• grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      [Citation needed]

      There is zero fucking evidence whatsoever that the alleged “savings” from the ad “subsidy” are getting passed to the consumer.

      • moonshadow@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Automatic litterboxes, fancy toothbrushes, vidya consoles, air purifiers are all examples of physical items often sold at a loss in anticipation of a future revenue stream off the top of my head. Ad specific, lower end smartphones are cheap to free because the money comes from selling your data (by way of tracking apps the manufacturer is paid to include). That their motives aren’t altruistic kinda goes without saying. I would be very surprised if televisions were excluded from this process, and need a new explanation for walmart’s sub-$50 ad-choked tv selection

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I wasn’t asking for a citation that their methods aren’t altruistic; I was asking for a citation that they aren’t enshittifying the product with ads or subscriptions or whatever and then gouging you for full price anyway.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              You’re the one trying to sell me your argument; I’m not trying to buy it. Why would I pay to help you prove your own point?

              • moonshadow@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Well, cause I’m here to have fun not think for you! Can you please just have a nice day? Really not looking to fight or argue

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      You are paying for features you don’t use (such as Internet access). That’s not a win.

      • applebusch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        3 days ago

        They’re saying the company may be selling the device for less than the cost to produce it expecting the low price to draw in consumers while their predatory ads rake in much more money, so buying it and never connecting it means they took a loss. I’m skeptical that companies would do that these days. More likely they overcharge for the physical hardware AND have predatory ad software, you know to maximize shareholder value.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          3 days ago

          Even if that were true, you’re still paying more than you would be for a “dumb” TV that doesn’t have those features. So everybody loses but the company selling the hardware still sees a sale. They lose a lot more if they pay the cost to produce and then never sell the device.

          • groet@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 days ago

            You are asuming the cost of a network card and a microchip is higher than the profit they expect from the ads. Many smart TVs are cheaper than an equivalent dumb TV

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Many smart TVs are cheaper than an equivalent dumb TV

              How TF do you know? There aren’t any ‘equivalent dumb TVs’ left to compare to!