• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day 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
      ·
      21 hours 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
        ·
        21 hours 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
            ·
            20 hours 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
              ·
              19 hours 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