3 ms·

Ad revenue means tvs priced for less than they ought to be, it's a trade-off for consumers. You could quibble about the externalities but it's ridiculous to sug

Ad revenue means tvs priced for less than they ought to be, it's a trade-off for consumers. You could quibble about the externalities but it's ridiculous to suggest there's no upside, for anyone. If that were true they wouldn't sell.

loa_in_ 2y ago
It's about as fair as burning own money to sell at loss to undermine competition I'm afraid.
Eisenstein 2y ago
You can't claim something is a benefit for consumers if the consumers are not offered a competing product without the predatory features for more money. Let's put a 'dumb' TV on the market and regulate that 'smart' TV boxes have to say 'this is cheaper because we make most of our profit from it by screenshoting what you watch 100 times a second and selling it to the highest bidder' and see what the market thinks about it.
- redwall_hp 2y ago
  Also if you buy a TV with no ads or other predatory features, then they push a software update that adds them. You can hardly say the customer was a "rational actor" who made an informed choice if you change their property after you sold it to them.
- slothtrop 2y ago
  If the demand is strong enough, there will be. No one leaves money on the table. As it stands, it's deemed too risky. I'd like another querty productivity phone as good as the BB curve 9320 or Q10 was, and willing to pay, but it probably won't happen.
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    You are presupposing that people are going to be omniscient. Without knowing the downsides of the thing they are buying that is cheaper, there will never be demand for something more expensive that doesn't have them. My argument is that if we put on the box what the thing does, many fewer people would buy it, and there would be demand for something that doesn't have those 'features'. It is easy to justify after the fact which is why they just do it and when it becomes common enough people stop caring because they already invest money into it. 'The market is the solution' is true only as long as human factors are seen as market distortions and mitigated through regulation.

loa_in_ 2y ago

It's about as fair as burning own money to sell at loss to undermine competition I'm afraid.

Eisenstein 2y ago

You can't claim something is a benefit for consumers if the consumers are not offered a competing product without the predatory features for more money. Let's put a 'dumb' TV on the market and regulate that 'smart' TV boxes have to say 'this is cheaper because we make most of our profit from it by screenshoting what you watch 100 times a second and selling it to the highest bidder' and see what the market thinks about it.

redwall_hp 2y ago
Also if you buy a TV with no ads or other predatory features, then they push a software update that adds them. You can hardly say the customer was a "rational actor" who made an informed choice if you change their property after you sold it to them.
slothtrop 2y ago
If the demand is strong enough, there will be. No one leaves money on the table. As it stands, it's deemed too risky. I'd like another querty productivity phone as good as the BB curve 9320 or Q10 was, and willing to pay, but it probably won't happen.
- Eisenstein 2y ago
  You are presupposing that people are going to be omniscient. Without knowing the downsides of the thing they are buying that is cheaper, there will never be demand for something more expensive that doesn't have them. My argument is that if we put on the box what the thing does, many fewer people would buy it, and there would be demand for something that doesn't have those 'features'. It is easy to justify after the fact which is why they just do it and when it becomes common enough people stop caring because they already invest money into it. 'The market is the solution' is true only as long as human factors are seen as market distortions and mitigated through regulation.