• OpenAI is hiring Sarah Friar and Kevin Weil to join its C-suite.
• Friar most recently served as CEO of Nextdoor and will be CFO.
• Weil joins from Planet Labs and will be chief product officer.

Sam Altman will have some top-tier talent joining him in the OpenAI C-suite.

The company announced Monday that Sarah Friar and Kevin Weil will be the company's new CFO and chief product officer, respectively.

Friar was most recently CEO of Nextdoor and previously served as CFO at Square. She has also worked at Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, and Salesforce.

Weil was head of product and business for Planet Labs, as well as the cofounder of the Libra cryptocurrency, VP of Product for Novi at Facebook, VP of Product at Instagram, and SVP of Product at Twitter.

• Abercrombie & Fitch was founded as a store for outdoor gear in the late 1800s.
• It became hugely popular with 2000s teens until changing tastes and controversy led to a decline.
• The retailer has recently found a new cohort of fans: Gen Z shoppers.

If you were a teen in the 2000s, chances are you either shopped at Abercrombie & Fitch — or felt too excluded to set foot in the store. 

The 130-year-old retailer may have gotten its start catering to fishing and hunting enthusiasts, but by the late 1990s, the brand bore little resemblance to its outdoorsy origins. Its dimly lit, heavily scented stores — known primarily for their shirtless male models and narrow range of sizes — presented a brand of cool that seemed off-limits to anyone who wasn't thin, white, and well-off.

While Abercrombie may once have been the epitome of a certain form of cool, the brand fell on hard times in the 2010s due to a mix of changing public sentiment and numerous controversies and lawsuits, including one that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

In recent years, the brand has seen a resurgence in popularity thanks to a new, more inclusive image: it revamped its stores, expanded its size range, and made its pricing more approachable. 

And these changes are paying off: In May, Abercrombie & Fitch reported the best first-quarter results in its history, sending its shares 24% higher immediately afterward.

Here's how Abercrombie & Fitch rose to fame, almost lost it all, then mounted a comeback. 

Abercrombie Co. was founded in 1892 as an outdoor retailer.

Founder David Abercrombie opened the original Abercrombie store to sell camping, fishing, and hunting gear. 

In 1904, a lawyer named Ezra Fitch purchased a large share of the company and was named co-founder, and the company became Abercrombie & Fitch.

By 1910, David Abercrombie had left, and the company had opened a large department store.

The 12-story department store on Madison Avenue sold both men's and women's clothing, in addition to housing a shooting range and golf school. Abercrombie & Fitch also started a mail-order catalog, mailing out 50,000 copies to consumers.

According to the Netflix documentary "White Hot: The Rise & Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch," the brand's reputation in the early 1900s was as a store for stuffy, WASP-y sportsmen. Amelia Earhart and Theodore Roosevelt wore Abercrombie, and when aviator Charles Lindbergh made the first solo flight across the Atlantic in 1927, he wore Abercrombie too. 

In a 1931 issue of The New Yorker, author E.B. White wrote that Abercrombie had "the most gaped-at window in town. Displays all the clothes men want to wear all the time and don't."

Abercrombie survived the Great Depression, but by the middle of the century, sales had slumped.

Abercrombie filed for bankruptcy in 1977. In 1978, the brand was acquired by Oshman's Sporting Goods, a Texas-based retailer.

A decade later, it was sold to Limited Brands — now known as simply L Brands — the retail conglomerate run by Leslie Wexner. Wexner was widely considered a retailing genius and called "the Merlin of the Mall" due to his success at building chains like The Limited, Victoria's Secret, and Bath & Body Works. (Wexner has since cut ties with L Brands and has been scrutinized for his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.)

After being acquired by L Brands, Abercrombie moved its headquarters from New York to Ohio where it built a massive campus complete with a fake retail store, according to "White Hot." 

In the 1990s, Wexner hired Mike Jeffries as CEO of Abercrombie.

Jeffries turned his attention to cornering the younger retail market, making it the brand's mission to appeal to American teens.

"We knew we wanted to be the coolest brand for the 18 to 22-year-olds," Cindy Smith-Maglione, the former vice president of merchandising, said in "White Hot." 

Abercrombie hired fashion photographer Bruce Weber to shoot ad campaigns and store photos, and it's his aesthetic that defined the company's brand in the '90s and 2000s.

Jeffries' formula for success mixed sex appeal with the brand's century-old heritage.

The Abercrombie look married preppy separates with the overt sexiness popular in the late '90s and early 2000s: Skirts were short, jeans were low-rise, and tank tops were tight, but everything was portrayed as "all-American," a particular obsession of Jeffries', according to the "White Hot" documentary.

In the Weber-shot ad campaigns, male models were often photographed shirtless, either alone or in groups, while female models were often relegated to supporting roles. In the early days, nearly everyone was white. 

Abercrombie's stores were a central component to the image the brand was looking to sell.

Abercrombie stores weren't like any other mall brand. Rather than showcase its offerings on mannequins in store windows, Abercrombie covered the windows with shutters and displayed only a large photo of an Abercrombie model at the entrance — if shoppers wanted to see what the brand offered, they'd have to come inside. At many stores, shirtless male employees would greet shoppers as they entered.

Once in the store, shoppers were greeted with dim lighting, loud music, and the overwhelming scent of the brand's "Fierce" cologne. 

"Every piece of Abercrombie was by design, by Mike's design. The stores, the product, the whole thing, he would sign off on," Smith-Maglione, the former merchandising vice president, said in "White Hot."

