Comment on We don’t need 75-inch TVs, we need 75% off basic survival. 💀
theparadox@lemmy.world 23 hours agoI don’t disagree that manufacturing costs have gone down, but I question whether that or ads, data collection, and other new smart TV “features” have most contributed to the lowering price of TVs and other electronics.
Gladaed@feddit.org 23 hours ago
That’s bookkeeping magic. They are not talking about the cost of tvs and to consumers but their profit.
Their lower cost divisions such as ads and sponsorship can only operate for they sell tvs. I.e. their cost isnt reflected accurately.
They even talk about how the hardware section’s revenue is much, much greater. But when you got those bonus earnings you can undercut your competition ever so slightly or even sell at a minor loss in the manufacturing while still making a profit. But this barely matters to the price the consumer actually pays.
theparadox@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
So you are saying that they are talking about profit and not revenue. Profit - the actual net gain the company gets and the sole reason businesses exist in a capitalist economy, and arguably the more important responsibility of a corporation to its shareholders…
Gross profit:
To me, it looks like they are making more profit from the platform than from the TV sales themselves. To the point where they could, as you say, literally sell TVs at a loss, and still profit…but that barely matters when it comes to the price of the TV?
When the TV is on the modest end, I think that matters a whole lot.
They won’t be giving away 75" TVs or anything, but I think “platform” revenue has sizeable impact on why you can get absurdly cheap 27" flat panel TVs from Vizio and the like.
Gladaed@feddit.org 22 hours ago
The issue with this calculus is that they would not turn a profit from the services if they stopped making tvs. This means dividing out these into separate accounts with separate costs is idiotic.
theparadox@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
So in order for it to be real, everything must be merged together into a single source of revenue/profit?
I am in no way confused as to whether or not they could make a profit without selling TVs - it says to me that the more TVs they sell, the more the platform can make. The platform becomes the profit generator and the cost and sale price of the TV hardware then becomes a line item in the platform profit calculation.
I’m not a business major but I don’t understand how separating the services and hardware that delivers the services into two measures invalidates my assertion that the services are the profit driving force and the hardware is secondary to that. With the hardware being secondary, keeping its price low or at a loss makes economic sense if the platform generates that much more profit.
I’m arguing such logic has driven down the prices. What are you actually asserting that is relevant to my point?