OK. So they are supposed to make money selling one of the most unprofitable commodities on earth...electronic hardware? The only company pulling that off is Apple...and probably just on the iPhone.

I paid $400 for a huge TCL TV. It probably cost $100 just to move it around the globe. There is no money for development or the platform/service in that price.

There's no way that a container full of TVs costs $100 per TV to ship. A bit of quick ddg-ing and it looks like a 40 foot container should be less than $4000 port to port.

With the supply chain problems, prices have gone up - sometimes quite a bit. I saw this article:

>...Container shipping rates from China to the United States have scaled fresh highs above $20,000 per 40-foot box as rising retailer orders ahead of the peak U.S. shopping season add strain to global supply chains.

https://www.reuters.com/business/china-us-container-shipping...

BOM -> Factory -> Warehouse -> Worldwide distribution -> Port of authority -> Warehouse -> Retailer/Etailer -> Customer

We're spoiled..

I suppose the question is, what incentive do Apple or Google or Amazon have to put their content on a competitor's hardware? Moreover, pay to get it on Roku?

People are going to buy the hardware that has the content they want. I feel like the big three are squeezing Roku out.

Should legislation be written to require content and hardware platforms be separate? That Apple TV should have to be available for Shield and Roku, and that Youtube TV be allowed on Apple and Roku?

> Should legislation be written to require content and hardware platforms be separate?

There are literally thousands of platforms and devices, all with little bespoke niggles. Who's going to pay for that?