I do not understand why so many other markets have a number of luxury/craftsman brands and in computers we only have Apple. Cars have tons. Even woodworking has 2 built-to-last brands and 2 others that like to flirt with that moniker.
You will have to pay though, if you want the company to stick around. If you buy something that lasts 3x as long then they get less revenue from you, and the smaller volume means every sale includes paying off the initial R & D.
I recall when Lian Li first came onto the scene and the notch-up in ergonomics of computer cases that followed. Maybe we need something like that for consumer electronics.
The problem is that people like small and clean, which is where Apple excels (to the exclusion of accessibility), so I wonder what bomb-proof consumer electronics built for modification would look like.
Starfleet technology. Sleek and sturdy, but opens up when pressed the right way, and generally can be completely disassembled with ease, have pieces of it replaced, and then put back together.
It's fictional, but it shows the way.
If the hardware is a commodity and the market is for a bare-bones, self-serviceable “just a TV”, then the startup should have significantly lower engineering costs and benefit from the low component costs. Given that people on this thread are stating that they would pay a premium for such a product makes it seem even more viable.
Maybe other people have different “serviceability” definitions, but I once replaced the main board of a broken Vizio smart TV —- there were only two components —- a power board and the main electronics board. The hardest part was tracking down a replacement board, but $35 and a few screws later and I had a working TV again. That met my definition of self-service.
* You can't compete on price because the TV guys are selling access to the data they collect for ad targeting / attribution.
But don't let anyone stop you from doing it. None of us thinks this is worthwhile, so you might be on to a Thiel Truth.
Suppose end consumers think fixing this is worth $50 but not worth $100. If the outfit selling a "SmartTV" gets $80 lifetime value from the "SmartTV" features like forced advertising and margins are slim you probably find you can't offer this "dumb TV" for $50 extra without losing money, and you have no customers and go out of business.
On the other hand, it could go pretty well. We know advertisers see people who buy premium products (which such a "dumb TV" would be since it costs extra) as more valuable in a lot of categories, so maybe you charge $50 extra for the dumb TV and - as it takes off - that undercuts the advertising income of the existing products, so they have to raise prices to remain profitable and that actually improves your affordability compared to the market. Or else they make advertising even more intrusive and pervasive to keep the revenue up, and it makes your $50 premium appear a bargain by comparison for those sick of advertising.