider.
Bullock is one of several researchers documenting the growing number of trials measuring the effectiveness of VR as a supplementary tool in both the diagnosis and treatment of psychotic disorders. Bullock was part of a team behind a systematic review published last summer that delved into 23 research articles across 14 countries.
In these studies, VR was used to treat everything from anxiety and social skills to paranoid delusions, often with the help of more conventional mental-health techniques, like cognitive-behavioral therapy. The study authors highlighted the "common misconception" that people with psychosis might be harmed by VR experiences because avatars or voices could mimic their hallucinations.
By contrast, the authors wrote, "VR methods may reduce symptoms and improve physical health, quality of life, and psychosocial functioning," especially when teamed with other therapeutic treatments and medication. They described VR as a "valuable tool to potentially improve clinical outcomes, including medication adherence, motivation, and rehabilitation."
There's a growing body of research that demonstrates the efficacy of VR treatment, yet Bullock described healthcare providers as a "cautious group by nature." She added, "We don't get trained in VR, we don't have the ability to try it out, and there are no set standards and best practices." Bullock described this caution — rather than cost or logistics — as the main barrier to VR treatments.
In his book, Conibear interviewed eight people who've experienced psychotic symptoms. Many of them, Conibear said, talked about the misconception that "people with psychosis are inherently dangerous and violent." It's a persistent stereotype and one that results in severely ill people being violently detained rather than offered treatment and support.
How a VR experience is raising awareness
Treatment aside, VR is being used to educate and raise awareness of what psychosis actually looks like. Hong Kong's Mind Space Museum is tucked away inside Castle Peak Museum, in the Tuen Mun District. In August last year, the museum opened up four different "symptom experience rooms," which allow visitors to experience simulated psychosis courtesy of VR.
With the aid of goggles and headsets, visitors can experience how it feels to walk through everyday places, such as libraries and markets, with hallucinatory voices in their heads and visual apparitions flashing before their eyes.
After the VR exercise, visitors are offered a "sharing session with our peer-support workers" who experience psychosis themselves, Dr. Jessica Wong, the cochair of the hospital's Institute of Mental Health Executive Committee, said. These support workers chat about their personal experiences with psychosis, further breaking down myths about mental illness.
This combination of VR tech and face-to-face interaction is designed to foster "empathy, understanding, and education around mental health," Wong said. "It's about reducing stigma and promoting mental-health literacy. Ultimately, the visitors leave with the realization that people experiencing mental-health challenges are no different than anyone else."
Despite reluctance among US healthcare providers, researchers in the UK, Hong Kong, Canada, and elsewhere are building a convincing case for VR treatment. Conibear is on board. "Most of the currently available treatment is either medication or therapy, so this is a really interesting alternative," Conibear said. "I love the idea that you can be exposed to these situations, but then you come out of the simulation and you're in a safe place with everything you need to calm down."
When compared to new medications — and their potential for side effects — Conibear believes there's little to deter people with psychosis from trying VR out. "I really feel like this is how technology should be used," he concluded. "There should absolutely be more of it."
.insider-raw-embed + p { display: none; }
// Build IT
const seriesTitle = “Build IT”;
// Presented by
const text = “Presented by”;
// 63ea4e7496242f0019e89054
const sponsorLogoID = “63ea4e7496242f0019e89054”;
// T-Mobile logo
const altText = “T-Mobile logo”;
// https://www.businessinsider.com/build-it
const hubOrCatURL = “https://www.businessinsider.com/build-it”;
Humans have Neanderthal DNA as a result of interbreeding tens of thousands of years ago.
Nikola Solic/Reuters
Modern humans have a small amount of Neanderthal DNA, and those genes still impact our health today.
Scientists think they've figured out when the two groups started interbreeding and swapping DNA.
The results can help scientists understand how Neanderthal genes evolved in humans over millennia.
We might consider Neanderthals to be ancient and unknowable relatives, but humans were once on very intimate terms with them.
Our ancestors, for example, had babies with the shorter, stockier species and swapped DNA for thousands of years.
Now researchers think they've figured out when much of this interspecies intermingling took place, which could provide clues about why humans outlasted their ancient cousins.
Studying genomic data from both ancient and modern humans, scientists learned that Neanderthals and humans were having sex around 47,000 years ago then stopped less than 7,000 years later — relatively brief in terms of evolution.
"This study gives us the most accurate picture showing how some Neanderthals joined into the modern human gene pool, and then what happened to their genes afterward," John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who was not involved in the research, told Business Insider.
All humans have at least a little Neanderthal DNA, a 2020 study found. These genes may impact everything from metabolism to our risk for diabetes.
