4 ms·

There's probably a market, but the question is how big? TV's have gotten so cheap because of the ads and data mining, so a TV that doesn't have that would be co

There's probably a market, but the question is how big? TV's have gotten so cheap because of the ads and data mining, so a TV that doesn't have that would be considerably more expensive. People on HN might spend more for some privacy, but most average consumers definitely wouldn't. I almost would like to see Apple release a television that has tvOS built in.

junon 6y ago
> but most average consumers definitely wouldn't. This is the problem. We're so used to giving up privacy now that, slowly, they're chipping away at the small amount we have remaining. And it affects everyone.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
542354234235 6y ago
But isn’t that just the lie they tell us to justify it? Ads don’t bring in much money on a per individual basis. But if you sell the Tv with ads and tell people it’s the only way it is affordable, then you can double dip. Two revenue streams is always better than one. It also explains why no manufactures give you the option to buy a version without ads or to pay a onetime fee to disable the ads part of the software.
beagle3 6y ago
Thats unlikely to be true. Computer screens if comparable sizes (the ones that exist) have dipped in price in the same way, despite having no ads or apps or anything. The prices are down because of process improvements and competition. Ads can make a $10-30 difference in final price.
- stevewodil 6y ago
  Do you have a source for ads accounting for $10-30 of the final price? I'd be curious to learn more about this.
  - beagle3 6y ago
    I don't off hand, that's what I remember from past reading. However, for comparison, Facebook - one of the two undisputed masters (and essentially only players) of online advertising makes < $30/person/year [0], so to assume that Samsung is (a) making $30 on ads over three years (standard depreciation period), and (b) giving all of that back in the TV cost to the buyer seems like a generous overestimate. (Yes, you can insert whatever fudge factor you want, but I think the order is right, and I remember reading it in some article). It's possible ACR is worth more to them than ads -- becoming a new Nielsen; but I would be very surprised. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/234056/facebooks-average-advertising-revenue-per-user/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/234056/facebooks-average...
hakfoo 6y ago
But the cheapest TVs on the market are the super-no-brand models which aren't smart/ Clearly these are unsubsidized.

junon 6y ago

> but most average consumers definitely wouldn't. This is the problem. We're so used to giving up privacy now that, slowly, they're chipping away at the small amount we have remaining. And it affects everyone.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

542354234235 6y ago

But isn’t that just the lie they tell us to justify it? Ads don’t bring in much money on a per individual basis. But if you sell the Tv with ads and tell people it’s the only way it is affordable, then you can double dip. Two revenue streams is always better than one. It also explains why no manufactures give you the option to buy a version without ads or to pay a onetime fee to disable the ads part of the software.

beagle3 6y ago

Thats unlikely to be true. Computer screens if comparable sizes (the ones that exist) have dipped in price in the same way, despite having no ads or apps or anything. The prices are down because of process improvements and competition. Ads can make a $10-30 difference in final price.

stevewodil 6y ago
Do you have a source for ads accounting for $10-30 of the final price? I'd be curious to learn more about this.
- beagle3 6y ago
  I don't off hand, that's what I remember from past reading. However, for comparison, Facebook - one of the two undisputed masters (and essentially only players) of online advertising makes < $30/person/year [0], so to assume that Samsung is (a) making $30 on ads over three years (standard depreciation period), and (b) giving all of that back in the TV cost to the buyer seems like a generous overestimate. (Yes, you can insert whatever fudge factor you want, but I think the order is right, and I remember reading it in some article). It's possible ACR is worth more to them than ads -- becoming a new Nielsen; but I would be very surprised. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/234056/facebooks-average-advertising-revenue-per-user/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/234056/facebooks-average...

hakfoo 6y ago

But the cheapest TVs on the market are the super-no-brand models which aren't smart/ Clearly these are unsubsidized.