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.

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.

> 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.

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