Spot-on.

It's almost impossible to keep mature products going without a subscription model. Mature products eventually only need:

a) support and b) compatibility/stability/performance updates.

But, these types of updates can be very expensive to develop and are very difficult to market as a new release (works with XXXX now isn't a very compelling proposition for upgrades).

It's kind of the same problem that open source software faces after it matures. Nobody wants to just sit and do support/incremental changes on old software, at least not for free.

I am employed by one of the companies discussed, and while I was on the fence about subscriptions originally, I've come to change my opinion. While not ideal for a subset of users who might use only one or two applications, it is less expensive for the majority of users. It's also lowered the barrier of entry significantly, which has invited a lot of new users, reduced piracy, and encouraged use and exploration of applications they might have avoided in the past.

From the development side of the business, the more frequent release cycle has allowed the product teams to be much more responsive. Under the old model, with major updates every 18-24 months, I might receive a feature request which is implemented in a few weeks, but which the user doesn't have access to for a year or more. This was hugely frustrating as we want to make features and products our customers want to use, and to have it ready and waiting for so long was not a great experience for anyone. Now, we can have that feature in users hands in weeks or months.

I don't understand this idea that there will be reduced incentive to release updates under a subscription or membership model. If anything, frequency and responsiveness feels more important than before, and I don't know of anyone here who feels differently.

edit: I was more on the fence about subscriptions than unsupportive. It was a drastic change that required either gradual transition or a rip-off-the-bandaid approach.

It is true what they say, there is a silver lining in everything.

Which is exactly not the case that's being discussed here?

What is discussed here is the case where you lose the right to use the software if you don't continue to pay, completely independently from what that money is used for, which is why it removes one important incentive to improve the software.

And if your skillset and your data is locked up in some software, it's questionable whether you really would stop paying, and thus stop using the software that you depend on.