undefined | Better HN

0 pointsstevewodil5y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

5423542342355y 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.

beagle35y 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.

stevewodilOP5y 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.

beagle35y 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...

junon5y 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.

hakfoo5y ago

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

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

5423542342355y ago

beagle35y 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.

stevewodilOP5y 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.

beagle35y ago

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...

junon5y 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.

hakfoo5y ago

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

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse