That's the beauty of what Apple is developing. If you pay attention to the signs in what they've been doing with the TV app, you can see where they're going towards.
Subscribe to Apple TV like you do today to Apple Music. You get Apple's TV exclusive shows like you would if you subscribe to Netflix.
Care to forecast what Apple will want to charge for their Netflix-like competitor offering? I doubt it will be a Netflix-like price.
But Apple TV isn't just Apple content. You'll gain access to local broadcast networks that today require a cable subscription.
You keep posting this in these threads but there are ZERO rumors of Apple striking deals with local networks. That's the kind of thing that would leak. I think there are more than 1000 local channels out there. Someone would leak that Apple visited and is trying to do a deal. Not one rumor of this (yet). For the most part,
no local deals = no local networks. Yes, some national network programming can be accessed through network apps (with cable subscription) but that's not going to include local news, local programming, local sports, etc.

TV has no built-in, over-the-air tuner, so it's not going to be a simple (but not for everyone) solution of hooking up an antenna UNLESS an

TV6 is coming with just such a tuner.
There is a way to get them and watch them on

TV but it involves buying other hardware (particularly HDHomeRun) and using other cable-like UI software (I like Channels app myself). But that doesn't integrate with the TV app.
Since Apple sells the hardware and owns the tvOS App Store ecosystem, it will benefit these channels and apps to plug themselves into the Apple TV app.
I see how it will benefit Apple... and us if Apple could pull off what you imagine... but how will it benefit the content owners and/or networks? Is Apple likely to pay them just as much as they get from cable/satt now?
Netflix is still a holdout but only because they've had such a dominant position serving a large library of third party content.
Or because they don't have permission from content owners to integrate their content into something like the TV app.
Or because Apple won't make them a good enough deal to make it worthwhile to flow content they control into Apple's TV app and watch subscribers opt for the Apple option vs. the Netflix option. If you are Netflix, why do you want to do that?
Or <other reason>.
Netflix is transforming itself into a production company, relying far less on third party content.
Why are they doing this? Is it because the content owners have decided that want to go direct and demand- and make- more money than the relatively tiny shares of the relatively smallish fee Netflix charges? Isn't Netflix seeing that content is going to get more and more expensive but they've established their dirt-cheap price so hard that they get mass defections when they want to bump up the rate as little as a single dollar? So eventually Netflix is left with only the junk programming that probably won't be able to justify even the dirt-cheap price and are thus trying to get enough original programming to keep that revenue coming in anyway.
Is Apple going to pay these content owners what they want so they'll offer their content through an Apple incarnation of Netflix? Or will Apple refuse to pay them more (and thus not get their content to be available through the Apple offering)? Let history be your guide here. Apple certainly has the money to out pay any of these competition players. But they usually want everything at the cheapest possible cost and that's why there's not already an Apple cable-like subscription service first rumored many years ago. The content owners want to make MORE money, not less. And I doubt they want to cede control of content distribution from the likes of the Comcasts, DirecTV, etc to Apple... unless Apple wants to show them the money (more of it) and how that more money will keep flowing in year after year.
I don't know if this is what Steve Jobs meant when he said that Apple had "cracked it", but it does seem very much in line with channels as apps being the future of TV with Apple building a central place to watch them all. Apple offering its own exclusive content is a way of making sure Apple users sign up to their central distribution rather than a dozen others.
Personally, I think channels as apps is a terrible "the future" move. Now it's a matter of hopping app to app and sometimes box to box to find what you are trying to find. What used to be "grandma (user) friendly" now requires some training to know that favorite show #1 is in the Netflix app and favorite show #2 is in the HBO app and favorite show #3 is in the Showtime app and so on.
And that sort-of works when you already know what you want to watch. How about new show discovery? If you don't know what you want to watch, how do you search for it? And how do enough people discover a new show at the same time to keep episodes coming rather than getting cut?
--
Obviously, Apple IS aggressively investing in original content production. That DOES point to them offering a bundle of original programming probably as yet another subscription service on the market. I personally have ZERO confidence it will be priced like Netflix or Hulu or most any other because this is Apple: very competitive and/or lowest pricing is not Apple's thing.
Yes, the TV app offers the opportunity for many of the players to opt to support it and full circle us back to having a unified interface to access all of our programming. But if I'm those players, why do I want to cut Apple in when I can offer my content through my own app directly (and am already doing so)? Contrary to our own dreams here, these other companies don't revolve around a concept of how they can change to give Apple as much money and control of their output as possible. Instead, they've already seen how giving Apple a solid hold on another kind of media- music- fares with their music industry cousins. Why do they want to basically hand their video-oriented assets over to Apple's dominating control?
I like the "Apple can bring us everything at a huge discount and maybe commercial free" dream as much as the next guy but when I think it through, I don't see the path there so clearly. There are money issues, control issues, technical issues and so on
all in the way. Even history (of Apple getting the music industry under their thumb) works against the concept.
That written, I'll hope you are right as it would be great to get everything in a quality Apple-oriented interface for presumably the same or less than cable/satt costs (and not having the cable industry make up for the defections to it by jacking up the broadband bill on which the service would entirely depend). But I'd like to see some rumors supporting that, beyond Apple is taking "me too" actions toward what is probably just another independent subscription offering for some original video content.