The big problem with cord cutting is that the people who own the TV service also own the internet connections. If you cut your TV service they jack up your internet service prices for "not bundling". So, when you combine: -Higher Internet fee -Fees for Video services (Netflix, iTunes, Hulu Plus, etc.) -Equipment purchase (Roku, Apple TV, etc.) You wipe out a significant portion of your savings. Then, throw in no live sports or local news, etc. and it's a lot less palatable. Cord cutting is a lot more like cord augmenting. The reality is that there are a lot more people who pay for cable and do streaming services.
I agree. Though streaming options are getting better, there are still big holes in the available programming. I do some streaming to my TV. But I don't need a Roku or an Apple TV to get streaming content: my 46" Sony flatscreen is internet enabled, with access to many, though certainly not all, streaming content options. Internet enabled TVs will eventually eliminate the need for a separate box - though here, too, at the present time, options are limited and they vary from one TV brand to another. The fact is that a perfect solution is still not available at any price. Whatever option(s) you choose, you will sacrifice some program choices. And it remains the case that the more money you save, the less content you will have access to.
Of course even the most limited options probably provide more content than any person or family can view in an average day - or week. Ultimately, the trouble is not content volume, or even price, but in the selection. For instance, I have HBO but can't afford Showtime and Cinemax. However, if I'm willing to wait a while, I can get Showtime and Cinemax content from Netflix and HBO Go. I'm currently watching the Borgias via Netflix; with On-Demand from my cable provider I'd have to pay a fee to watch every episode. Needless to say, Netflix is a much better deal.
Apple may be behind the curve in some respects, but no one has yet untied the Gordian knot the content creators and providers have wrapped around their products. For that reason the entire premise of this article is specious. Streaming content is far from a tipping point, however much some fans may wish it otherwise.
One other point that always seems to be overlooked by streaming aficionados. One of the biggest criticisms of cable is that we pay for a lot of content we don't use. But streaming services have the exact same problem. Your subscription pays for far more programming than you will ever watch.
As for the Apple TV, using Air Play to access content not available directly from the Apple TV is a big time kluge. All it goes to show is how limited the Apple TV is. But given the confusion in the marketplace, Apple has plenty of time to catch up - if and when a truly customer friendly solution can be worked out. Of course Apple's market model is somewhat different than Roku's: Apple does, or tries to do, a lot of pay-per-view. Pay-per-view is the closest we can come right now to an a-la-carte menu, but it's still very pricey unless your viewing is limited.
And, of course, there are still movies on Blu-ray, which are superior in quality to anything you get over cable or via streaming. My by-mail Netflix subscription is far less expensive than watching the same movies over pay-per-view from my cable provider. And Netflix's streaming selection is still the widest available anywhere, so that's a bargain, too.
In sum, I agree with VitaminCM: for most of us no one option is ideal. If we can afford it, we mix and match the ones that suit us best. Some tech savvy people may cut the cord, but however much they may save over the cost of a cable subscription, they lose out on a lot of programming options that are simply not available via streaming. Not to mention the loss of video and audio quality.
Streaming is great, as far as it goes, but it's not anywhere near "there" yet.