Roku is a U.S. based company that makes streaming devices and platforms. U.S. based Vizio makes televisions and hardware. Samsung, from South Korea, is a world leader in manufacturing electronic and technological devices. These three companies command the bulk of the smart television market. Roku reported $3.5 billion in platform revenue for fiscal year 2024 from 89.8 million active accounts, Vizio reported SmartCast Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) of $37.17 in its final earnings disclosure before its December 2024 acquisition to Wal-Mart, and Samsung Ads reports 78 million active smart televisions in the United States. The household that contains these devices receive entertainment, but the platforms that operate them receive a continuous record of domestic life in return. This paper documents what that record is worth, who captures it, and why households generating the data have no recognized standing in any arrangement that determines its value.
The internet-connected home's interaction begins with the television. Approximately 83% of the total 122 million U.S. households now contain a smart television, a device whose application extends well beyond the delivery of video content. Every smart television operating system (OS) in commercial deployment today includes Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) technology, a system that captures what's displayed on the screen, second by second, regardless of whether the content originates from a streaming application, a cable input, a gaming console, or any other source. ACR operates at the OS level. It doesn't require the user to activate it; it runs continuously as a condition of the device's normal operation.
The behavioral record assembled through ACR is comprehensive in a way that no prior digital interaction in this series has matched. A social media platform captures what a user does on that platform, a search engine captures what a user queries on that service, a learning management system captures what a student does within the course environment, but the smart television OS captures what the household watches across every input, on every device connected to the screen, at every hour it is in use. The record isn't a record of platform engagement, but a record of the household's relationship with visual media in its entirety.
That record flows into two primary commercial channels. The first is direct advertising monetization on the television platform itself: the revenue that Roku, Vizio, Samsung, and LG generate by selling targeted advertising that's informed by what their operating systems have observed. The second is data licensing and audience segmentation: the sale of ACR-derived data to advertisers, media companies, and data brokers operating across the broader advertising market. While platform companies disclose aggregate platform revenue, they don't consistently show the difference between revenue attributed specifically to data licensing and from revenue attributed to advertising on the platform itself. That absence of segmentation doesn't indicate the absence of the activity. Instead, it indicates that the revenue derived from participation is reported in aggregated form rather than broken down by source.
The viewing records generated through ACR don't remain within the platform. They flow into the broader data broker ecosystem, become aggregated, packaged, and sold across advertising markets by intermediaries. This is never disclosed to purchasers. A household whose television viewing behavior has been captured for five years has contributed to audience segments, purchase intent profiles, and behavioral models that circulate the collected data in commercial infrastructure entirely outside the platform on which it was originally collected. The household isn't a party to any of those transactions; it doesn't receive notification that they occur, nor is there a mechanism to assess their scope or to challenge their terms.
The cumulative dimension of this participation is what distinguishes the connected home from the earlier domains explored in the series. A decade of television viewing data from a single household isn't the sum of ten years of individual viewing sessions, but a longitudinal record of the household's entertainment preferences, news consumption habits, political affinities, health interests, consumer intentions, and domestic routines. It's a model whose predictive and commercial value compounds with every additional observation. The behavioral profile assembled from a household that has operated a smart television for ten years is qualitatively more valuable than one assembled from a household that has operated for one year, not because the recent data is better but because the longitudinal record enables predictions that no shorter dataset can support. That compounding is never disclosed to the household.
Roku, Inc. is the dominant connected television platform in the United States as determined by hours streamed. Roku reported platform revenue of $3.5 billion for fiscal year 2024, representing an 18% increase over the prior year, against 89.8 million active accounts globally as of the fourth quarter of 2024. Roku separately disclosed annual average revenue per user of $41.49 for fiscal year 2024. Platform revenue at Roku consists of advertising revenue, content distribution fees, and subscription services revenue; all of which depend on the behavioral participation of the account holder. The $41.49 ARPU figure is global and therefore likely understates the value of the average U.S. household, given the revenue premium that U.S. users generate across digital advertising markets, as confirmed across Papers One and Two of this series (Roku, Inc., Q4 and Full Year 2024 Shareholder Letter, Form 8-K, exhibit 99.1, filed February 13, 2025, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission).
