[Shaanie]

I suspect it's not quite that simple. First, is there actually enough demand for ad-free TVs to make the option worth including? I personally probably wouldn't pay $20 to avoid ads in the home screen since those kind of ads are just a minor nuisance, which makes me question the size of the market for the ad-free option.

Second, what would the pricing be for the option?

If it's $10-20, that'd probably be fine, similar to what Amazon did for Kindle. But if it's more than that, then I bet the negative PR they would get for including the option outweighs the potential benefit to customers. "I would never buy an X, they're extremely greedy and want $50 just not to show ads. Crazy. I'll buy Y brand instead (which has ads but no 'corporate greed' option to not show them)".

[nitwit005]

They do actually sell screens with no ads for businesses, as mentioned. They just seemingly won't put them in stores where consumers can purchase them easily.

[acdha]

I would look at Google Contributor and similar efforts as a supporting argument. They tried a few times to allow you to pay directly and not see ads, and each time failed reportedly because it was a not loss for publishers. Google is not unbiased here but I suspect that this was a real problem and that it’d be even worse on TVs since most people are used to disruptive ads there.