alt Hacker NewsCheap devices get subsidized by shitty adware. The cheaper the device, the more likely that it's full of terrible adware.
Consumers often have a choice, at least between "filled to the brim with crap" and "a modicum of crap", by choosing between buying their phone from a store or from a carrier. Carriers have better deals but shovel their phones full of the worst apps you can imagine. Still, people will buy the crap-filled experience that makes you want to tear your hair out because they like the idea of scoring a better deal.
Nothing like unadulterated greed combined with short-sighed consumer behaviour at scale to drive a market segment into an awful race to the bottom.
> subsidized
What's a better word here? Adverts cost the consumer, however I'm sure the consumer doesn't get equal recompense. Theoretically a SmartTV with adverts costs less money ("subsidised" due to price competition), but is the consumer actually ($,time) better off?
The costs are invisible and the consumer cannot actually measure the costs (the vendors do measure profitability but this is not legible).
I reckon most people are terrible at judging the value of their own time (especially children and retirees).