Finding out when humans acquired them can help scientists understand how these genes evolved and why they might have been beneficial to our ancestors and stuck around in our DNA for millennia.
When did humans and Neanderthals start interbreeding?
A pair of Neanderthal skeletons at The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History show how the species' body changed over thousands of years.
Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images
The basic story of human-Neanderthal relationships goes like this: We shared a common ancestor over 500,000 years ago then went our separate ways.
Then,around 75,000 years ago, Neanderthals were living in Asia and Europe when some humans started moving out of Africa. The two groups began having children together shortly after that,sometime between 60,000 and 50,000 years ago.
For this latest study, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and the University of California, Berkeleylooked at DNA from 59 humans who lived between 45,000 and 2,200 years ago.
To figure out when ourancient human ancestors hooked up with Neanderthals, the researchers compared stretches of Neanderthal DNA in their genomes. Individuals from about 40,000 years ago had long stretches of gene-containing chromosomes that matched the other species.
The researchers saw that after just a few thousand years, these segments were shorter. This means those humans were more distantly related to Neanderthals, Hawks said.
Using computer software, the scientists created models to estimate how many generations had passed since a Neanderthal entered their family tree. From that,they set the starting date of human-Neanderthal hookups at around 47,124 years ago and estimated that interbreeding lasted for about 6,832 years.
"The conclusion is fairly strong," Hawks said, because the estimates fit both the earlier and later human genomes.
The Neanderthals that live on inside us
An exhibit at the Neanderthal Museum imagines what the human relatives' lives were like.
Reuters/Nikola Solic
In addition to ancient humanDNA, the researchers also studied the genomes of 275 modern people from various backgrounds to learn more about how humans and Neanderthal genes haveevolvedover the millennia.
"It is possible to track the fate of single parts of chromosomes that were once in a Neanderthal individual, came into that individual's modern descendants, and were passed on until the present day," Hawks said.
For example, the researchers found both current and ancient humans have Neanderthal genes that affect metabolism, immunity, and skin pigmentation.
They speculate that these characteristics may have benefited ancient humans who inherited them and then kept passing them on. One hypothesis is that paler skin would have helped increase Vitamin D levels in gloomier climates.
Other studies have linked Neanderthal genes to autoimmune diseases and diabetes. On the other hand, some DNA from the species seems to protect people from West Nile, hepatitis C, and SARS.
The study's results don't necessarily apply to everyone. For instance,no present-day people of African ancestry were included because only about 0.5 % of their DNA comes from Neanderthals.
However, almost everyone else in the world is about 2% Neanderthal, so learning more about the species' genes could shed light on many peoples' susceptibility to certain diseases.
The researchers published their work in a pre-print study, which hasn't been peer-reviewed yet.
The fundraiser reportedly took place in California.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Silicon Valley billionaires reportedly hosted a fundraiser for Donald Trump in San Francisco.
David Sacks and Chamath Palihapitiya may have been aiming to shift the narrative on Trump support.
The event raised around $12 million, Reuters reported, citing sources.
Silicon Valley's billionaire investors are pulling out all the stops to get wealthy donors to empty their pockets for Donald Trump.
Reuters reported that tech VCs David Sacks and Chamath Palihapitiya, along with Sacks' wife, hosted a fundraiser at the Sacks's San Francisco mansion on Thursday night to drum up support for the Republican presidential candidate.
A 33-foot inflatable chicken resembling Trump was also planned to be involved, CBS News reported.
The inflatable even donned a prisoner's uniform, which was a bold reference to being found guilty by a jury last week on all counts in the hush money case.
On a recent episode of the "All-In" podcast, Sacks said, "I know there's gonna be a lot of people who support Trump, but they don't want to admit it."
The Craft Ventures cofounder hoped the fundraiser would help shift the narrative that it might be considered uncool to openly admit to being a Trump supporter.
Sacks said, "I think this event is gonna break the ice on that, and maybe it will create a preference cascade where, all of a sudden, it becomes acceptable to acknowledge the truth, which is a lot of people support Trump."
Elon Musk could also be leaning in that direction as he seems to have been cozying up to Trump recently. Musk has also reportedly discussed taking up an advisory role should the former president reclaim the White House. On Wednesday, Musk posted on X, "SF Bay Area is shifting towards Trump."
Meanwhile, Palmer Luckey, founder of the defense tech firm Anduril, plans to host a June fundraiser for Trump in Newport Beach, a coastal city in Southern California, Bloomberg reported.
Donors coughed up $12 million at the Thursday reception and dinner with Trump, the Reuters report said, citing Republican National Committeewoman Harmeet Dhillon and another source.
