These articles both infuriate me and make my laugh... To me, there are so many benefits to unbundling that cost is just one of the factors to consider. Among the others:
1. No contracts: Cable packages always seem to have contracts, especially for any sort of "reasonable" promotional pricing. So you either pay exorbitantly or you get locked in with a steep ETF. Sling TV, Netflix, etc have shown that these newer smaller packages are probably going to come mostly without contracts. Freedom!
2. Freedom to pay what you want: This to me is far better than the strict price comparison to replace cable. Most people aren't looking to replicate 200 channels. These articles act like end users somehow chose the 200 channel packages. Sorry, but I don't need ESPN 15, HBO 12, Cinemax 7 or Current TV or HDNet Movies. And now unbundling means I can pay for what I actually want without adding all of those other channels. Obviously, Sling TV and Apple's rumored offering will still leave people paying for channels they don't want, but many other offerings will give you only what you want.
3. Let's think about the future: It's not farfetched to see a world where you might have more options than just your cable provider for internet. So all the people who say "Comcast will just raise the internet rate" are right in the short and medium term but likely wrong long term. Whether it's atmospheric balloons, satellites, possible wireless options, municipal fiber, or Google Fiber moving into the neighborhood, there will probably be more options in the future.
4. Less gaming the system with promotional rates: Cable providers are notorious for their "after promotion" rate hikes. But a lot of the new services are up front with their pricing and don't have dates when the prices will end. More transparent all around.
Saving money is great, and I'm a big fan of that, but even if that weren't a consideration, going from 1 option (or 4 options all provided by 1 vendor) to many options and many vendors is a major win to me.