This guy gets it. It's the shows that people should really care about - not the network channels or subsidized bundle packages. You see it's the content that drives consumer interest. It's the content itself that makes or breaks a network.
So many here have been blasting ala carte TV or in the above case also carte content. I will summarize all of the opposition arguments from this view in quotes below, then I'll tell you why these are irrelevant and why ala carte is still better and what everyone should want.
"You ignorant millenials have no idea how the business model works. It costs a lot of money to create content. If you take away subsidized content, the number of channels would go down, reducing choice and driving up costs for the individual channels, so you'd be paying just as much for your ten channels as you would for 60, reducing choice. Content providers would also cater to the content that gets the best ratings with the most people, so content creators and networks would take less risk"
Sure, the prices will go up on a per channel basis. Yep, I understand that I may pay the same or nearly the same for 10 ala carte channels as I would for 60. For me, it's never been about saving money per se. It's about 'trimming the fat'. Subsidies of any kind are bad. Period. Whether it's government subsidies on sugar or network channel subsidies from cable providers, they all have one thing in common: they hinder the beautiful model of free market capitalism.
Sure, many (barely watched) networks/channels would die, but I would submit to you those that survive would thrive because they'd be driven (hard) to produce content that people actually want to watch. I don't have a problem with content providers being driven by the 'lowest common denominator' if that means that they simply are driven to create content that the majority of people want to watch.
The free market would decide which channels can stand on their own based on the content they have and those who would be willing to pay for said content. It would drive up competition between networks even further, which always increases customer satisfaction and reduces price (in this case on a per channel basis).
Free market calitalism is great mmmmk. Forcing the networks to compete against each other based on their content would also be great. Letting other networks die because they have crap content would be great. Others would rise to take their place. Reducing the clutter of garbage channels and content that nobody wants to watch would be great.
TV (shipped or picked up)?
, seriously? Roku vs Apple TV 4? Open Platform vs Closed Platform? Man I want some of whatever you're smoking. While I will agree that the Apple TV, Fire TV, Chromecast, Etc. all have their niches (Especially if you only consume content from a single provider). But when it comes to the most streaming channels, with no restrictions/limitations, Roku is the only device to even consider. I'm still on Roku 3's at the moment, but will be upgrading when I upgrade our house to 4K tv's for xmas.