Vizio Holding Corp. reported SmartCast ARPU of $37.17 in the third quarter of 2024, across 19.1 million SmartCast Active Accounts, in earnings materials filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2024. Vizio's own filings defined SmartCast ARPU as total Platform+ net revenue divided by the average SmartCast active account base — a directly confirmed per-account participation value figure derived entirely from the behavioral data the television OS generates. Walmart completed its acquisition of Vizio on December 3, 2024, making Q3 2024 the final formally reported SmartCast metrics available from public SEC filings. Walmart acquired Vizio specifically for its SmartCast platform and its 18 million active account base, confirming that the participation surface, not the television hardware, was the commercial asset being purchased.
Samsung Electronics is the largest smart television manufacturer in the United States by 'installed base'(the total number of TVs currently in use in U.S. homes, accumulated across all years of purchases, not just current sales). Samsung Ads, Samsung's advertising ecosystem, reports 78 million active smart televisions in the U.S. and advertising reach across 45.54 million U.S. smart television households in 2024. Samsung doesn't disclose Samsung Ads revenue as a separate line item in its financial reporting but the underlying data is demonstrably present and commercially organized at scale. The platform has chosen not to disclose the ARPU. That choice follows a pattern established across this series: the platforms capturing the most commercially valuable participation are also the platforms least willing to disclose what that participation generates per household.
Taken together, Roku's disclosed $41.49 annual ARPU and Vizio's disclosed $37.17 SmartCast ARPU establish a confirmed smart television participation baseline in the range of approximately $37 to $42 per household annually, derived entirely from primary source earnings disclosures. Rounded conservatively for the purposes of the Personal Data Royalty Formula (PDR) framework, the smart television layer alone produces a connected-home participation value floor of approximately $40 to $60 per household per year, as determined from disclosed platform revenue and confirmed television OS monetization.
Voice assistants extend the connected-home's data extraction into continuous capture of domestic audio. Amazon has disclosed that more than 100 million Alexa-enabled devices have been deployed globally, with industry estimates placing the installed base above 200 million devices across all Alexa-enabled hardware. These systems are designed to operate continuously. The device must process ambient audio at all times in order to detect the 'wake word' that activates user interaction. This operational requirement produces a structural condition distinct from every earlier situation documented in this series: the device isn't intermittently engaged, it's persistently active. The household doesn't begin participation when it speaks to the device; the device is already processing the environment in which the household lives.
The Federal Trade Commission's 2023 enforcement action against Amazon established on the record what that continuous processing produces. The FTC found that Alexa systems retained voice recordings indefinitely unless users manually deleted them, including recordings of children, and that these recordings were used to train Amazon's speech recognition and natural language processing systems. The enforcement action resulted in a $25 million civil penalty for violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act related to Alexa's retention of children's voice data and geolocation information. These findings aren't speculative characterizations of platform behavior; they're regulatory determinations based on Amazon's own system records, made on the public record in a federal enforcement proceeding.
The data collection mechanism created by voice assistants therefore consists of continuous ambient audio processing, selective retention of recorded interactions, and the incorporation of those recordings into system training and optimization. The household doesn't receive compensation for this contribution and the household isn't recognized as a participant in the development of the system its behavior improves. The device is sold as a consumer appliance but operates as a continuous audio capture system inside private domestic space, generating commercial value for its manufacturer.
Because Amazon doesn't disclose per-device participation revenue with sufficient precision, these surfaces are excluded from the confirmed PDR baseline. Its exclusion is methodological, not substantive. The participation surface exists and the revenue derived from it is real. The platform has chosen not to disclose it at the level required for calculation. That choice is itself a finding of the kind established in Paper Three: the most intimate areas of data collection are also the least disclosed.
The Ring home surveillance system introduces a structural feature not present in any earlier participation domain examined in this series: the outputs of the collected data extend beyond the platform entirely.
