I have a feeling that the market will balance it all out in a few years and a bunch of these services will go bust, leaving only a few survivors at a more reasonable cost with the platforms people actually prefer.
I suspect we're starting to see the real cost of making good TV for consumers that want it... versus the operating cost of old school broadcast/cable 24 hour programming.
When you have a simplex unicast radio signal (legacy TV is just a radio signal) and 24 hours a day to use it, you feel obligated to have something on it all day and night. When that radio signal morphs into a simplex electronic transmission over a coax cable, you still have a portal into peoples' houses 24 hours a day and the temptation to capitalize on that via commercials and low budget programming is high.
Streaming completely redefines the formula in favor of the consumer though.
Look at something like Dallas, in the 80's. Serialized releases every week. Captive time window for audiences. Peak advertising rates for commercial spots. But having that radio license to broadcast the show means you have 23 hours on that day to fill, plus 24 hours for 6 more days a week. So you fill it with stuff like Young and the Restless, General Hospital, The Price is Right, Press Your Luck, Donahue, Oprah, Jerry Springer, cartoons (which target children with toy ads specifically tailored to complement the particular show), news and syndicated reruns.
Contrast with today, Stranger Things (or The Boys, or the Netflix Defenders various series, or any big streaming hit). Binge-released all in one dump. Free viewing windows. No commercials. No simplex unicast delivery means it can be consumed any time by any viewer. No commitment to stay with the streaming provider. The streaming provider doesn't have to fill those remaining hours of the week with fluff content or even develop a programming schedule. They just have to have SOME content. It can be old IP. A previous successful prime demand show. Whatever.
They don't have to time-fill with seminar/lecture format host shows, or cheap soaps. So Netflix doesn't have those. Amazon doesn't have those. News isn't trusted any more, and isn't a prime demand piece of programming. So Netflix and Amazon don't have those. Game shows aren't consumed by streaming consumers. So Netflix and Amazon don't have those.
It costs less labor since you're not supporting a 95% schedule of schlock for your 5% of good legacy-format content. But you need to have the best talent for that prime content.
The big losers here, are the people that make the crap programs. The 480 channels you never watched on cable. The shows that were on from 8AM to 5PM while you were at work, or on 10PM to 6AM while you slept. Previously, they'd be funded by your cable bill. Under streaming, it's all in the click analysis. If no one wants to watch your program, at any time of the day, you suck and you're getting cut.
I don't think there is an actual market for 500 cable channels of unique 24x7 content. Certainly not one that wants to actually pay for that content.
Netflix can produce some damn amazing content for $11/month from me and their other subscribers. Amazon isn't quite as strong, but my Prime membership pays for free shipping and other things besides streaming content. I never really considered their streaming to be something I subscribed to, it was more of an "oh I get that AND free shipping." And I use their streaming interface to gain access to HBO for GoT when it releases a new season. Then I cancel HBO once it's over. I do similar with Hulu for Handmaid's Tale, but I download a rip off Usenet because I can't stand Hulu's commercials. I still support the program I like, but I watch it how I want to.