Abercrombie went public on the New York Stock Exchange in 1996.

When Jeffries took over, Abercrombie & Fitch had 36 stores and was doing $50 million in sales. By 1996, the company had about 125 stores and $335 million in sales, Bloomberg reported. 

Two years later, Abercrombie launched its children's brand, and in 2000, the company opened its subsidiary, Hollister, which catered to teens but with a California-inspired influence.

Abercrombie was everywhere, and as of 1999, was a certified cultural phenomenon thanks to the song "Summer Girls" by LFO: "I like girls that wear Abercrombie & Fitch," the lyrics went. "I'd take her if I had one wish."

But by 2002, some cracks began to show in Abercrombie's armor.

Following the release of multiple racist t-shirts depicting Asian stereotypes, Asian Americans across the US protested outside Abercrombie stores, demanding that the brand stop selling the graphic tees.

In response, the company pulled the products from its shelves and burned them, according to "White Hot."

A year later, Abercrombie was under fire over its hiring practices.

In 2003, a group of former and prospective employees filed a class-action lawsuit against Abercrombie, claiming that the company refused to hire them or fired them on the basis of their race. 

According to "White Hot," Abercrombie had a handbook that dictated what employees should look like down to their underwear, jewelry, and hair. The handbook prohibited dreadlocks and gold chains and mandated a look Abercrombie described as "natural," "American," and "classic."

Former employees said in the documentary that the company dictated that store staff be attractive and often valued looks over abilities. When Jeffries, the CEO, would make unannounced store visits — known as "blitzes" — the stores would try to ensure that their best-looking employees were working that day, even keeping some workers on staff just for those visits.

Abercrombie settled the class-action suit in 2004 without admitting any wrongdoing. It agreed to pay more than $40 million and signed a consent decree agreeing to change its hiring practices and hire a chief diversity officer. 

Abercrombie was sued again in 2012 after a pilot claimed Jeffries had unusual requests for staff aboard his private jet.

In 2012, an age discrimination suit filed by a former pilot revealed the "Aircraft Standards" for Abercrombie's executive jet. 

The pilot claimed that crew were required to wear Abercrombie polo shirts, sandals, and underwear, and that men had to wear the retailer's famous cologne. Staff were also required to wear black gloves when handling silverware and white gloves when setting the table; had to answer every question and request with "no problem"; and had to play a specific song for passengers on return flights.

Abercrombie settled the pilot's suit without admitting fault. 

Around the same time, Jeffries was in hot water over comments made years earlier.

Jeffries said in a 2006 interview with Salon that Abercrombie made clothes for the "cool kids."

"In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids," he told Salon. "Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don't belong [in our clothes], and they can't belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely."

Jeffries added that the store only hired good-looking people because they "attract other good-looking people." 

But it wasn't until 2013 that those comments went viral, sparking boycotts and petitions and forcing Jeffries to publish a semi-apology. 

"While I believe this 7-year-old, resurrected quote has been taken out of context, I sincerely regret that my choice of words was interpreted in a manner that has caused offense," he wrote in a Facebook post. 

That same year, the brand finally began to offer larger sizes.

But by that time, Abercrombie's sales were already beginning to wane.

By 2014, same-store sales had declined for 11 straight quarters. Two subsidiary brands, Ruehl No.925 and Gilly Hicks, were shut down only a few years after launch, and Abercrombie had begun shuttering some of its mall stores.  (Gilly Hicks was later resurrected and still exists today.) 

The slow sales were due in part to the company's controversies, but also due to shifts among the younger demographic. Teens had grown tired of logo t-shirts and hoodies and started opting for cheaper, fast-fashion brands like Forever 21. Nike took over as teens' aspirational brand. 

At the same time, the power of the mall was beginning to shrink: by 2014, the number of teens who preferred to shop online was rising.

Abercrombie became embroiled in another lawsuit that would make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

In 2008, an Oklahoma teen named Samantha Elauf applied for a job at her local Abercrombie store and was recommended for hire. But the store later said it couldn't hire her because she wore a black headscarf, which the company said violated its policy that salespeople couldn't wear caps at work. 

In response, Elauf, a Muslim, filed a religious-discrimination lawsuit. While Abercrombie had settled other lawsuits in the past, this time, it dug its heels in and allowed the case to make it all the way to the Supreme Court. 

In 2015, the court ruled 8-1 against Abercrombie. Its opinion stated that religion was a protected characteristic and must be accommodated.

In late 2014, Jeffries retired as Abercrombie's CEO.

Jeffries reportedly retired with an exit package worth $27 million. 

"It has been an honor to lead this extraordinarily talented group of people," Jeffries said in a statement at the time. "I believe now is the right time for new leadership to take the company forward in the next phase of its development."

A committee formed by three senior executives and the Abercrombie board chairman managed the company until a successor could be selected.

Following Jeffries' departure, Abercrombie attempted to shift away from its sex-heavy, logo-heavy past.

The company decided to phase out large logos, replacing them with smaller, more subtle designs and putting leftover logo apparel on clearance. 

In 2015, Abercrombie got rid of its shirtless male greeters and overhauled its appearance policies for sales clerks, though some rules remained, including "no extreme make-up or jewelry."

Also gone were the dimly lit stores and pulsating music — the stores became brighter and free of the overpowering scent of cologne. 

Even the ubiquitous shopping bags, which featured a bare male torso, were nixed in favor of a subtler logo bag. 

Fran Horowitz took over as CEO in 2017.