Some tickets were sold for $50,000 each but a higher-tier ticket costing up to $300,000 was also available, CNBC reported. The ticket came with extras like a photograph with Trump, the report added.
The New York Times reported that about 25 people had been expected to attend the dinner, with about another 50 guests planned for the larger reception.
Huang has more than doubled his fortune since January, adding more than $62 billion as the chipmaker's stock is up 40% year-to-date.
And while Mark Zuckerberg saw the second-highest growth in individual wealth in 2024, according to Bloomberg's Billionaire Index, the combined gains seen by the Walmart heirs outpaced the Meta CEO.
As of Thursday, Walmart founder Sam Walton's three children and grandson have added a combined $53.7 billion to their wealth this year as Walmart's stock rallied to record highs. The family controls about 45% of Walmart's shares.
While Rob, Alice, and Jim Walton are worth roughly $87 billion apiece, the younger Lukas is worth $31.1 billion, putting their family's fortune at more than $293 billion — far above the individual wealth of Bernard Arnault, Jeff Bezos, or Elon Musk.
The retailer cut self-checkout from 12,000 of its 20,000 stores, CEO Todd Vasos said during an earnings call late last month. Dollar General ended self-checkout at 3,000 stores in May alone, he said.
"Moving forward, we plan to have self-checkout options available in a limited number of stores, most of which are higher-volume and low-shrink locations," Vasos said. "Shrink" is a metric that includes losses from theft as well as other sources, such as inventory that is damaged and has to be written off.
Dollar General's shift away from self-checkout has been dramatic. In March, the company said it offered that option at 14,000 of its stores.
Back then, the retailer said it planned to eliminate self-checkout from just 300 stores and convert thousands more to a model that directed customers first to a staffed checkout, only using self-checkout when foot traffic increased.
Dollar General's crackdown is part of its plan to reduce inventory losses, including from shoplifting.
"Shrink continues to be the most significant headwind in our business," Vasos said on the latest earnings call. Besides rolling back self-checkout, Dollar General is reducing the amount of inventory shops have on hand — overstocked stores have been an issue for the retailer in the past.
It's not the only retailer that's changed course on self-checkout lately. Earlier this year, Target started limiting self-checkout operating hours at some of its stores, for example.
Do you work at Dollar General, Dollar Tree, or another retail chain and have a story idea to share? Reach out to this reporter at abitter@businessinsider.com
In 1954, the first Burger King restaurant opened its doors.
Four years later, the chain released the Whopper, its most iconic menu item.
The chain has since expanded to include chicken and vegetarian options on its menu.
Burger King is the second-largest fast-food burger chain in the world, and it isn't for lack of trying.
An early iteration of Burger King, called Insta-Burger King, opened its doors in Jacksonville, Florida, in 1953. However, the company claims the first actual Burger King opened in 1954. The chain has been serving up signature flame-broiled burgers, milkshakes, and fries that have satisfied customers all over the globe ever since.
We examined how the chain has evolved over the years, from mascot and menu changes to restaurant redesigns.
Here's how Burger King has changed since its beginnings in the 1950s.
An early iteration of Burger King called Insta-Burger King opened in 1953.
Insta-Burger King.
Burger King
Founded in Jacksonville, Florida, by Keith Kramer and Matthew Burns, the company was taken over in 1954 by David Edgerton and James McLamore. They decided to expand the chain's locations.
In 1967, Burger King was purchased by the Pillsbury Company. At the time of the purchase, Burger King had 274 restaurants across the United States, according to Encyclopedia, and was worth an estimated $18 million.
It was the second-largest fast-food chain in the country, behind McDonald's.
Today, Burger King has 18,700 locations worldwide.
A customer walks into a Burger King restaurant on August 24, 2010, in Chicago, Illinois.
Scott Olson/Getty Images
However, just like when Burger King first opened, the chain falls short of McDonald's, which has more than 40,000 locations worldwide.
An early version of the Burger King logo featured curved letters sandwiched between two yellow burger buns.
A Burger King restaurant in 1982.
Bernard CHARLON/Gamma-Rapho/Getty Images
Other versions included images of the Burger King, the chain's mascot at the time.
Burger King's current logo has remained the same since its introduction in 1998.
Burger King sign.
Scott Olson / Getty Images
The logo includes a similar motif of the red Burger King name sandwiched between two yellow buns but also features a blue swirl around it.
Burger King grew in popularity due to its quick-service model.
Catherine Thomas, a crew member at Burger King 600 Broadway in New York City in 1989.
