We've switched to AppleTV. We don't watch TV at all. In practice this means we miss seeing most CBS shows, see HBO shows about six months late, never see a single ad, and save a buttload of money (even after paying for a lot of content). Oh, and we can use any iOS device and any remote as a remote.
All of our content is on demand.
The only reason we can't see CBS shows is that CBS chooses to spurn AppleTV for strategic reasons that will probably prove wrongheaded. Similarly HBO is probably bound by contracts.
Comcast minimal cable TV (we don't use the TV except for the bundle cost) bundled with cable is $60/month. Verizon FiOS (which we'll be getting at our next place) offers phone with Internet for $50/month.
Either with a basic digital cable supporting two TVs would be north of $110 even with special offers.
Sure, I'm not saying there's no value here. But the glitches you posit (spotty coverage of some content, delayed access), combined with the general hassle of getting your internet working before your TV works, are simply keeping these devices out of homes right now.
What you have is "cheaper TV with a few holes", and that's great for you. But that's not what the market wants -- believe it or not they want to pay that $100/month, because that's what they're doing already, and it works for them. The winning product needs to take that $100 and do something better for the consumer (or conversely, produce a cheaper product with no visible disadvantages at all).
All of our content is on demand.
The only reason we can't see CBS shows is that CBS chooses to spurn AppleTV for strategic reasons that will probably prove wrongheaded. Similarly HBO is probably bound by contracts.
Comcast minimal cable TV (we don't use the TV except for the bundle cost) bundled with cable is $60/month. Verizon FiOS (which we'll be getting at our next place) offers phone with Internet for $50/month.
Either with a basic digital cable supporting two TVs would be north of $110 even with special offers.