I'm sure it would be significantly higher than that. At least for an "all you can eat" type of offering. Cable TV typically ranges from.. what, like $40-$100 depending on what all is included. Now imagine all that content, no commercials, all on demand.
All that would surely have to be at top end of Cable prices. Which is why I suggested some way of tiering the content. It could be subscribing to specific shows, specific channels, specefic content creators, or amount of viewing time. There could be many different ways it could be broken up.
lol, that's never going to happen. They would probably have to charge $100+ for it, and even that is still a good deal considering you get almost every movie and tv show ever made. At $30 everyone would just cancel cable, Hulu, and Netflix, and that's not what the content providers want.
I know it's unrealistic, but the question was what
I would be willing to pay. If it's significantly more than that, it's a non-starter based on my viewing habits. At $100, I would rather just subscribe to cable, as would many others, which defeats the whole purpose.
Realistically, for this to succeed, I think it needs to be considerably less than what people are currently paying. For instance, a $60 cable bill (estimated. Internet service is usually bundled, but would be necessary in either case) + $8 for netflix + $15 for movie rentals is almost $85 per month.
EDIT: How much is my time and effort worth to switch? How much value do I place on the convenience of being able to watch live vs watch whenever (not to mention that OnDemand is included in many cable packages). Many cable providers are allowing you to watch on your computer, phone or tablet (and not limited to Apple devices either).
I'm not sure tiered content makes much sense for the same reasons we don't have
a la carte cable subscriptions right now. Content people want would be priced disproportionately higher (just look at how cable tiers are currently structured). Apple already allows you to subscribe to specific shows via season pass; I'm not sure renting that same content is any better for the users.
The thing is, if you know where to look you can already get access to most of the itunes library for free. Hint- WEB-DL
Exactly. The music labels were trying to keep CD prices high, but they were competing with a free product (piracy). Apple came in with 99 cent downloads, which, to the labels, seemed to undervalue their product. However, 70% of $1.30 is a lot more than 0.
That's why I think that any service with a chance of disrupting traditional TV is going to have to come in at a lower price. If it's too high, there won't be enough movement in the market. People will keep their cable subscriptions for convenience and the opportunists will still pirate (and some segment will never pay regardless of the price).
