Pay TV will eventually lose in the market as people (again, like Netflix) figure out how to have compelling content created for the direct online audience. But it won't lose until that happens.
Incidentally: I'm not the one who keeps bringing up Game Of Thrones.
> I'm not the one who keeps bringing up Game Of Thrones
People aren't necessarily bringing it up because of the content. More because the logistics of how it's distributed have been talked about before. By bringing up Game of Thrones, the point is to discuss the issues around it, not start a thread on the merits of the content itself.This is objectively untrue. I would pay what HBO is worth, if available separately.
You think that you are subsidizing all those shows, when you only want your shows.
But to another household, your shows are the noise that they are subsidizing to be able to watch their shows.
To a first approximation, if everyone could order exactly the channels they wanted, they would all be paying the exact same, just with fewer channels to flip through, and with more expensive bookkeeping.
There is also the loss of option value. (I can flip to MTV if my friends call me up and tell me there's something I need to watch, even though I really did program both my TV and DVR to remove MTV from its listings.)
Also, you are drawing the line at the "channel" boundary, but even a channel is bundling a whole bunch of shows. Someone who watches 1 hour on three channels each is consuming the same amount of TV as someone who watches 3 hours on 1 channel. Cable companies could do per-unit billing, but customers hate that. The vast majority of customers prefer to pay the all-you-can-eat price so they don't have to worry about cost if they leave the TV on or just want to flip down the dial.
Netflix is the ultimate bundling. There are thousands of things there that I have absolutely no intention of watching ever, but that doesn't mean the "fair" price is the 1/1000th of my monthly fee.
These are your opinions, though, not a persuasive argument for a person who will never regret not having the option to pay for television they will never watch.
Good. If they want 500 channels of terrible programming, they can pay more for every one of them.
They are bitching because they would like to be given the option to pay for HBO by whatever metric HBO uses to quantify the cost of its content (including subsidization), whatever that may be.
I have zero interest in ESPN, Disney and "reality" television. I understand fully why HBO is making more money than ever out of the bundlers' desperation, and don't complain that they're "losing" money (which isn't the case) but I would certainly prefer to be given the option to buy the content alone.
"In the meantime, people should stop bitching about how hard it is to get Game of Thrones; they sound ridiculous. Why on earth should anyone care how hard it is to see a swords-and-sorcery soap opera?"
The exact content is as irrelevant as your dislike of it. Dislike for Cable television providers didn't originate with GoT.