By 2020, more than 2,000 law enforcement agencies had entered into formal partnerships with Ring through its Neighbors Portal program. These partnerships allowed police departments to request footage from privately owned Ring devices within defined geographic areas. While user compliance with these requests was formally described as voluntary, the system operated within a legal framework in which law enforcement could obtain footage through subpoenas and court orders even when users declined to provide it directly. Amazon discontinued the Neighbors Portal law enforcement partnership program in 2024 under sustained regulatory and public pressure, but the structure existed for years and the footage generated during that period was distributed to law enforcement agencies across thousands of jurisdictions.
The Federal Trade Commission's 2023 enforcement action against Amazon documented Ring separately from Alexa, finding that Ring employees and contractors had accessed private customer video footage without authorization and that Amazon had failed to implement adequate access controls. The enforcement action resulted in a $5.8 million settlement covering Ring-related violations.
The significance of the Ring structure for this paper isn't the policy question of whether law enforcement access to residential footage is appropriate. The question is about the structural condition that access reveals. A household purchased a device to monitor its own property; the data that device generated (continuous video recording of activity in and around the home) flowed not only to Amazon but to third-party actors operating entirely outside the platform. The household didn't negotiate these flows, wasn't compensated for them, and wasn't recognized as the origin of the footage being distributed. The platform facilitated the transfer and law enforcement agencies utilized the output. The data collection expanded beyond the boundaries of the platform without the household ever becoming a party to the transactions that followed.
This is the first instance in the series where participation value isn't only captured without recognition but is also redistributed to external systems that operate independently of the platform that collected it. The failure of independent jurisdiction therefore doesn't operate only within the platform economy; it extends to the movement of participation outputs across institutional boundaries without the knowledge of the person from whom those outputs originate.
The Introduction to this series established four conditions whose simultaneous presence is required for participation to function as voluntary exchange: survivable refusal, recognized standing, transparency of terms, and independent jurisdiction. Papers One through Three showed these conditions failing through engagement optimization, institutional compulsion, and terms of service that satisfied legal disclosure requirements without producing functional transparency. The connected home introduces a failure mode not present in any earlier paper. The participation surface is activated at the point of hardware purchase rather than at the point of platform engagement.
Hardware Purchase as Activation
In Papers One and Two, engagement with digital infrastructure followed the user's decision to use a service. In Paper Three, utilizing digital systems followed institutional mandate. In the connected home, participation begins when the device is installed and turned on. The household doesn't choose to enter a data collection system. It encounters one as a condition embedded in the operation of the device itself: present before any platform decision has been made, running before any terms have been reviewed, and generating data before any meaningful disclosure has occurred.
The terms governing that participation aren't presented at the point of purchase in any meaningful way. They're disclosed, if at all, during device setup, after the purchase has already been completed and the device has been integrated into the household. The buyer of a television isn't informed at the moment of purchase that the device will monitor and record viewing behavior continuously and convert that behavior into a commercial asset generating over $40 in annual revenue per household. The buyer of a voice assistant isn't informed that the device will process ambient audio continuously as a condition of its operation. The purchase therefore functions as a proxy for consent without meeting the conditions required for consent to be meaningful: the buyer cannot negotiate the terms, nor refuse conditions without forfeiting use of the device. The transaction that appears to be a purchase of hardware is, in practice, the activation of a data collection system whose existence was never clearly disclosed. The household enters that system before it knows the system exists.
Survivable Refusal
The survivable refusal condition requires that a participant be able to decline participation without immediate consequences to their capacity to function in ordinary economic and social life. In the connected home context, this condition fails differently than in Papers One and Two and differently than in Paper Three.
A household that purchases a smart television, and then refuses to activate its OS, retains a device that can display content from external inputs but can't access streaming services, application stores, or any of the content for which the device was purchased. Refusal is technically available in the sense that the device continues to function as a monitor. It's not survivable in the sense that the household has paid for a smart television and receives the functionality of a dumb monitor in return. The choice available to the household isn't between participating and not participating; the choice is between accepting the condition of using the device as intended or accepting a significant reduction in the value of what was purchased.
For voice assistants, the refusal condition fails more completely. A household that purchases an Amazon Echo and refuses to activate it possesses an inert device' refusal means the purchase was pointless. The economic structure of the device (sold at or near cost, commercially viable only through the downstream participation it captures) makes survivable refusal structurally unavailable from the moment of purchase.