Horowitz had joined Abercrombie in 2014 from Ann Taylor Loft, working as brand president of Hollister and as president and chief merchandising officer for Abercrombie & Fitch.

Under Horowitz, sales began to improve. Abercrombie shut down unprofitable locations while investing in stores that worked. Between 2010 and the 2018 fiscal year, the company closed 450 stores and remodeled others in an effort to reconnect with consumers.

Abercrombie also refocused design and marketing, shifting toward a more mature look and nixing the brand's super-preppy aesthetic. The company also began targeting consumers between 18 to 25 rather than young teens.

By the end of 2018, with improved sales and a new aesthetic, the brand was ready for a comeback.

In November 2018, Abercrombie was on a positive trajectory, reporting its fifth consecutive quarter of positive same-store sales growth.

The brand closed 40 stores — mostly kids stores — while planning to open 40 new locations with a more boutique-like feel. 

But it was the clothes that really stood out: Abercrombie had started offering similar styles and trends to higher-end brands like Reformation at a much more affordable price point. The product assortment became "more sophisticated, is more on-trend, and better reflects what modern consumers want," Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail, wrote in a note to clients at the time. 

That year, Abercrombie exceeded $1 billion in annual digital sales for the first time in its history, according to the company.

"We are not the Abercrombie & Fitch that you once knew," Horowitz said during investor day that April.

Like other retailers, the pandemic brought about change and uncertainty for Abercrombie.

Abercrombie saw a 43% increase in digital net sales in 2020, despite the challenges of the pandemic. The company credited that success to data analytics and learning more about their customers' needs, even during a time when the apparel industry was in a state of upheaval. 

That strong performance continued in 2021, despite the inventory delays many retailers experienced, particularly over the holiday season. In its full-year results posted in March 2022, Abercrombie reported $3.7 billion in net sales. 

Still, Abercrombie has been pummeled by inflation, which caused a dip in sales in 2022.

In the second quarter of 2022, Abercrombie said that the brand was experiencing the impact of inflation, which has caused shoppers, especially lower-income shoppers, to buy less apparel. 

Though Abercrombie delivered its highest second-quarter sales since 2015, Hollister saw "a greater than anticipated impact from inflation" that resulted in low conversion and smaller basket sizes, Horowitz said in a statement. Abercrombie lowered its sales outlook for the remainder of the year, causing shares to drop sharply. 

But Abercrombie wasn't alone: other retailers — including Gap, Macy's, and Nordstrom — reported similar uncertainty in 2022.

Part of the brand's strategy has been pulling away from malls.

Abercrombie historically thrived in malls, but is moving towards using online shopping transactions to determine where its customers are and opening stores closer to them.

In Chicago, for example, the company closed a large store in the Water Tower Place mall and opened a new, boutique-style shop in Chicago's Lakeview neighborhood in 2021. A large swath of customers in that area had been making online purchases, according to Bloomberg. 

"Specifically with our Abercrombie & Fitch brand, that consumer is maybe going to the mall a little bit less," Samir Desai, Abercrombie's chief digital and technology officer, told Bloomberg. "So that really favors neighborhood mall streets where there might be a fitness experience or something else that they're engaging in and that's taking them there."

During its most recent quarter, Abercrombie surprised Wall Street by reporting a net profit of $16.6 million, after posting a loss of nearly that much during the same period a year earlier. It also boosted its full-year sales outlook. First-quarter sales of its namesake brand grew 14% year-over-year.

The brand is continuing to open new stores and update its interior designs to attract millennial and Gen Z shoppers.

In Abercrombie & Fitch's newly opened and renovated stores, there are virtually no traces of the retailer's early aughts store era. There are no shirtless Abercrombie model posters, dark lighting, club music, and suffocating cologne — everything that used to be trademarks of the Abercrombie & Fitch experience. Instead, the stores are designed with bright lighting, white and cream paint, and elegant touches, such as wood paneling and glass chandeliers.

The brand's clothing line is attracting Gen Z shoppers with linen suits and satin gowns.

Abercrombie has traded its early 2000s logo-emblazoned T-shirts and polos for a range of formal and floral dresses, suit sets, and sophisticated knit polos. And the brand is catching on with Gen Z shoppers, some of whom are in college or entering the workforce, Fast Company reported in January.

The rebrand is paying off: Abercrombie & Fitch is defying sales expectations.

The company's first-quarter sales grew 22%, Abercrombie & Fitch reported in May.

On June 10, its shares had nearly doubled their value since the start of 2024.

Nine years after his exit, Jeffries was accused of exploiting men for sex.

In October, a two-year BBC investigation found that ex-CEO Jeffries and his British partner Matthew Smith were behind organized events that recruited men and involved sex acts. Some of the men who were paid to attend these events alleged they were exploited or abused. Others told the outlet that opportunities to model for Abercrombie & Fitch were tied to their participation in sexual activities. 

Abercrombie & Fitch told the news outlet that it was "appalled and disgusted" by the allegations. The FBI is investigating the claims, the BBC reported in January.

Jeffries has called a lawsuit that makes many accusations "meritless," while Abercrombie & Fitch has said that it's not liable since the lawsuit doesn't prove that the company knew about the behavior, the BBC reported.

 

Part of Abercrombie's success has been its growth beyond the jeans that helped make it famous.

In an earnings call last year, CEO Fran Horowitz told investors that while denim continues to be an important part of the business, "we are really focused on the fact that bottoms are much more than denim today," she said on the August earnings call. 

Furthermore, Horowitz highlighted that several categories have led to the company's tenth consecutive quarter of growth. "The playbook is working," she said. "We are no longer a jeans and T-shirt brand. We certainly are a lifestyle brand today, and what's driving this win is several categories."

Matthew Wilson contributed to an earlier version of this article.

• President Joe Biden just hit an all-time low in one approval rating tracker.
• According to FiveThirtyEight, Biden's approval on Monday is the lowest of his presidency.
• Biden's previous dips occurred during a spike in gas prices and the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. 

President Joe Biden's approval rating remains severely underwater just under five months before Americans will render their verdict on his reelection bid.

On Monday, Biden notched the unpleasant distinction of recording his lowest-ever mark in FiveThirtyEight's weighted tracker of his approval rating with a 37.4% approval.

His latest mark comes as polling shows worrying signs of his support among nonwhite voters. Some progressives have also hammered the White House over its response to Israel's handling of the war in Gaza in the aftermath of Hamas' October 7 attack.

Biden's approval cratered after the US's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and has never recovered. His previous low came in July 2022, around the time gas hit over $5 a gallon.

In comparison, former President Donald Trump's approval rating has increased slightly since he left office in the wake of the Capitol riot. According to FiveThirtyEight's weighted average, Trump has a 41.6% approval rating. Trump is facing a potentially perilous time in the wake of becoming the first-ever former president to be convicted of a felony.

Neither man is widely popular, a fact that could signify the hyperpartisan era. In 2016, Gallup found that Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were the least popular presidential candidates dating back to when they began measuring such popularity in 1956.

Biden's popularity puts him at significant risk of losing in November. According to Gallup, his most recent quarter in office (which ended on April 18) left Biden with the lowest approval rating in that span in decades.

Four other modern presidents had an average sub-50% approval rating at this same point in time. Only one, President Barack Obama, won reelection in November. Trump, whose Gallup average was 46.8% at this time in 2020 (higher than Biden's 38.7%) lost to Biden that November.

The president is hoping that this month can change the narrative. Biden is expected to increase his campaigning. He also pushed for a June debate, the earliest faceoff of two major presidential candidates. The pair will debate on June 27.

• Biden is currently trailing Trump in several critical battleground states ahead of November.
• But of all the swing states, Wisconsin has largely been the most receptive to Biden's message.
• Biden has retained a significant level of support from the state's bloc of white non-college voters.

In 2020, Wisconsin was one of Joe Biden's most important electoral victories, as he successfully clawed back the Midwestern swing state that was narrowly won by Donald Trump in 2016.

While Democrats need to perform strongly in the liberal population centers of Milwaukee and Madison in order to win statewide elections, the party still retains a significant level of support in many rural communities. And it's Biden's support among white voters without a college degree — a huge voting bloc in these areas — that's currently keeping him afloat in Wisconsin.

Among the seven major swing states, Biden currently trails Trump by at least three points in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina, according to Real Clear Polling averages.

In Michigan and Pennsylvania, Biden has smaller deficits against Trump in the polling averages.

But in Wisconsin, Biden is often tied with Trump in polling, or has a slim lead. And it's the backing of many white working-class voters that has been critical for the president.

The most recent Quinnipiac University poll showed Biden leading Trump by six points (50% to 44%) among registered voters, while a recent Cook Political Report survey had Biden and Trump tied at 45% among Wisconsin voters.

In the Quinnipiac poll, Wisconsin voters gave Biden positive marks on issues like abortion rights and the preservation of democracy. But even on the question of who would better handle international conflicts — where Trump has opened up a lead in many recent polls — the former president only led Biden by one point (48% to 47%).

When it came to economic issues, Trump had an eight-point lead over Biden (52% to 44%) in Wisconsin, per Quinnipiac, a relatively stable number for the incumbent on an issue where he has struggled in national polling. For Biden, the Wisconsin number represents a much more positive outlook from voters compared to his standing in states like Arizona and Nevada.

Among white voters in Wisconsin, Biden actually led Trump by four points (50% to 46%) in the Quinnipiac poll. And college-educated white voters in Wisconsin backed Biden by 27 points (61% to 34%).

But among white voters without college degrees, Biden only trailed Trump by eight points (44% to 52%), a deficit that is much narrower than in virtually every other swing state.

That Biden has been able to hold on to a sizable level of support from this voting bloc — despite their overall migration to the GOP — shows the uniqueness of the president's electoral coalition in Wisconsin.

And it's a coalition that could help send him back to the White House, especially if he's also able to capture Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska's Omaha-anchored 2nd Congressional District — in addition to the core of blue states that are the foundation of any Democratic presidential victory.

"In order to win, Democrats have to overperform — by a lot — with white working-class voters in the state, because most voters in Wisconsin are white working-class voters," Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Ben Wikler recently told The Washington Post. "No one who's active in politics forgets that for a second."

• Army Futures Command Gen. James Rainey said it's too soon to establish a drone branch.
• The House Armed Services Committee pushed forward the idea of creating a drone corps last month.
• Army officials argue drone technology needs time to develop within formations.

US Army Gen. James Rainey, who serves as the commanding general of Army Futures Command, said it's too soon for the service to establish a new drone branch, reiterating a point made by other Army leaders.

"The bigger thing is getting UAVs into our formation at echelon right now so we can train," Rainey said in a conversation last week with Thomas Karako, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

As is, the Army already has a number of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle specialists. "I don't know that it's going to warrant its own branch," the general said.

"Certainly, I'd say it's too soon for that," he added.

