Someone broke down what it would cost them to watch every episode of every TV show that they watch and is currently on iTunes, and decided that, because it was way more than their cable bill, it wasn’t worth it. Especially when they figured that iTunes doesn’t cover the full extent of what they could watch like, presumably, Cable or Satellite does. Though I need to point out that I never saw Brilliant But Canceled because my cable provider never carried Trio.)
Still, it’s an interesting piece, but I would argue, misses the point the point of the iTunes (or anybody else’s) downloads. This isn’t a choice between say, Cable or iTunes. The choice is between Cable and/or iTunes. And it’s the “and/” which makes all of the difference. It isn’t going to replace the experience of watching on my HD TV in my living room, but its going to supplement it. If I missed the end of Lost because those frackheads at ABC decided to run it an extra minute and not tell my Replay about that fact, now I have the choice of downloading it. If I’m going on a trip to the U.K., and want to prove to a broadband-challenged friend over there that the U.S. of The Office has discovered its own groove quite outside of what Ricky Gervais did (perhaps with the back-to-back eps touting the iPod and the Prism DuroSport), I can now do that.
Which, I think, is more to the point. Shelling out a couple of bucks occasionally for reasons you can’t always forsee right this second.
I guess he also needs to start adding up the cost of all of the music he hears for free on the radio.
It is your use of the word “and” that really exemplifies what’s going on here. It isn’t about replacing anything — it’s about freedom of choice. Plus, is the cable/satellite model really that cost effective? You get a lot of programming that you’re never going to watch included in those monthly fees. While I fall on the side of those who argue that including less-watched channels in cable packages (thereby funding innovation), the pick-and-choose model is intriguing.