Why are there no tube televisions anymore?

I don't miss tube tv's. Size, weight, heat, reliability, low resolution.
    TV's could be a lot better.  I had a Sony Qualia 46" LED that was c. $15K new.  Discontinued because it cost so much to make them, I don't think it was profitable.  Sony went all out and put all the electronics, which were of "audiophile" type quality, in a separate box the size of a receiver, connected by an umbilical.  It was fabulous. I know of no other tv in which the manufacturer used the kind of parts and engineering standards used in hi end audio.  Such a tv might be $30  - 40 K today, the market's just not there.  Particularly when upgrading is desirable and justifiable because the new model is provably better every year, quite unlike audio... 
 
  

I loved those big old CRT/tube televisions. But that boat sailed long ago.

Video always was like audio in that some "videophiles" actually cared about the look, verisimilitude, and lifelike appearance of certain TVs and formats. I was one of those few. That meant investing in high end television monitors that weren't mass marketed (my pick was a 27" model from NAD; and later, a fine 32" Panasonic CRT). I also embraced a VHS format with ~2X the resolution of standard VHS (Super VHS). No one else did seemed to adopt this excellent format (I had multiple expensive SVHS recorders).

When high definition TV came in (now known somewhat derisively as standard Hi-Def), I got the most acclaimed flatscreen then available circa 2008: the Pioneer Kuro 42" plasma, an amazing television. Still have it and still appreciate its exception reproduction of colors and greyscale. Later on I got a 50" Panasonic plasma, one of the last ones made in 2012. That Panny is still busy reproducing lifelike colors for me on cable TV signals.

3 years ago I invested in the new video wonk’s favorite format, OLED (77" TOTL LG) for a large alternate living room. The big LG cost a ton but is far and away the best television I’ve ever seen. The color purity and black levels/greyscale are pretty amazing. I watch only streaming or blu-ray/4K HDR blu-ray on it, so burn-in isn’t even possible. OLED can't produce the extremes of brightness that LCD/LED can, but in a low-light viewing environment, the best that OLED can do is totally satisfying for these eyes.

Is it worth it to spend big $$ on the best possible video? If you’re me, the answer is "Hell, yes!" Just as it is in audio, which for me in recent years means desktop audio & headphones. I’m cursed by the ability to hear and see the quality that $$ can bring, especially from audio and video formats that emphasize signal purity and quality.

Guys

I had a 31" Mitsubishi for years and moved on to projectors. I briefly craved a 35" Mits, there was one on the floor at JL Hudson's in the Twelve Oaks Mall, Novi. I was puzzled though, it wasn't plugged in. Hmmm.

I asked for demo and the guy said "if we switch it on it blows circuit breakers" LOL......I'm guessing they didn't sell very many.....plus the thing was near 200 lbs and it would take movers to get one home.

Tube TV's were built to be repairable, manufacturers today don't want  anything to be repaired or be backwards compatible. Read 'The deals that made the World' Jaques Peretti. No conspiracy theory just fact on how we continually get shafted in every aspect of life.

Let's all remember that old ANALOG video still had a sampling rate. It was exactly 29.97 frames per second!  (or 25 in Europe).  And what about those scan lines?  UGGHH!   Any comparing of video to analog audio is ridiculous.  I'm pretty sure OP was just baiting us into this.  

Even more analog would be film... that's real analog pictures at a discreet frame rate of 24fps.... which is analogous to a digital sampling rate. There's some really great YouTube explanations on why 24fps is more beautiful and artistic looking than faster frame rates.  I agree.  I do not like faster frame rates. They DO look more real, but disturbingly so.