Members of the House Armed Services Committee put forward the creation of a drone corps as a branch of the Army in proposed language in the 2025 defense authorization bill last month.

Rep. Rob Wittman of Virginia said in March that a drone branch would allow for "these systems' unique capabilities to grow beyond their role primarily as enablers to the current combat arms branches."

The moves within the House committee come as drones play a defining role in Ukraine, the largest land war in Europe since World War II. These systems have been used for strikes, reconnaissance, targeting, and more on a scale previously unseen, and Ukraine established a drone branch earlier this year.

The US military is adopting new capabilities and technologies to counter this threat, but it's a work in progress. That said, top Army officials don't feel a drone branch is needed right now.

Army Undersecretary Gabe Camarillo previously pushed back on the proposal to establish a drone corps. He believes drone technology still needs time to develop and integrate with the Army.

"My view is that creating a corps or other institutional kind of structure to get after it, in some ways, could take away some focus from some of the things that we're actually doing," he said during an event in May. "It's important, in my view, to get after giving units these … UAS capabilities to let them experiment."

And Army Chief of Staff Randy George told the Senate Appropriations Committee that drones are "integrated into our formation, not some separate piece." He added that "we need that kind of flexibility."

"I don't think it would be helpful to have a separate drone branch," he said.

Speaking at the CSIS event last week, Rainey explained that it is important to ensure UAVs have the proper capabilities before committing to acquisition.

"We [need to] have good requirements and good acquisition approaches for UAVs at echelon," Rainey said. "We need to stop buying a thing and buy a capability."

When you buy through our links, Business Insider may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

The best 85-inch TVs deliver a viewing experience that smaller displays simply can't match. Though sets this big used to be rare, manufacturers now sell 85-inch versions of several popular TV models. And while still expensive, they've come down in price a lot over the last few years.

To help you find the right extra-large display for your budget, our experts have compiled a carefully curated list of the best 85-inch TVs you can buy. The TCL QM8 offers the best balance between price and performance at this size thanks to its bright QLED panel and high-contrast Mini LED backlight. But if price isn't a concern, the LG G4 is a high-end OLED with stunning picture quality that beats every other 85-inch TV we've tested. 

We also have picks for entry-level QLED and 8K models at this size, so all home theater needs are accounted for. 

Note: LCD-based TVs (LED, QLED) are often manufactured in an 85- or 86-inch screen size, but OLED displays are sold in a slightly smaller 83-inch size. For that reason, we've included 83-inch OLED TVs in this guide.  

Our top picks for the best 85-inch TVs

Best overall: TCL QM8 4K QLED TV – See at Amazon

Best midrange OLED: Samsung S90C 4K OLED TV – See at Amazon

Best high-end model: LG G4 4K OLED TV – See at Amazon

Best 8K display: Samsung QN900C QLED 8K TV – See at Amazon

Best on a budget: TCL Q6 QLED 4K TV – See at Best Buy

Best overall

When it comes to balancing price and image quality, TCL's QM8 QLED is the best 85-inch TV you can buy. It's incredibly bright while maintaining excellent contrast thanks to the precision of its Mini LED backlight with local dimming. And despite its extra-large size, it's often available for $1,700, an unbeatable value for a big display with this level of performance.

Though we typically recommend OLED models, like the Samsung S90C, as the top picks in our other best TV guides, OLEDs at this screen size jump up dramatically in price, and many are missing color and brightness features found on their smaller counterparts. An OLED will still deliver the best overall image quality, but at this size, the QM8 QLED has a big edge in value for most people.

The QM8's color volume is especially impressive thanks to its quantum dot filter, which you won't find on any OLED over 77 inches. Quantum dots also help the TV achieve a peak brightness of around 2,000 nits, which is more than enough to enjoy the full benefits of most HDR content. 

It has a leg up over cheaper QLED models thanks to the QM8's high number of local dimming zones, which helps it achieve deep black levels without major halos around bright objects. However, contrast still can't match the pixel precision of an OLED panel, so you might see the dimming zones at work during certain scenes when watching TV in a dark room. 

When reviewing the QM8, we also noticed slight issues with shadow details getting lost in dimmer scenes, but this can be mitigated by adjusting some of the display's settings. But the QM8's biggest weakness is its viewing angles. Colors and contrast distort when you sit off to the side of the screen. If you want a similar 85-inch QLED TV with better off-axis viewing, we recommend Samsung's more expensive QN90C. Otherwise, you'll need to pay substantially more for an OLED like the Samsung S90C or LG C3.

With Google TV built-in, the QM8 offers a reliable interface and easy access to all of the best streaming services. The TV is also a great fit for gamers with up to a 144Hz refresh rate when paired with a compatible PC. The TV's build and design aren't as premium as more expensive models, but the QM8's strengths far outweigh its cons. 

A 2024 version of this TV is now available as well. TCL says the new model can hit a whopping 5,000 nits, which is a notable step up. However, it's rare for HDR videos to call for that level of extreme brightness. And since the 2024 model costs much more, the 2023 QM8 remains our top recommendation while supplies last.  

Read our TCL QM8 4K TV review.

Best midrange OLED

Samsung's 83-inch S90C OLED is more than double the price of many similarly sized QLED TVs, but its picture quality is a clear step above. The S90C delivers an infinite contrast ratio with true black levels and wider viewing angles than any QLED, leading to a notable upgrade in overall image performance, especially if you like to watch TV in a dim home theater environment. 

