undefined

points

[-]

No, they meant inflated. Cars are quite expensive right now, and dealers are notorious for raking in cash through financing. If they were subsidized, prices would be lower to increase user base, as in the aforementioned dynamic present in the current smart TV market.

I think the inital point was that car manufacturers/dealers are double dipping through initial cost/interest AND data harvesting.

by alext518 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Both an high end tv or a car are expensive items where the manufacturer shouldn’t be making additional income on your personal data.

A free 55 inch tv supported by ads would be subsidized. A big ticket item price likely does not change even if it intrudes on your privacy and the manufacturer makes additional income on your data. In that sense it’s not subsidized it’s just greedy business practices.

by funimpoded15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I haven't had any insight into the industry lately, but did work for a company in that space several years ago.

Most (all?) ordinary TVs, plus things like Roku streaming devices, are sold essentially at-cost. The profit comes from ads and information-brokering stuff. This makes it basically impossible to break into the market without doing the same thing.

by alext512 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

What you describe is a business decision.

Different products exist at different price points to cater to different customers.

If you want to sell a subsidized product with the implication that there will be ads, that’s one business strategy, but to say that it’s not viable to have a higher end product that will not sell the user data because it’s not commercially viable is something I’ll have disagree with.

Computer monitors with no smart features wouldn’t viable if that was the case.

by funimpoded11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It’s a business decision, but one of the options won’t move enough units to keep Wal-Mart and Target and Costco and Best Buy using shelf space for your product, and the other might.