"Worth buying" is a boolean. It's either "worth" or it's not, because we've already establish that "worth" channels are willing to be paid for at $17.50, so less than $17.50 is still within any pricing range that might exist.
Would it be easier for you to grasp if we called them "quality" channels? 10-20 quality channels? Paying for 10-20 quality channels that are bundled together is more economical than paying for each quality channel on its own, based on the values given by the commenter.
Your "scale" idea is just a pointless intermediary step towards deciding if a channel is "worth" or not. While yes, you could decide what cost you're willing to pay for each channel, you will still arrive at a "yes/no" decision for each channel (a decision that will only get more generous the less expensive the cost of the individual channel), which will be the "worth" value I've been talking about.
> "Worth buying" is a boolean. It's either "worth" or it's not, because we've already establish that "worth" channels are willing to be paid for at $17.50, so less than $17.50 is still within any pricing range that might exist.
What part of their comment did you interpret as them thinking each of those 20 channels is worth $17.50 on their own?
We have only established that two specific channels were worth that much. Not any of the others. This is an absolutely vital distinction.
> . While yes, you could decide what cost you're willing to pay for each channel, you will still arrive at a "yes/no" decision for each channel (a decision that will only get more generous the less expensive the cost of the individual channel)
Right, so if I'm willing to pay $17.50 for HBO, I'm obviously willing to pay $5 for HBO. But being willing to pay $17.50 for HBO doesn't mean I'm willing to pay $5 for a different channel.
> based on the values given by the commenter.
urdu did not specify how valuable those channels were to them. They just said that it was 20 (let's call them "quality channels") for $65 and that wasn't much of a deal.
> Would it be easier for you to grasp if we called them "quality" channels? 10-20 quality channels? Paying for 10-20 quality channels that are bundled together is more economical than paying for each quality channel on its own, based on the values given by the commenter.
And the decision is not "buy them all on their own or buy them all together" it's "buy some on their own and not others or buy them all together". Nobody here is arguing that buying the same items at a higher price each is better value, they're arguing that buying a subset of them at a higher price each can be better value overall.
This should be obvious if we split out the two channels like so:
Package A: Two channels at $17.50 each
Package B: Eighteen channels at $1.67 each
If I don't value the channels in B enough, it is more economical to me to only buy package A rather than package A and package B.
> So you're really paying $65 bucks for 10-20 channels at best. Not much of a deal there.
as meaning "those 10-20 channels are worth $65 to me"?