We still think our top pick, the TCL QM8 QLED, is a better overall value at this size, but if you're willing to spend twice as much, this midrange OLED has key perks. In a dark room, the S90C's pixel-level contrast control outmatches any QLED we've tested, offering one of the best movie-watching experiences you can get from an 83-inch TV. 

Though not as bright as the QM8 or LG's more expensive G4 OLED, the S90C still gets bright enough for most needs. However, unlike smaller versions of the S90C, the 83-inch model does not use quantum dots in its panel. This means bright colors won't look quite as vivid as they do on sets with quantum dots, like the QM8. And while smaller S90C models do support a 144Hz refresh rate with a PC, the 83-inch S90C maxes out at 120Hz. This will still enable high frame rate support on consoles like the PS5 but could be a drawback for dedicated PC gamers.

In this performance class, there's also the 83-inch LG C3 OLED to consider. At this size, the C3 and S90C both use similar, if not identical, display panels. Their prices tend to fluctuate, so one is often on sale for less than the other.  Though we lean toward recommending whichever happens to be cheapest at the moment, there are some small differences worth noting.

Both TVs support the standard HDR10 format, but the C3 also supports Dolby Vision, while the S90C supports HDR10+. Dolby Vision and HDR10+ offer similar perks, but Dolby Vision is more widespread on streaming services. Check out our HDR TV guide for more details on each format. On the other hand, the S90C has the bonus of supporting the Xbox Game Pass app directly through its smart TV interface. With this app, Game Pass members can stream Xbox games without a console.

Samsung and LG also sell 2024 versions of each TV, called the S90D and C4. While they both get a little brighter than their 2023 counterparts, they cost substantially more. For now, we think the 2023 editions remain the better buys. 

Read our Samsung S90C 4K TV review (65-inch model with quantum dots).

Best high-end model

LG's 83-inch G4 OLED is the ultimate high-end TV in this size. It's the most advanced OLED available at 83 inches, besting the overall picture quality of all our other picks. Of course, it also has the highest price tag of any TV you'll find in this guide. 

First things first, buyers should note that the 83-inch G4 is designed with wall mounting in mind. So much so that it doesn't include a traditional TV stand. Instead, you get a bracket that lets you mount it flush to your wall with virtually no gap. It looks beautiful hung up this way, but you can still buy a stand separately if wall mounting isn't an option for your room. 

Outside its elegant style, the G4 is a picture-quality powerhouse. Using LG's latest OLED Evo panel, it offers all the benefits that OLEDs are known for, including an infinite contrast ratio, perfect black levels that disappear into a dark room, and wide viewing angles so you get a great image no matter where you sit. 

In addition, the 83-inch G4 incorporates MLA (Micro Lens Array) technology to boost its brightness. This feature was missing from the 83-inch edition of last year's G3, and it enables a sizable upgrade in luminance over competing 83-inch OLEDs, like the Samsung S90C. During our tests, we measured a peak of around 1,550 nits on the 65-inch G4, which should carry over to the 83-inch option. 

Though the Samsung S95D OLED can get brighter in short bursts, that model is not available in 83 inches. As it stands, the 83-inch G4 is the brightest OLED you can get in such a large screen size, and it delivers gorgeous HDR highlights while maintaining great performance even in rooms with a lot of light. 

LG's solid webOS smart TV interface rounds out the package with access to every major app and nice perks like hands-free voice control and a remote that supports motion controls. You can navigate menus by waving the remote at the screen to move a virtual cursor.

Our top pick, the TCL QM8 QLED, still delivers a better price-to-performance ratio, and our midrange OLED pick, the Samsung S90C, offers similar contrast capabilities for less money. But, if budget isn't a concern and you want the absolute best image quality you can get at this size, the LG G4 is the 83-inch TV to beat. 

Best 8K display

Though we think most buyers are better off with a high-end 4K TV, 8K displays like the Samsung QN900C have their fans, especially at extra-large screen sizes. At 85 inches, an 8K TV will offer some benefits over 4K thanks to higher pixel density, which means you can sit very close without seeing individual pixels like you would on a 4K set this large.

However, it's important to remember that the perks of 8K are subtle. There's still no native 8K content to watch outside a few YouTube videos, and though the TV's upscaling looks great, it's not a huge improvement over watching the same content on a 4K TV with similar capabilities. 

But even ignoring its 8K resolution, the QN900C is just a stunning QLED TV. Its Mini LED backlight is one of the best out there, and it gets about as close to OLED-level contrast as we've seen on a display like this. It also has an incredible peak brightness of about 2,300 nits, and it can sustain that brightness much better than an OLED. 

This is one of the best Samsung TVs you can buy, but its impressive picture quality is more a result of its dimming performance and quantum dot colors rather than its actual pixel count. If you're willing to spend top dollar for high-end picture quality, we still think you're better off with a 4K OLED like the LG G4, but if you're set on buying an 8K display, the QN900C is easily one of the best 85-inch TVs to snag.

Buyers should note that Samsung now sells a 2024 edition of this display, called the QN900D. We also tested that model, and it performed much like the QN900C during our evaluation. But since the QN900D costs much more, we still recommend the older model as the better value. 

Best on a budget

The best 85-inch TVs don't come cheap. Even basic models rarely dip below $800, and those sets make many performance sacrifices to get that cheap. However, there is one 85-inch TV that still manages to deliver solid image quality for just under $900: the TCL Q6 QLED. 

Other options that cost a bit less, like the Hisense A7 and the step-down TCL S4, use regular LED panels without quantum dots, which limits their color volume and brightness performance. But the Q6 offers a more vibrant and accurate HDR image while remaining competitively priced for its size. 