Recognized Standing
Neither the household that generates smart television viewing data, nor the household that generates voice assistant interaction data, is recognized as a producer in any platform filing, terms of service, or regulatory framework. The household is classified as a consumer of entertainment services and smart home functionality. The behavioral record it generates continuously is classified as operational data necessary for the platform to function rather than as a productive contribution to a commercial system whose outputs are sold to third parties.
The Walmart acquisition of Vizio for $2.3 billion illustrates this classification precisely. The acquisition was valued on the basis of the SmartCast platform and its 18 million active account bases. The households whose viewing behavior built that platform's commercial value weren't recognized as contributors to the asset being purchased. They were the asset; the ongoing participation surface whose continued engagement justified the acquisition price. Walmart paid $2.3 billion for access to a participation surface. The households generating that surface received nothing and weren't recognized as having contributed anything to the transaction that valued their collective behavior at $2.3 billion.
Transparency of Terms
Transparency of terms requires that the participant have sufficient knowledge of what their participation generates to make a meaningful choice about whether to engage. In the connected home this condition fails at two distinct levels.
At the point of purchase, no disclosure informs the buyer that the device being purchased will generate participation data worth hundreds of dollars annually to the platform operating its software. The retail environment in which smart televisions and voice assistants are sold contains no disclosure of per-household participation value, no description of ACR data flows, and no explanation of the commercial arrangements through which viewing behavior is converted into advertising revenue. The purchase decision is made without the information that would be material to it.
At the point of activation, terms of service are presented in the standard format established across the digital economy: lengthy, technical, and written to satisfy legal disclosure requirements rather than to inform household decision-making. Connected home terms of service have an additional structural feature that distinguishes them from the terms of service in Papers One and Two: they're not static. Smart television and voice assistant devices receive software updates that modify data collection practices, enable new participation surfaces, and change the terms under which household behavior is monitored, without returning to the household for renewed consent. A household that agreed to certain data practices at activation in 2020 is operating under the terms established by subsequent firmware updates, none of which required the household's affirmative agreement. The participation surface the household entered isn't the participation surface it currently occupies, which means the household has no mechanism to refuse updates without losing device functionality.
Independent Jurisdiction
The household has no independent legal recourse for the participation value misclassification this paper documents. The FTC enforcement actions against Amazon establish that regulatory intervention is available for specific documented harms: children's privacy violations and unauthorized employee access to private footage. They don't establish any mechanism through which a household could claim recognition of its participation as the origin of the platform value those behaviors generate. No existing legal framework in the United States treats smart television viewing data or voice assistant interaction data as a productive contribution from a recognized origin. The independent jurisdiction condition is formally present in that regulatory agencies exist, but it is substantively lacking in that no regulatory framework addresses the foundational misclassification at the level the PDR framework requires.
The four legitimacy conditions fail in the connected home through a mechanism the series has not encountered before: the activation of a participation surface embedded in a hardware purchase, before any terms have been reviewed, before any disclosure has been made in a form permitting meaningful response, and before the household has any awareness that a participation surface has been created. Lambda doesn't erode over time as in Papers One and Two, nor fail through institutional compulsion as in Paper Three. It's set to zero at the moment the device is powered on.
In the Origin Economics framework, this extraction is expressed as:
Y = λ · f(H, K, T)
Output as a function of human-origin participation, capital, and technology, multiplied by whether the legitimacy conditions of the exchange were satisfied. For connected home platforms, lambda failed before the household spoke its first command, before it streamed its first program, and before it knew that the operating system running on the device was generating a participation record worth monetary value to the platform operating it. H in the PDR formula is annual participation hours, the measurable proxy for what that participation represents. In the connected home, H isn't hours of active engagement, it's hours of domestic existence inside a monitoring environment. The television is on for an average of 4.1 streaming hours per active Roku account per day. The voice assistant is processing ambient audio continuously. H in this domain isn't a measure of platform use as much as a measure of time spent living inside the home.
