Frankly, the answer is to get rid of free, OTA TV. Free TV was mandated how many decades ago, and that is what created the scummy, advertising-based system in the first place.
You do realize that that "scummy model" is what pays for a great deal of the content we like? In other words, WE don't have to pay for that OTA because those people who are advertising during our shows are coughing up the money so that we get those shows.
I've posted this before but here it is again: last year, just the ads (no subscriptions) generated $49 Billion dollars in revenues. 300 million people in the U.S. with about 4 per household = 75 million households. $49 billion divided by 75 million households = $654 per year, per household. That's $654 that advertisers pay that supports the content creators... money we don't have to cough up ourselves.
Get rid of that "scum" and somebody else has to make up for that revenue OR tons of programming goes away. $654/12 = $54 per month. I never see anyone slinging around the dream of the Apple subscription alternative at about $54+/month. It's always $30, or often, much less than $30.
But wait. This move will get rid of all the junk "I" don't watch so that only the good shows remain, right? No. First my junk is somebody else's most treasured shows. Second, that $54 per month is not just the commercials "I" have to watch but all the commercials I don't see because they're on the channels I'm not watching... or when I'm asleep... or when the TV is turned off. Take that $54/month out and it has to be made up from somewhere. If it's not "scummy" ads, it's cash out of pocket (subscriptions).
So, if Apple's replacement is to:
- help those that make the content make at least as much as they make now, the $54/month from each household becomes the starting point for THE price
- The many artists that make the shows we like (and the shows we hate but someone else loves) need to be paid something to continue to do their jobs
- Apple wants their 30%+ on top of that (in this case, it appears Apple wanted FIFTY percent of the ad revenues)
- etc.
OR, there will be dramatic reductions in content availability which will not necessarily result in only "my" favorite shows being the survivors.
On top of all of that, Apple's replacement would still have to flow through pipes owned by those who would feel the pain if Apple's replacement took meaningful hold, so we should not pretend that our broadband rates for "heavy users" would not go up. They most certainly would go up. And if so, to whom do you turn for a better broadband price? If you are like most people, you have ONE choice for broadband. If you happen to have 2, I bet the alternative is also in the cable subscription business too. If not, I bet they'll soon be bought up by their bigger competitor in your area.
Alternatively, you can think about kicking out the evil cable/satt middlemen only to replace them with Apple as the new middleman. Unless we can assume the cable/satt players pocket more than Apple would demand (30% or up to 50% of all ad revenue is no small share), that's a wash in terms of cost to us consumers.
So, then you got content creators which have to get a certain amount to keep a show going. You got Apple as our new middleman who requires a flat percentage right off of the top. You got broadband tollmasters who have no interest in losing their cable revenues to Apple when Apple must flow their solution through the tollmasters pipes. And you got us consumers. Who is going to lose here?
If the creators lose too much, they quit creating (can't afford the good talent that yields the good shows). Apple will not lose because they position themselves that way. The tollmasters will not lose because they have a monopoly/duopoly on broadband in most areas. Who loses?
