[tredre3]

But in your scenario they are an integral and necessary part of the device, so it's costed in.

In a television it's an added cost and it's unclear if serving ads really can offset that extra $25-100 of hardware (and included data) you ship on a $200-1000 television.

It's also unclear to me if the low data packages they come with would be enough to serve meaningful ads to begin with. Those devices usually come with a fixed plan of 100MB/month for 5yrs (or along those lines). Modern smart tv ads are very often video or at least hi res images.

[semi-extrinsic]

> In a television it's an added cost and it's unclear if serving ads really can offset that extra $25-100 of hardware (and included data) you ship on a $200-1000 television.

Amazon seems to have done the math and found that it makes sense to give a $20 discount on a $180 device if it lets them display very unobtrusive ads on the lockscreen. So I don't think you are correct.

[fc417fc802]

Why are you assuming the primary motivator is to serve ads? Smart TVs were already caught running content ID against the contents of the screen and phoning that data home. "Routing at the edge" is the euphemism for the logical extension of that.

> extra $25-100

Your estimated costs are off by at least one order of magnitude, probably two.

Of course none of this makes much sense in a world where smart TVs have ubiquitous wifi, most consumers have one, most consumers run the stock OS, and most consumers connect it to the public internet. It would be entirely viable if not for that status quo.