The Smart Television Baseline
Roku's disclosed $41.49 annual ARPU and Vizio's disclosed $37.17 SmartCast ARPU establish a confirmed participation value floor for the smart television layer. Both figures are derived from primary source earnings disclosures and represent platform revenue divided by active account base; participation value realized per household from the behavioral data the television operating system generates. The range of $37 to $42 per household annually, rounded conservatively to $40 to $60, represents the minimum attributable annual revenue from smart television ambient participation derived from primary source disclosures.
Samsung's 78 million active United States smart televisions and 45.54 million United States advertising reach households confirm the scale of a participation surface generating equivalent commercial value whose per-household revenue figure Samsung has chosen not to disclose separately. The absence of that disclosure doesn't indicate the absence of revenue; it indicates that the revenue is reported in aggregated form. Samsung's participation surface is present, commercially organized, and operating at a scale that exceeds both Roku and Vizio in United States household reach. Its exclusion from the confirmed floor is methodological. Its contribution to the true connected-home participation value is real.
The Extended Connected Home
Voice assistants, home surveillance systems, and other connected devices extend the participation surface beyond the television into continuous ambient monitoring of domestic audio, physical movement, and household routine. Because Amazon doesn't disclose per-device or per-household revenue from Alexa or Ring at the granularity required for a precise PDR calculation, these surfaces are excluded from the confirmed floor and included in a conservative extension range.
A cautious connected-home range of approximately $40 to $120 per household annually is defensible provided the lower figure is identified as the confirmed smart television floor derived from primary source disclosures and the upper figure as a conservative extension reflecting commercially significant but incompletely disclosed ambient participation surfaces. The extension is conservative. A household with active smart television, voice assistant, and home surveillance systems is generating a more complete and commercially valuable behavioral profile than any single platform captures. The cumulative value of continuous ambient monitoring across all connected home devices is almost certainly higher than the extension range reflects. The series uses the minimum provable figure, as it has throughout.
The Household That Does Not Know It Is Paying
The household that generates this participation value isn't a party to any of the arrangements through which it's realized. The television operating system captures viewing behavior continuously. The household didn't negotiate the terms on which that behavior is collected, can't refuse collection without losing access to the service the device was purchased to provide, and receives no share of the revenue its ambient participation generates. The smart television was sold as a hardware product. The participation surface it activates wasn't disclosed as part of that transaction. The $40 to $60 confirmed floor isn't a fee the household agreed to pay. It's the value the household generates without recognition while simply living inside the environment it purchased.
The Service Value Objection
The primary counterargument holds that smart television platforms, voice assistants, and home surveillance systems deliver genuine value — that Roku provides access to thousands of streaming channels, that Alexa provides hands-free convenience, that Ring provides residential security — and that the participation data these systems collect is a reasonable exchange for those services.
This objection correctly identifies that both sides of the exchange receive something. It fails as a rebuttal for the same reason it failed in Papers One through Three. The question the PDR framework asks isn't whether value exists on both sides of the exchange but whether the exchange is voluntary, transparent, and correctly classified. The household receives entertainment, convenience, and security monitoring. The platform receives a continuous behavioral record of domestic life worth hundreds of dollars annually, flowing into advertising markets and data broker ecosystems the household has never been informed of and has no standing within. The service has value. The participation has value. The exchange is structurally mispriced because the participation isn't recognized as a contribution deserving compensation; it's classified as the operational byproduct of service delivery, captured without recognition of its origin.
The service value objection is also undermined by the economics of device pricing. Smart televisions and voice assistants are sold at or near manufacturing cost precisely because the commercial model doesn't depend on hardware margins. The device is the acquisition mechanism for the participation surface, and selling the device at cost maximizes the participating household base. A device sold below cost to maximize participation acquisition isn't a generous provision of consumer technology; it represents the zero-price entry strategy documented in Papers One and Two, deployed in hardware form.
The Opt-Out Objection
A second objection holds that households can disable ACR, limit Alexa data retention, and adjust Ring privacy settings, and that the availability of these controls satisfies the consent and transparency conditions the PDR framework requires.
