Obviously nothing to you. Others may find what they end up charging worth it. Probably pointless to try and tell them they are wrong.
I think you misunderstand my post. You may have missed my original reply, to the OP who said nothing Apple was doing made them want to subscribe. My response was:
“Are you sure it’s a subscription? I think it’s more likely to be free content available to all (or maybe only Apple Music subscribers) from within the TV app.”
Then OP responded it was definitely a streaming service, Apple doesn’t do free. My response was to analyze Apple’s upcoming offering in comparison to Disney’s upcoming offering, just using logic and a little math. For less than $6/month, Disney offers a ton of content, including:
7,000 television episodes and 500 films, including content from Disney, Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, and National Geographic, as well as Disney Channel shows and family-friendly films and television shows from 20th Century Fox and ABC Studios (per Variety).
So how does Disney’s breadth of content and pricing inform our understanding of the Apple offering? To me, it means that no matter how good Apple’s content is—and I expect it to be quite good—a few dozen shows does not a streaming service make. To me, that means it’s going to be a freebie to increase the value of the ecosystem, or maybe a sweetener for Apple Music subscribers.
Another possibility I’ve previously mentioned would be that Apple might augment their original content with third-party, licensed content—like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and even HBO do—to make it competitive with those $10-15 streaming services.
But absent third-party content, it’s my opinion—please feel free to disagree—that 100 hours of content can’t command Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/HBO price levels, let alone the $6/month Disney pricing. And I don’t think Apple’s under any illusions that it could.