Care to link to some actual data on that first part? It's easy to say but I question it. The ballast consumes some power.
Picking a random example from this data. Look at part number 470120. This is a 14w (bare lamp figure), 2100 lumen, 5000K, ballasted tube. The data shows you that when operated on a "normal" ballast, the combined consumption of the ballast + the lamp is 17 watts. So the ballast adds 3 watts. It also shows you that the lamp output is 2100 lumens on the "normal" ballast. So, no loss of lumens, and only 3 additional watts.
https://images.philips.com/is/content/PhilipsConsumer/PDFDownloads/United%20States/ODLI20190610-01-UPD-en-US-PLt-1309BN-LED-T8-June-2019.pdf
Compare that to their ballast bypass tubes listed here:
https://images.philips.com/is/content/PhilipsConsumer/PDFDownloads/United%20States/ODLI20190610-01-UPD-en-US-PLt-1309BN-LED-T8-June-2019.pdf The comparable tube in lumen output is 47177-1. It is also 2100 lumens, with no ballast, and consumes 17 watts.
So, you see, in this case, the two different products, one with a ballast and one without, use the same amount of watts and deliver the same amount of lumens.
Now, in all fairness, there are many many different manufacturers out there. Philips is only one of them, albeit a very large one. It is easy to find examples where the figures are different and where one type of tube or another will come out on top.
But the overall premise that a bypass tube will perform so much better than a ballasted tube + the ballast is simply not true.
CD