This objection fails on three grounds. First, the opt-out controls aren't disclosed at the point of purchase — the moment when the household's decision about whether to engage with the participation surface is most consequential. They're disclosed during device setup or buried in settings menus that most households never access. Second, the default settings on all major connected home platforms activate the participation surface rather than suspending it. The household that doesn't actively configure privacy settings is participating. Meaningful consent requires an affirmative opt-in to data collection, not an opt-out from a default that was never disclosed as a default. Third, opting out of ACR or Alexa data retention on a specific device doesn't remove the household from the data broker ecosystem built on the participation data generated before the opt-out; the behavioral record already assembled continues to circulate commercially regardless of subsequent settings changes.
The Hardware Ownership Objection
A third objection holds that the household owns the device and therefore owns the data it generates, and that platform data collection practices that operate differently represent a contractual arrangement the household agreed to through terms of service.
This objection mistakes formal legal ownership for recognized economic standing. The household may own the physical device but it doesn't own the behavioral data the device generates, doesn't have legal standing to claim compensation for that data, and wasn't informed at the point of purchase that the data would be generated and commercially exploited. The terms of service that govern the arrangement weren't presented before the purchase, weren't negotiable by the household, and weren't written to inform household decision-making about the commercial value of their participation. Formal agreement to terms of service doesn't satisfy the transparency condition the PDR framework requires. It documents that disclosure occurred. It doesn't establish that the disclosure was sufficient to constitute meaningful informed consent.
The connected home sector faces regulatory exposure across several distinct frameworks, none of which addresses the foundational participation value misclassification this paper documents.
The Federal Trade Commission's 2023 enforcement actions against Amazon established the most significant precedent currently available. The Alexa action, resulting in a $25 million civil penalty, documented that Amazon retained children's voice recordings and geolocation data beyond the periods parents and users had requested deletion, and used that data to improve Alexa's speech recognition systems without authorization. The Ring action, resulting in a $5.8 million settlement, documented unauthorized employee access to customer video footage and inadequate access controls. Both actions operated on a privacy framework — addressing unauthorized retention and unauthorized access — rather than a participation value framework. They established that the FTC is willing to pursue enforcement against major technology platforms for connected home data practices at scale. They didn't establish any mechanism through which households could claim recognition as the origin of the participation value those practices generated.
The California Consumer Privacy Act provides California residents with rights to know what personal information companies collect about them, to request deletion, and to opt out of the sale of their personal information. Several states have enacted similar frameworks. These regulatory frameworks treat connected home data as a privacy matter — establishing rights to control and limit collection — rather than as a participation value matter. They don't recognize the household as a producer whose ambient behavioral contributions generate commercial value for which compensation might be owed. The regulatory trajectory is toward stronger privacy protections, but it's not moving toward the recognition architecture the PDR framework argues is required.
The Walmart acquisition of Vizio hasn't been examined by any regulatory body for its implications for the participation value of the 18 million households whose SmartCast data was the primary commercial asset being acquired. Antitrust review of the acquisition focused on competitive effects in the television hardware and streaming markets. The question of whether the households generating the participation surface had any standing in a $2.3 billion transaction that valued their collective behavior as its primary asset wasn't raised in any regulatory proceeding. The absence of that question from the regulatory record is the clearest illustration available of what the absence of a participation value framework costs the people it is absent for.
The categories below aren't exhaustive. They're representative of the system.
Network and Infrastructure
Routers, mesh Wi-Fi systems, ISP-provided gateways, and Bluetooth ecosystems (including Amazon Eero and Google Nest Wifi) generate device presence records, household network topology, traffic patterns, and cross-device linkage data that maps the complete connected infrastructure of domestic life. Eero is owned by Amazon. Its network data can be integrated into the same commercial infrastructure documented in Paper Five.Environmental and Utility Systems
Smart thermostats including Nest and Ecobee, HVAC-connected systems, smart meters, and energy management platforms generate occupancy patterns, sleep and wake cycles, seasonal routines, and absence and presence signals precise enough to reconstruct a household's daily schedule without any other data source. Nest is owned by Google. Its occupancy data flows into the same behavioral profile documented in Paper One.
