I can see that coming sooner or later but probably premium priced for the cable-cutter benefit. In other words, one might currently think about the HBO bundle at around $10-$15/month and some will then throw out that they would pay about $25/month for HBO GO alone (if they didn't have to have a cable subscription too). But I imagine the actual price would be something like $40-$50/month for HBO GO alone, looking at the price of premium adult channels as a bit of a pricing guide.
So many of us dream of al-a-carte but don't want to pay what the dream would likely cost. We imagine it's something like 50 cents per channel but it wouldn't be. Instead it would involve pricing to keep the existing players making at least what they are making now PLUS let Apple squeeze into the chain and take an additional amount. And if we dream of commercial-free, then we are killing the other people's money stream that helps make television cost what it does now, meaning if our dream is of commercial-free al-a-carte, we have to make up for the loss of that subsidy too (and it's not even close to what anyone would call "cheap" in and of itself).
Al-a-carte seems like a wonderful goal where we somehow pay a lot less than we pay now, Apple gets to squeeze in and make a big cut and everything like quality and breadth & depth of new programming just magically continues to flow. But if there is ever a solution where the consumer masses pay a lot less than they pay now, somebody else in the chain takes a big hit... some quality of programming and/or new show creation and/or variety of programming is likely to plunge. That's great if the crowd that votes for the survivors happens to align with one's own tastes... not so great if your favorite programming is not mainstream appealing.
This, this and more this!!!!!
Unlike the ailing music industry, the TV industry is a whole different animal. The networks and cable/satellite industry offset a lot of the cost by subidizing costs with ads and spreading channel costs across the spectrum.
People somehow think if they get channels a la carte, they would pay a fraction of what they do today. You're right on the money that the cost would likely remain the same and the options would go down. And as networks would chase the biggest dollars, expect a lot of shows appealing to the lowest common denominator.
You also have to think the cable and satellite providers are going to viciously defend their turf. By the time you add in Apple's cut, I just don't see how this is viable for the masses. For most people TV entertainment costs are an either/or. Until Apple TV is going to be a realistic option to have someone cut the cord from cable/satellite, the market of people who are willing to spend 'extra' for the same channels is going to be limited.
And there is still the issue of first run network content and live major sports, specifically the NFL, college football and playoff content of all sports. Those are the most valuable content for every network....and the cable/satellite companies pay too much for them to give them up without a huge fight...and Apple market share is too low for their consumer base to make up the difference.
TV recognize what's on, what's available, etc...
