Vendors get recurring money and aren't incentivized to make sweeping changes to have major releases to get more money for the same product; consumers can manage cash flow by only paying while they need it, there is a lower barrier to purchase, and vendors have more predictable income.
1) If it's for a piece of software I use on an ongoing basis the cost often rapidly eclipses what I'd have paid for standalone software, and it never stops rising.
2) There's usually some awkwardly contrived cloud tie-in, purely to enforce subscriptions, which breaks the software if your internet connection or the supplier's servers are down. This adds a completely unnecessary external dependency.
3) You're entirely at the vendor's mercy if they decide to change the software. At the very least, you're subjected to constant small breakages of your workflow, and at worst they change some major feature that you depend on and put you out of business for days or weeks until you find a workaround.
Edit: Also 4) The aforementioned awkward cloud tie-in often brings with it some gnarly privacy issues, with your sensitive files and private data being leeched off to the vendor's servers FoR YoUR ConVeNIeNcE.
The JetBrains model is good because I'm able to keep using a version without paying for upgrades (but I have kept up anyway as the annual fee is so cheap for what I get).
The points you've made are why I don't typically get software that is truly 'rental only' or hits your other points. That said, I've not run in to too many in the past few years that are affected by those issues any more. Are there some in particular you're thinking of that have those problems?
[1] It would probably be difficult contractually, but such things happen. See e.g. TextDrive hosting lifetime accounts.
Easy to support a couple hundred whoppers who pay big money on the coasts -- and who also have the time and money to really learn the tool. Expand that out to 100,000 customers with lower costs and greater support needs and it doesn't make sense.
High quality software has always required a recurring payment model. It's not viable to sell standalone versions to a new set of customers each year. In the past this was informal with upgrade versions every year. You could theoretically choose not to upgrade but software developers would have all kinds of tricks to "encourage you" such as not providing forwards compatible file formats.
What the subscription model does is align customers with the realities of software development. Yes the cost of software never stops rising but neither do the maintenance costs.
That depends. On macOS the churn is high. But there are probably a lot of Windows applications from the nineties that still run unmodified.
It's a good balance—if you spend extra time on worthwhile changes, the users need to pay for that time. The users can also decide to stick with what they have if they don't think your changes were worthwhile, which may be a perfectly reasonable path.
But yes, the cognitive load is a big one for me too.
I know it is an imperfect metaphor, but it helps get my point across that valuing ownership doesn’t make someone cheap. It makes them unwilling to lease software.
First, because they have to compete with the likes of Office 365, which offers an Office Suite, 1TB cloud storage, and 60 Skype minutes (at least the used to) for little over 5 Euro per month. Subscriptions for more basic programs will look overpriced in comparison.
Second, as subscriptions become the new normal, we will see services like Apple Arcade. I think Apple Arcade will eventually eat up a lot of revenue as casual gamers will move from purchasing games to the 'all you can eat' Arcade. If Apple Arcade turns out to be successful, what holds them from launching 'App Arcade' [1]? Vendors that don't get into the App Arcade will lose a lot of revenue, vendors that do get into App Arcade will have a steady source of income, but will also be completely at the mercy of Apple (or Microsoft).
[1] I know there is SetApp, but anything that Apple launches has a lot more visibility. They also have more clout to get high profile applications in such a service.
Look at Microsoft's behavior with O365. Many companies will be fully locked into Microsoft across voice, security and identity verticals based on tweaks to the O365/M365 licensing models. You need Azure AD to meet your email compliance requirements, but that's bundled with Intune, which in turn has a co-bundle with Defender ATP, etc.
Were you paying for something like a Linux distribution? You can often do that on a subscription as well if you want to.