Appliances and Domestic Machinery
Smart refrigerators, ovens, washers, dryers, dishwashers, and robot vacuums generate food consumption patterns, cleaning cycles, domestic rhythms, and lifestyle indicators that constitute a detailed record of how a household lives. The manufacturers of these devices (Samsung, LG, Whirlpool, iRobot) each operate data collection and analytics programs tied to product optimization, service delivery, and commercial partnerships whose terms aren't disclosed at the level required for per-household calculation.
Lighting and Physical Environment Control
Smart lighting systems including Philips Hue, smart plugs and switches, and automated blinds generate room-level presence data, time-of-day activity patterns, and behavioral routines that extend the participation surface into every room in the home. The accumulation of lighting data across a household over months and years reconstructs not just when people are home but where they are inside it and when.
Audio and Interaction Devices
Smart speakers beyond Alexa (including Google Assistant devices and Apple HomePod) extend the ambient audio participation surface into the home through continuous wake-word processing and command capture. Connected microphones embedded in smart televisions and voice-enabled remotes operate the same way, processing ambient audio as a condition of normal device operation. Together these systems extend the voice participation surface to every device in the household capable of receiving audio input.
Security and Monitoring Systems
Doorbell cameras beyond Ring, indoor and outdoor security systems including ADT and SimpliSafe, motion and entry sensors, and baby monitors generate movement patterns, visitor data, household composition records, and in the case of baby monitors, continuous audio and video capture of infant and child behavior. These systems document not just who's in the home but who visits it, how often, and for how long.
Entertainment and Computing Devices
Gaming consoles including PlayStation and Xbox, streaming devices including Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV, and virtual reality systems generate engagement intensity records, social interaction patterns, and content preferences extending well beyond the television layer documented in this paper. PlayStation Network has over 100 million active users. Xbox Live has tens of millions. Neither discloses per-household participation value at the level the PDR formula requires.
Health, Fitness, and Body-Adjacent Devices
Connected fitness equipment including Peloton and Tonal, smart scales, sleep trackers, and in-home medical devices generate physical condition records, health behavior patterns, and biometric signals whose commercial value extends into insurance pricing, pharmaceutical targeting, and health system analytics. These participation surfaces bridge the connected home and the healthcare domain examined in Paper Eight.
Wearables
Smartwatches including Apple Watch and Fitbit, and fitness trackers, generate continuous physiological and location-linked behavioral data that bridges the home participation surface and the body participation surface. Their inclusion here is a boundary case. Their full treatment belongs in Paper Eight.
Domestic Vehicles
Connected cars parked at home, garage systems including MyQ, and EV chargers generate arrival and departure patterns, commute behavior records, and daily schedule structure that extend the participation surface from inside the home to its physical perimeter. The vehicle participation surface is examined fully in Paper Seven.
Emerging Systems
Smart irrigation systems, pet trackers and smart feeders, home office equipment including smart printers and webcams with telemetry, and emerging ambient computing devices generate behavioral signals whose commercial development is active and whose disclosure is minimal. They're noted here as participation surfaces whose value is being assembled now and whose accounting will follow.
The household that contains all of the above (which is an increasingly ordinary American household) is not generating $40 to $120 in annual participation value from its connected devices. It's generating a continuous, comprehensive, room-by-room, minute-by-minute record of domestic existence whose aggregate commercial value has no confirmed ceiling. The paper uses the floor because the floor is what the evidence supports. The floor is not the number. It's the portion that has been disclosed.
Update: On-Device AI and the Containment Argument
At Samsung's Unpacked event in early 2026, CEO TM Roh presented Privacy Display, a pixel-level screen control system that blacks out portions of a display on demand, framed as AI that processes behavioral data locally without transmitting it externally. The announcement was widely interpreted as Samsung's answer to the extraction argument: data stays on the device, the platform receives nothing, privacy is preserved. It is the most technically sophisticated version of the counterargument this paper will face as the hardware landscape evolves, and it deserves a direct response.
