> I addressed this - systems without IME exist, but are not available for purchase, for any price, except for governments. That's not economics.
As I understand governments just set a bit to disable IME on already existing processors. But if you want a feature and are willing to give them billions of dollars, Intel or anyone else absolutely will add a feature for you. You can call up any fab and have them make whatever you want. Custom silicon is absolutely a thing, but it requires big bucks. Nobody makes bleeding-edge node processors for applications with tiny markets precisely because of economics. They are made for the only market with enough revenue to support the R&D cost: the mass market.
> I specifically said "non-rootable", i.e. non-privileged by default, but that can be unlocked. So mainstream phones would remain non-privileged except for those motivated enough to follow an unlock procedure.
Mainstream phones don't do this. They still sell. Therefore it is proven that the market DGAF. The largest customers for a company like Samsung are businesses who don't want the phones to be unlockable. They want that shit locked down and surveilled like Fort Knox. Pun intended. https://samsungknox.com/en
> If MS prevented users from running any compiler except Visual Studio on Windows, would you excuse it because those that need it are a niche market, for whom the more expensive Windows Pro licenses are made?
I don't think they have a reason to expend resources to affirmatively make this change -- but the few products they've released for which it was inconvenient to add support for things like this, they absolutely have. eg: S mode.
> There are no non-smart TVs on store shelves next to smart ones, just for a higher price, despite demand [1]. In fact it's a challenge to find one at all.
You can find sometimes find Spectre dumb TVs at walmart. Know why the they're hard to find? Because TVs have large fixed costs to produce, and if you don't move enough units to cover both the marginal and fixed costs, you cannot afford to offer the product at all.
> "This question of smart-TV data privacy and security is by far the most-asked among Ask Wirecutter readers."
I don't doubt that Wirecutter has received maybe hundreds of questions about this topic. But almost 225 million TVs sell annually. People buy smart TVs.
It's just the reality that privacy is not a primary purchasing consideration for mass market customers. The mass market doesn't care. If you even read a privacy policy, people will think you're weird. I wish it weren't the case, but it plainly is. It really won't change until people stop buying these products.