I apologize if my response seemed to saying: "That's your opinion, but your opinion is wrong." That wasn't my intention.
However, I was trying to make the case for adjusting expectations. The OP seemed to be looking for a full function media-center application, and was dissatisfied that the price was too high because of missing features. I simply wanted to point out that if one were looking for a media-center application, Channels does seem feature-deficient.
But, since Channels is not a full media-center application, it's not really fair to say it's missing features. Channels was originally for viewing the live TV streams from HDHomeRun tuners. Eventually, a DVR component was added. Along with DVR functionality came increased guide data, top-notch remote access, and commercial detection for recordings.
Taken in that view, it's a bit difficult to see how it's fair to compare a full media-center experience like WMC, Kodi or Plex to Channels. While Channels may someday become such an application, it currently isn't. Conflating Channels as a TV-orientated application as a generic media player is a false equivalency. While TV is media, not all media is TV; just as all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
Channels is indeed a niche application. But, it should be evaluated on those qualities it has, not on what it doesn't. If Channels doesn't have a feature that one needs (such as full personal media library support), then it probably isn't the right fit.
I'm not saying that Channels is a perfect application. There are several shortcomings and "papercuts" remaining; but each is a tradeoff. I started using Channels because it offered superior remote DVR functionality; in turn I lost my preferred UI/frontend, more sophisticated recording rules, better integration with my existing media, etc. While some of those features may come later, they aren't here now.
If one feels that $8/mo or $80/yr is too much to pay for the offered features, that's fully understandable. There are less expensive options that offer most or all of the same features, and they are valid choices; I personally feel that Channels does better, and is worth the cost. But to claim that Channels isn't worth its cost because of features it never had, and may never actually gain, is the wrong comparison to make.