Glen Martin/The Denver Post/Getty Images
Early stores made use of a device called an "Insta-Broiler," according to Mashed. The machine cooked burgers extremely quickly and was required to be used in all Burger King restaurants in the 1950s.
In 1957, Burger King released its signature burger, the Whopper, which is still around today.
Burger King Whopper.
Kai Pfaffenbach/Reuters
The Whopper cost 37 cents, compared to Burger King's original burger, which cost 18 cents, and came with sauce, cheese, lettuce, pickles, and tomato piled on top of a larger patty.
Burger King still broils and flame-grills its burgers. Today, the price of a Whopper depends on location — in New York City, for example, it varies by restaurant but costs around $7.
Pillsbury executive Norman Brinker brought great success to Burger King and notably started what's now known as the "Burger Wars."
Burger King introduces its new Big King hamburger, 1997.
James Leynse/Corbis/Getty Images
Brinker wanted Burger King to overcome its biggest competition, McDonald's, in both sales and product quality.
In the late 1970s, Brinker started what would come to be known as the "Burger Wars" when a Burger King ad called McDonald's out by name and claimed that the chain's burgers were smaller, according to Forbes.
McDonald's tried to sue the company, but sales began to take off.
From the 1960s to the 1980s, the Burger King mascot was a cartoon king. In 2004, Burger King revealed its new mascot, "The King."
Burger King's mascot.
Evan Agostini/Getty Images
The mascot became known for his plastic, smiling head. The head was originally used in the 1970s as an inspiration for the drawn character. After it was restored, the head would become an iconic symbol for the brand.
The King appeared in his first commercial in 2004. In the ad, he woke up next to a man in bed before handing him a breakfast sandwich.
The character was pulled from Burger King ads in 2011 after complaints that the king was "creepy."
"People want a reason to go back to Burger King … There are no plans to bring the King back anytime soon," Alex Macedo, then senior vice president of marketing, told USA Today, according to Forbes.
However, in 2015, the King was back on his throne.
The Burger King mascot stands outside the stadium prior to the kickoff of Super Bowl XLII between the New York Giants and the New England Patriots in February 2008.
According to Adweek's Lost Remote, the conversation around Burger King increased by 1,343% on May 3, the day of the fight, compared to the previous day.
However, publicity was largely negative due to the fact that Mayweather had pleaded guilty to domestic abuse charges and had spent time in jail.
Burger King has since focused its advertisements on showcasing its food's high-quality ingredients with no preservatives added.
Burger King's "moldy burger" ad.
Courtesy of Burger King
This 2020 advertisement shows a Whopper decomposing and molding over a 28-day period, intending to show that Burger King food is "real" and free of artificial preservatives. The video had 2.1 million views on YouTube as of July 14, 2020, but has been set to private by the chain's YouTube channel as of June 2024.
"At Burger King we believe that real food tastes better," Fernando Machado, Restaurant Brands International's chief marketing officer, said in a press release. "That's why we are working hard to remove preservatives, colors, and flavors from artificial sources from the food we serve in all countries around the world."
In the 1980s, Burger King began to see a decline in sales.
A Burger King employee serving a customer.
Anne-Christine Poujoulat / Getty Images
After Brinker left the company to start his own restaurant, sales declined.
However, when Burger King made the switch from Pepsi-Cola products to Coca-Cola, sales began to rise, History of Branding reported.
Burger King also attempted to attract new customers with a larger menu that included chicken and fish sandwiches.
Fast-food employees at a Burger King in France, 1982.
John van Hasselt/Corbis/Getty Images
In 1979, former McDonald's executive Donald N. Smith introduced the new menu items and signature burgers as a strategy to target older customers who were willing to spend a little more on quality food, according to Encyclopedia.
The plan worked and sales rose by 15%.
Since then, Burger King has continued to add new items to its menus.
Burger King employee Fabiola Duran prepares a low-carbohydrate version of the Whopper during the lunchtime rush in 2004.
AP Photo/Jeff Roberson
In 2004, the chain advertised a "low-carb" version of its Whopper, which meant taking away the bun.
In 1978, Smith began testing breakfast items.
An ad for Burger King's Croissan'wich.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
The chain originally ran into problems with its flame broilers. While they could easily cook burgers, it was harder for the broilers to cook breakfast items in the same way that a traditional grill could.
The Croissan'wich was introduced in 1983 and French Toast sticks were released in 1985.
Burger King Croissan'wich.
Hollis Johnson
Burger King's breakfast menu includes multiple kinds of croissant-based breakfast sandwiches, pancakes, biscuit sandwiches, hash browns, and breakfast burritos.