That said, the Q6 still has drawbacks compared to pricier models. Viewing angles are narrow, so picture quality takes a big hit if you sit to the side of the screen. This is common for TVs in this class, so if viewing angles are a priority over color gamut, we recommend going with an alternative budget model like the 86-inch LG UQ75. And like many TVs in this class, the Q6 is limited to a 60Hz screen rather than 120 or 144Hz, which makes it less suited for high-end 4K gaming.

Though brighter than cheaper 85-inch sets, the Q6 maxes out at around 500 nits. That's just under the 600-nit range we typically recommend as a starting place for budget HDR TVs. It also lacks local dimming, so it can't adjust brightness across different zones on the screen. This leads to elevated black levels compared to step-up models, like the TCL Q7. 

For most screen sizes, our go-to budget pick is the Hisense U6K which does have local dimming. Unfortunately, that model isn't offered in sizes above 75 inches. As it stands, the Q6 is the most affordable 85-inch QLED TV you can buy, and compared to its direct competitors, it delivers great value for the money.

How we test 85-inch TVs

To choose the best 85-inch TVs, our team relied on a combination of hands-on testing and research informed by more than a decade of experience covering the home entertainment product market. 

When reviewing TVs, we typically evaluate each model's 65-inch option since that's considered the industry's flagship size. However, a specific model's overall performance often remains comparable across sizes 55 inches and up. For example, an 83-inch LG C3 OLED and a 65-inch C3 OLED have the same specs. The only notable difference is the size of each panel. 

However, there are instances when certain TV models have more dramatic differences across their sizes. For instance, the Samsung S90C uses quantum dots on its 55-, 65-, and 77-inch models but does not use quantum dots on its 83-inch model. This means the 83-inch model can't match the color performance of its smaller counterparts. We take all of these differences into account when recommending TVs and detail these instances when they pop up.

To evaluate displays, we look at key picture quality elements like color performance, clarity/sharpness, contrast control, HDR brightness, refresh rate, smart TV interface speed, off-angle viewing, and overall value. We use an X-Rite iDisplay Plus colorimeter and test patterns on the Spears & Munsil HDR Benchmark 4K Blu-ray disc to check brightness and other objective image attributes. 

We also rely on various movies and TV shows to look at real-world performance in bright and dark rooms. We've selected specific scenes to compare quality across TVs with black levels, shadow detail, HDR capabilities, and upscaling in mind. Sources include 4K, 1080p, and standard definition (SD) material from Blu-rays, streaming services, and cable TV.

85-inch TV FAQs

Is 85 inches a good TV size?

The best 85-inch TVs can provide a level of immersion that smaller displays can't achieve, and they're especially good for larger rooms since you can sit farther away and still get a cinematic experience. Though there are fewer 85-inch models to choose from compared to smaller screen sizes, several of our picks for the best 4K TVs are sold in 83 to 85-inch versions. 

However, many rooms simply can't accommodate a TV this big, and 85-inch sets are typically pricey. If you need a smaller display, check out our guides focused on other sizes:

• Best 75-inch TVs
• Best 65-inch TVs
• Best 55-inch TVs
• Best 50-inch TVs

How much should you spend on an 85-inch TV?

Generally, you should expect to pay at least $900 to snag one of the best 85-inch TVs, though top high-end models cost $5,000 or more. 

We've seen entry-level 85-inch LED TVs on sale for as low as $750, but budget QLED models typically start at around $1,000, and midrange options with local dimming and higher brightness capabilities sell for around $1,500 to $1,800. High-end 85-inch QLED 4K TVs with the best performance usually cost around $2,000 to $3,000, and 8K models can be between $5,000 and $7,000.

If you want one of the best OLED TVs in this class, 83-inch options start at around $3,500, while high-end OLEDs this big can cost as much as $6,500. 

Check out our full QLED vs. OLED guide for details on how OLED and QLED TVs compare in performance.

Is 4K resolution enough for an 85-inch TV?

In general, 4K resolution is plenty to deliver a sharp and detailed image on an 85-inch TV. That said, the higher pixel density of an 8K display can improve picture clarity if you sit very close to your TV. 

Improvements in pixel smoothness on an 85-inch set should become most visible if you sit less than five feet from your display. However, for most people, this subtle benefit is not worth the extra money that an 8K TV costs.

Do 85-inch TVs offer good sound quality?

Though there are exceptions, even the best 85-inch TVs tend to offer middling audio performance. Built-in TV speakers typically use small drivers placed in areas that muffle sound. They can get the job done for casual viewing, but we recommend shoppers invest in a dedicated speaker system or soundbar to get the best audio performance. 

Check out our various soundbar guides to see our top recommendations for various needs: 

• Best soundbars
• Best soundbars with subwoofers
• Best budget soundbars
• Best Dolby Atmos soundbars

• Waze's cofounder said underperforming employees drive away top performers and can harm a company.
• Cofounder Uri Levine said he uses a 30-day test to determine if he should fire a new employee. 
• He said a similar test can be used for other things in life, like relationships or career paths.

Waze cofounder Uri Levine has founded 10 companies, served on the board of 20, and advised more than 50 — and he believes underperforming employees can be a liability to a startup.

Levine said on an episode of "Lenny's Podcast," released Sunday, that when there are people who shouldn't be on a team, top performers leave. Then, it becomes "mission impossible" to achieve success.

