I have a hard time coming up with any pressing example of this in categories of software that interest me - I wish he'd provided more?
Microsoft is pushing it now with their development tooling (e.g. Visual Studio). First, it was "sign in" to synchronize your settings across instances. Now they're encouraging monthly subscription based licensing, which requires you to be "signed in", instead of the traditional perceptual license.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/11/adobe_q4_fy2015_resu...
The UK student monthly fee for a student for their own use at home is a tad under £16. Probably ok for an undergrad but a little steep for a 16 year old in an FE College who needs access to Illustrator now and again at home...
A sort of silver lining is that with the rentier model companies will have an interest to produce more reliable products, rather than ones which break exactly one day after the warranty ends.
I have a Photoshop CS5 license, and I can't ever conceive of any reason I'd pay for CC. I have gotten my money's worth out of Photoshop CS5, and I'll continue to get that value, but I don't use Photoshop nearly enough to ever justify a monthly cost.
I have both and I get what I pay for in both cases.
Many people wouldn't buy the newest version that only included 1 or 2 extra "features". No longer can you buy Photoshop and use it for 5 years.
As consumers we don't have any right to demand software at whatever price point we want.
Only non-professionals have a hard time justifying the low monthly price. For them there are plenty of other competitive options. No one is forcing you to buy Photoshop -- use one of the other tools available.
As software developers we should all be able to understand: pay the price for the professional software, or if you think you can do it better, write a competitor.