Processing location is not participation elimination. A device that captures behavioral data and processes it locally still captures behavioral data. The household whose viewing patterns, room presence, voice commands, and domestic routines are processed by an on-device AI model is still a household whose participation generates a behavioral model; a model that improves the product, deepens ecosystem dependency, informs future commercial decisions, and constitutes a commercial asset whose value accrues to the manufacturer regardless of where the computation occurs. The value does not require a server. It requires the participation. Whether the model is trained locally or centrally, the training signal originates in the household. On-device AI changes where the processing happens. It does not change that the processing happens, that it depends on continuous behavioral participation, or that the person generating that participation has no recognized standing in the commercial system that benefits from it.
Containment is not non-participation.
The Privacy Display is a feature. Samsung Ads (the advertising ecosystem operating across 78 million active United States smart televisions) is the business model. The question the PDR framework asks is not where the data is processed. It is whether the person at the origin of the participation is recognized as its origin, and whether the value that participation generates flows to them or away from them. On-device AI, as currently architected and commercially deployed, does not change the answer to either question.
Roku reported $3.5 billion in platform revenue for fiscal year 2024. Vizio reported SmartCast ARPU of $37.17 in its final earnings disclosure. Samsung Ads reaches 78 million active United States smart televisions. The households generating this revenue received entertainment. They received no recognition as the origin of the participation value their domestic existence produces, no share of the revenue their ambient behavior generates, and no standing in any of the commercial arrangements through which that revenue was realized, including a $2.3 billion acquisition that valued their collective participation as its primary asset.
The connected home is the first participation domain in this series where the extraction isn't a consequence of platform use. It's a consequence of domestic life — the household doesn't participate by choosing to use a service, it participates by living in a home equipped with devices whose commercial architecture depends on continuous ambient monitoring of everything the household watches, says, and does. The participation surface doesn't pause when the household stops thinking about it. It runs while the household sleeps, while children do homework, while families have conversations in front of devices that are always listening and always recording.
The legitimacy conditions fail here in a way they haven't failed before. They fail not through deception or compulsion but through the hardware purchase itself — through the activation of a participation surface embedded in a consumer appliance, disclosed in terms no buyer reads, at a moment when the decision about whether to participate has already been made by the act of purchase. The household enters the participation surface before it knows the participation surface exists.
The PDR formula establishes what those costs per household per year at the confirmed floor: $40 to $60 from the smart television layer alone, derived from Roku and Vizio primary source disclosures. The conservative connected-home extension to $120 reflects the voice assistant, surveillance, and broader ambient monitoring surfaces whose per-household value platforms have chosen not to disclose. The true figure is almost certainly higher. The series uses the minimum provable number.
The price was never zero. In the connected home, it was paid in the most private currency available: the continuous record of domestic existence, assembled without recognition, monetized without compensation, and valued at billions of dollars in transactions the households generating it were never asked to join.
Running total after Paper Four. Add only the lines that apply to you.
Roku, Inc., Q4 and Full Year 2024 Shareholder Letter, February 2025. image.roku.com.
Vizio Holding Corp., Q3 2024 Earnings Press Release, filed as Exhibit 99.1 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, November 6, 2024.
Vizio Holding Corp., Annual Report on Form 10-K, fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, February 28, 2024.
Walmart Inc., Press Release, Walmart Completes Acquisition of Vizio, December 3, 2024.
Samsung Ads, Insights, first-party data from 78 million active United States smart televisions. samsung.com/us/business/samsungads.
Advanced TV Insider, Samsung, Prime Video Have Highest Smart TV Ad Reach, citing ARF DASH data, August 2025. mediapost.com.
Samsung Ads, Q1 2025 State of Video Report, citing ARF DASH data on United States smart television households, March 2025.
Federal Trade Commission v. Amazon.com, Inc., Consent Order, May 2023. Alexa children's privacy violations, $25 million civil penalty; Ring unauthorized access violations, $5.8 million settlement. ftc.gov.
Imanol Arrieta-Ibarra, Leonard Goff, Diego Jiménez-Hernández, Jaron Lanier, and E. Glen Weyl, Should We Treat Data as Labor? Moving beyond Free, AEA Papers and Proceedings 108, 2018, pp. 38–42.
Eric Posner and E. Glen Weyl, Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society, Princeton University Press, 2018.
Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, PublicAffairs, 2019.