That's why Levine likes to cut to the chase when it comes to firing, as he detailed in his new book "Fall in Love with the Problem, Not the Solution: A Handbook for Entrepreneurs." In his chapter about firing and hiring, he said in the interview that he implemented a 30-day test to determine whether to fire a new employee.

The test involves marking his calendar 30 days after the person starts the job. Levine said once it hits the 30-day mark, he asks himself, "Knowing what I know today, would I hire this person?"

If the answer is yes, he suggests reaching out to the employee immediately, giving them more equity in the company, and buying "their loyalty for life." If the answer is no, he said the employee should be fired immediately.

"They're already set on a trajectory of not being successful," Levine said. "And they are creating damage to you, to the rest of the team, and to themselves."

Levine said the employee deserves to be successful, but in this hypothetical case, it's not going to happen there. The test prevents a situation in which a team faces long-term issues that came from a single employee and were clear out of the gate. Levine said this was often the case when he spoke with entrepreneurs whose startups failed.

Levine said that's part of why he named one of his book chapters "Firing and Hiring" instead of the reverse. The cofounder said CEOs need to learn how to make hard decisions before easy ones.

Waze did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment ahead of publication.

Levine said this test can be applied to "everything in your life," including relationships and directions you're going in life.

"Ask yourself, knowing what you know today, would you do something different? If the answer is yes, then do something different today," Levine said. "Today is the first day of the rest of your life."

The cofounder said he has five children in their 20s and early 30s, and they struggle with figuring out their career paths. He said he tells them to ask themselves why they don't like their jobs and if they can change something. Levine said he would follow up in 90 days, and if it's still the case, they should quit.

"If you don't set a timeline, it'll never happen," Levine said.

• What should you do if you're on the fence about a job candidate?
• Speak with their references of course, says Waze cofounder Uri Levine.
• Here are the simple questions he asks an applicant's reference to determine whether or not to hire them.

Speaking with a job candidate's references can help you decide whether or not they're a good fit for the job. But what exactly do you ask them?

Uri Levine, cofounder of traffic and navigation app Waze, has a few questions he always falls back on. He discussed his process in an episode of Lenny's Podcast released Sunday.

"Even in the hiring process most of us are going to interview candidates and then decide that they like or dislike the candidate, but they don't know," Levine said. "Then speak with someone that does know. Speak with the reference."

Levine keeps the questions simple when talking with applicant references.

"Would you hire him or her?" he asks them. "If they tell me yes, then I would ask them, 'Why didn't you?'"

In some cases, the hiring decision is clearer, as he recalled.

"Someone asked me for a reference on someone that I really enjoyed working with, I really think highly of them," he said. "And he asked me if they can schedule a call for half an hour and I said, 'Look I'm traveling, I don't really have time. But if you want an email in one word, take the guy.' And then he was trying to outsmart and ask me back, 'Can I have that in two words?' And I said, 'Yeah, take the guy fast.' When you know, you know. That's it."

Levine also discussed other hiring tips from his recent book, "Fall in Love with the Problem, Not the Solution: A Handbook for Entrepreneurs."

He follows a "30-day test," for example, in which he puts a note on his calendar for 30 days after he's hired someone to ask himself if, knowing what he knows now about them, he'd still bring them onboard. If not, it's probably best to let them go, in Levine's opinion.

Levine did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

• LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman blasts business leaders who support Trump in 2024.
• Hoffman argues in The Economist that a robust legal system is essential for US business prosperity.
• Trump, Hoffman argues, would upend that system. 

The billionaire cofounder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman, slammed business leaders who support former President Donald Trump, arguing that a 2024 win for the Republican would actually be bad for the economy.

Hoffman, who cofounded LinkedIn in 2002, wrote an op-ed in The Economist last week criticizing his fellow executives for their "myopia" in backing Donald Trump's run for presidency.

He argues that a "robust legal system" is critical for American business to prosper because it keeps things in check. Courts of law and impartial juries are necessary to "enforce contracts and punish fraud."

"But a robust, reliable legal system is not a given," Hoffman wrote. "It is a necessity we can ill afford to live without. We trade it away at our peril."

"Which makes it all the more lamentable that a growing number of America's corporate and financial leaders are opening their wallets for Donald Trump," he added.

Hoffman argues that, if elected this November, Trump — who was convicted of 34 felonies for falsifying business records to cover up an alleged affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels — could upend the entire legal system that the American economy and American businesses rely on.

So why would business leaders ever support someone who could lead to their downfall? Hoffman has a few explanations. Some are merely kidding themselves that Trump can be "normal and controlled."

Others, Hoffman argues, believe Joe Biden would be even more dangerous to American business than Trump would. Although that position, he says, is misguided because the stock market, oil and gas production, employment, and GDP growth have hit record highs during Biden's presidency.

Some business leaders believe, Hoffman argues, that a Trump presidency would skyrocket them to the top of a new oligarchy, while others simply fear retaliation if they don't pledge themselves to Trump.

But what many business leaders really want, Hoffman argues, is lower taxes and fewer regulations — even at the expense of an impartial judicial system and democracy itself.

There's a growing number of business leaders who publicly support Trump. Pershing Square Capital Management CEO Bill Ackman is reportedly leaning toward voting for Trump this November, as is billionaire Nelson Peltz.

Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman and venture capitalist Douglas Leone have already endorsed Trump, while over a dozen other billionaires have pumped money into Trump's campaign.

Elon Musk has not publicly endorsed Trump but has defended him on X, and said he's unlikely to vote for Biden.