I don't see why it ($50/month for commercial free) can't at least be an OPTION. Or am I missing something here?
I like the idea of that option myself. However, the point that I was making with that number was relative to so many al-a-carte dreamers imagining a commercial-free, al-a-carte, cable-tv killer from Apple for something like $10, $20 or $30/month. What I was illustrating was that simply replacing the revenue from the commercials running on those "hundreds of channels I never watch" alone would require a starting cost of $50/month. In short, I was trying to use reality to illustrate the faults of the typical dream of al-a-carte (which is usually something like "I want everything for next to nothing in cost").
So, $50/month is the starting point for commercial free. Add on the cost of the al-a-carte channels or shows "I" actually want to watch (which is almost never as cheap as the al-a-carte dreamers think). Add on the Apple markup (probably the usual 30%). In an article I saw yesterday, it pegged the average cost of a television subscription package (cable/satt) that we Americans actually pay is around $74/month (obviously some pay more but others pay less). So, if we start at $50, we can add on only $24 additional cost before we bump into what we're paying now. $24 is not going to buy many channels or shows AND give Apple 30% off the top.
I've made the case that the cable companies which are also the broadband internet provider for many would not just roll over and let Apple take that cable subscription revenue... that they would raise broadband rates to make up the difference, only to have some let on like that just won't happen. So, decide for yourself: what do you think a Comcast or Time Warner would do? If you think broadband would rise to make up for cable TV revenue losses, add that cost onto the bill too. If not, leave it off.
Now, mentally compare that bill to the "as is" model. Is there meaningful savings? If so, is it worth it against the existing model which does allow us to find something to watch on those "hundreds of channels I never watch" when the 3 or 5 or 10 channels we would want in al-a-carte has nothing to watch. DVRs do make it easy to skip commercials. DVRs also give us an on-demand experience of the shows we care enough to set up as recordings. And many systems have quite a good on-demand library now.
As I've said, I love the dream of al-a-carte and commercial-free al-a-carte. I just don't see it flying as often dreamed, especially against the most common piece of the dream which is cutting the cable bill from something like $100 to about $10 or $20 and still getting everything "I" want.
The cord cutter tales makes it sound like it's easily doable now- and in some ways it is- but if the masses move on cutting the cord, the costs will shift to keep the revenues stream flowing from consumers to the existing players. I saw in an article yesterday that in spite of seemingly so much talk about cord-cutting, only 1% of U.S. households have actually cut that cord. If it became 5% or 10%, I completely expect broadband rates to rise (see the link in my prior post) to make up the difference.
IMO, the only way around that is for an Apple (or others) to find some way to bypass the broadband middlemen, connecting us consumers directly to iCloud without having to pay a Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, etc a toll. That companion rumor would be key to lending any real hope of "everything for cheaper than now" (for the masses)... though I personally believe al-a-carte only real chance is if the net out-of-pocket from consumers would actually be greater than it is in the "as is" system now.
To me, the analogy is as simple as iPhone and cellular service plans. Apple invented a piece of "wow" technology but that didn't result in huge savings of cell service plans. I would suspect that if we did a little research, we would probably find the average paid for cell service plan in 2013 exceeds the average paid in 2006. If true, the service providers make MORE money, not less because of the "toll" they can charge to make a big Apple innovation work. When there's hardly any real competition, consumers can't really shop around much to make a dent in service plan costs. And when it comes to wired broadband, our ability to shop around is typically limited to maybe 2 providers (both of which are likely in the cable TV business too).
Now some of us envision a new little box or maybe a whole television from Apple but somehow the tollmasters who feed it the absolutely essential data it needs to work are going willingly take a huge hit so that we can pay a lot less for service than we were in 2013, 2012, etc. Some of these cable TV providers are the very same companies as the cellular service providers but we are expecting a different outcome for this data- an amazing generosity on their part to just hand their cable revenues over to Apple without doing anything to try to make up the difference... even though Apple's service couldn't stream 1 second of any show without that data flowing through pipes owned by the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner. Etc. Think about it.
