Why are people thinking that Apple is REDUCING prices for TV shows?
Apple is actually INCREASING prices for each individual network. For example, instead of Comedy Central getting 25 cents per subscriber, they'll get $1 per subscriber. If more than 25% of users subscribe, Comedy Central makes more money being bundled, if less than 25%, they lose money compared with being bundled.
Many networks will make more money, many less.
It's like if McDonald's forced you to buy a value meal instead of each item individually. We should have a choice. With McDonald's, we have a choice right now. With Television, we don't.
If I bought all 200+ television stations, my 'Apple Bill' would be at least double what the same cable bill would be. But if I chose LESS ENTERTAINMENT, my bill would be LESS. The current situation won't last forever.
Some television stations are undervalued on TV, those will win. Some are OVERvalued - those will lose (and those are the ones that won't join Apple's selection of TV stations right away - but be forced in once Apple's model is found to work)
You're thinking too simply. It doesn't work like that. Our subscription dollars are not the only dollars that support the existence of a channel like comedy central (hereafter CC). Let me try to explain...
CC is a Viacom channel. The Viacom "package forced on us" includes all kinds of channels (the various MTVs, VH1s, TV land, CMT, BET networks, Palladia, Logo, Viva, Spike, various Nickelodeons, etc). Like you, I like CC too, so let's say I'd pay for it in an a-la-carte model. Now let's also say that I wouldn't pay for any of the other Viacom channels in the al-a-carte model (I'm so over Sponge Bob, etc).
So, now instead of getting my 25 cents times say 20 channels (or $5/month) from me, Viacom will only get $1. That's an 80% cut in revenues from me to them. Can Viacom survive an 80% cut in their revenues if many agree with you & me and only buy CC al-a-carte. Probably not. Which means CC folds too. So we get our new al-a-carte system but Viacom can't make enough money with it to keep giving us CC. Did we win or lose?
Many see cable packages as forcing us to pay for a bunch of channels we don't watch. We don't see it as getting a bunch of channels we many never watch as an added bonus for the channels we are paying to watch. Glass half full or glass half empty? Either way, the existence of other channels generates other revenues for the production houses that makes the shows we don't- and do- watch. Wipe them out by al-a-carte survival-of-the-fittest and shows we don't and do watch will go away.
And again, $54/month per U.S. household is paid by companies running commercials on channels we watch and channels we never watch. Kill off the channels we never watch with al-a-carte and that $54/month needs to be made up somewhere (as it too pays for production houses to make stuff we do and do not watch).
While I can love the concept of al-a-carte, the math to make it a reality is very messy. I can say with great confidence that we wouldn't end up with only the shows we each want to watch, as big cuts to revenue flows would put most production companies out of business. My guess is that CC wouldn't be priced at $1 al-a-carte but probably something more like $8-$12. Why? Because Viacom would want to make up for the revenue loss by no longer getting 25 cents times about 20 channels in it's portfolio by pricing it's more desirable offerings at sufficiently high prices to maybe do that.
End result: instead of having 10 channels we watch and 90 we don't for $100, we end up with 10 channels we watch for $100. Or if Apple is somehow able to motivate the content producers to cut their costs of content solely to help Apple be more successful (think about that), we end up with 10 channels we watch for $50 and a broadband price increase for us "heavy video streamer" users of $60+.