Arguing for cost of production vs cost of service offerings in a vacuum is the issue since. And trying to argue that they make their profit just in ads and services is the thing you shouldn't do, as they do not add the TV cost they "subsidize" to their cost. Since profits are very slim any small source of income with low cost suddenly becomes the source of profit if you fudge the math this way. Imagine that they would sell remotes separately at high cost compared to the materials cost e.g. for 20 bucks. Then they could reduce the TV price by 20/buyrate dollars, lowering TV profits but have a high margin item they can tout to investors. Even though almost nothing changed they reduced their tv manufacturing profits without changing their total profits.