Not at comparable quality or price point. The insidious parts about abusive business models like surveillance/ad-sponsored or "free with ads" is that they set a price point that more honest business models can hardly reach.
Take two practically identical TVs by two competing vendors. One decides to go evil and have their product show ads in the UI, while siphoning data. They other does not. The first can use the money they make on ads and surveillance to lower the price of the product, even below manufacturing costs. You can't compete with that while staying honest.
> The reality is that people do not care enough to even read the privacy policies.
Of course. Why would you expect to? Every product and service now comes with insanely long terms of service and privacy policies, written in a way as to prevent regular people from even trying to understand it. There is only so much hours in a day, so much days in a lifetime, so much money in the wallet - people "don't care" about privacy, but not in the sense that it doesn't matter, but rather there's too many more important/pressing things to do than read ToS-es all day.
Yes, this is in line with what I was trying to point out above about the economics of the situation. The economic value consumers place on privacy is lower than what is required to release a mass market competitive device without ad data monetization. Think we’re just talking in circles at this point.
The reality is that people do not care enough to even read the privacy policies.