I keep seeing people who argue that TVs would be notably "more expensive" if they didn't come with ads. Let's say that the average Samsung TV costs $1,000, ad revenue per person is around $30 a year, and the average lifespan of a TV is 10 years. I own a Samsung TV since 2016. I think they may have pushed 5 firmware updates since then. There is no way I can be convinced that Samsung needs to increase the price of TVs…
I hate (and block) ads everywhere I can, but if we take your numbers as a starting point, doesn't that $30/yr translate to an extra $300 for Samsung in those 10 years, a 30% boost in their income on the sale of your TV? My naive assumption is that they make more money on ads in the short run, which is why they're doing it. But they may (should!) lose money in the long run if competitors can sell ad-free alternatives…
So I'd be really curious how this equates to the profit on the TV, and how much those costs can be amortized between the install base vs actual revenue per user.
At previous company (wireless telco), while not the same thing, we had the intercepting DNS that everyone hates, for typo'd queries redirect to our own search page. I asked one time how much we make in the ad revenue on that, and the basic napkin math was that we were probably losing money. Just the amount of time, complaints, maintenance, keeping it running, etc burned hundreds of hours a year. But it was buried in other budgets so the company thought they were making money.
Even then I don't know how they justified it, it was peanuts compared to mainline revenue.