Some menu items that have come and gone include Burger King's Angus 'Shroom and Swiss steak burger and its Italian chicken sandwich.
Drive-thru menu at Burger King on November 4, 2005.
Gordon Chibroski/Portland Press Herald/Getty Images
In 2005, Burger King launched its Angus 'Shroom and Swiss steak burger. The Italian chicken sandwich was an iteration of the original chicken sandwich topped with cheese and tomato sauce.
Burger King brought back a similar chicken parm sandwich in 2017, Fox News reported, but the item has since been removed from the menu.
Now, spicy chicken sandwiches are among the most popular items on many fast-food menus.
Burger King's "Angry Triple Whopper" with three beef patties, bacon, pepper jack cheese, jalapeno peppers, "Angry" onions, tomatoes, lettuce, and "Angry" sauce.
PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images
Burger King now only offers one triple-stacked burger, but fans fondly remember fan favorites like the Angry Triple Whopper. In 2019, the chain brought the Angry Whopper back for a limited time before removing it from the menu again.
But in 2019, Burger King introduced plant-based burgers to its menu, becoming the first major national fast-food chain to do so.
Burger King Impossible Whopper.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Burger King's Impossible Whopper was hugely successful for the chain. According to CNN, Burger King reported a 10% increase in sales following the launch of the Impossible Burger in 2019.
However, while the burger is plant-based, Burger King came under fire after a customer sued the company for serving a burger that was not actually 100% vegan.
Since the patties are cooked on the same grills as traditional meat burgers, they may come into contact with meat by-products. Burger King said it never advertised the burgers as vegan or promised to cook them in a particular way.
However, if customers would like to make the burger vegan, they can ask for it to be microwaved and for it to be served without mayonnaise, per the company's website.
Burger King was the first fast-food restaurant chain to offer dining rooms.
A young girl eating a bagel sandwich in Burger King fast-food restaurant in 1988.
Ted Kirk/The LIFE Images Collection/Getty Images
When Burger King added its plastic-furnished eating areas in the 1950s, its drive-thru windows were gradually phased out. However, in 1975, the drive-thru windows were reintroduced, according to Encyclopedia.
Burger King ushered in the internet age when it introduced its own version of an internet cafe in the late 1990s.
People surf the web at a Burger King with internet access on November 17, 2000, in New York.
Chris Hondros/Newsmakers/Getty Images
One Burger King restaurant, located on Broadway in New York City, allowed customers to surf the web at one of 20 PC computers if they purchased a meal.
Today, you won't find computers in Burger King restaurants.
Burger King customers waiting in line.
REUTERS/Carlo Allegri
However, you'll probably find free WiFi and some self-service machines where you can place your order.
GameStop might soon be $3 billion richer after its meme status has recently juiced the stock.
SOPA Images/Getty Images
GameStop, the company, is in trouble. GameStop, the stock, is roaring.
GameStop, the company, has already turned some of that stock into a $1 billion windfall, by selling shares.
Now it could make another $2 billion-plus doing the same thing. That doesn't seem right? But it's rational.
If you're into the GameStop/Roaring Kitty story, it's perfectly reasonable to ask questions like: "How high can the stock go this time?" And "Will this dude become a billionaire?"
I have different questions: Is GameStop — a company with a very cloudy future — really going to make billions of dollars from its latest meme stock run? And if it does, what will it do with that money? Also: Doesn't this feel very wrong?
On Friday, it announced it is going to sell up to 75 million more shares (which is the likely reason the shares are down Friday). Luke Kawa at Sherwood News did some back-of-the-envelope math and estimates that this share sale could raise another $2.5 billion (!) for the company.
In both cases, GameStop says it has no plans for all that cash. It's just going to hang on to it and … who knows?
Reminder: GameStop is a declining, money-losing company with a grim future. It makes money selling video games, but that business is in a permanent shift from physical goods to digital retail, and in that world, there's really very little reason for GameStop to exist.
That's why the company's shares were massively shorted prior to the January 2021 short squeeze/meme stock mania that sent them soaring to crazy levels, and that's why they crashed back to earth prior to last month, when Gill/Kitty sparked another meme run.
So this isn't investment advice. But: Buying shares of GameStop makes as much sense as buying lotto tickets. Maybe you'll win! But odds are you won't.
On the other hand, it makes plenty of sense for GameStop managers to turn meme stock investors into cash. It doesn't mean that cash will turn the company around — AMC, the troubled theater chain that's also a meme stock, has done the same thing multiple times and remains troubled. And it also feels … off.
But it's very rational: There's no reason that the same GameStop shares that were worth $11 in April should sell for $37 Friday. But as long as they are, why not take the money?