Obviously a million times easier said than done, but has to be a better margin business than where they currently are and would be good lock in.
For example, to use the parent cliche, my sister got my father AirPods this Christmas despite me saying it is probably a bad idea. And it has gone unused because he doesn't grok Bluetooth even in the simplified AirPod way (also, his iPhone is too old to support it natively). But if I gave him a pair of headphones and said "press this button, it will play Van Morrison and Sly Stone", he would use it in a heartbeat.
I feel like every gadget being in one is gonna start breaking down now that software interop is more of a thing.
We got a free one with our YouTube Premium subscription, another free one with our Spotify Family Plan, and another free one from our ISP (though I’m not sure if that was paid for by google or the ISP).
The only reason they don't sell a TV for $200 is they already get all that data from the current TV providers. Chromebooks at $99? Sure, why not.
And eventually nobody can compete. Users must be in google, or amazons ecosystem or be super rich to avoid it. Companies must hope that google or amazon never move into their space because they can be obliterated. This is a "kinder" version of what microsoft got anti-trusted for in the 90s.
I'm not a fan of smart tv apps for all of the reasons discussed on HN, but they work so much better for me than Chromecast I've started using those instead whenever possible.
The smartphone has a huge advantage: you only need to have 1 device in your pocket to do everything. Not having to go get something from another room may not seem like a big deal but I think it really is. (Or I am just lazy.)