I addressed this - systems without IME exist, but are not available for purchase, for any price, except for governments. That's not economics.
> TPM exists just because it’s a good security feature that the industry has demanded
Industry demands it, and OS and CPU manufacturers collude to make sure every user gets it, whether they want it or not, so that when they start pushing remote-attestation and other user-hostile technologies in the future, they won't lose any market.
> Mainstream phones run non-privileged
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. But it's a common tactic to excuse deliberate lock-down with "few need it, so we will invest resources into making sure they can't have it, when our previous models allowed it". 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?
> subsidized TV with more features sell better than more expensive TV with fewer features
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.
Saying it's just about money is technically correct in most cases, but very misleading. It hides the fact that in most cases it's not just about offering a cheaper product, but involves backroom lobbying from other interests to restrict consumer options, like forcing them to watch ads on DVDs [2]. It's "about money" in the same way that robbery is about money.
[1] "This question of smart-TV data privacy and security is by far the most-asked among Ask Wirecutter readers." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35484594
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_operation_prohibition