To me it's been obvious ever since the term SaaS was coined, that it would be worse for users. Not only is it more expensive, you don't get control over your data or how you use the product. The idea of cloud computing is similar - you have to pay more for someone else's computer. Granted, SaaS and cloud computing make sense if you're an organization, and can have advantages in terms of scale, reliability, etc.
But also, when business interests get involved in producing software in general, it often causes problems, i.e. ads, worse interop, performance considered unimportant, marketing emails, DRM, the software not working after the company is acquihired or fails. However, producing software takes time which costs money. So, commercially produced software can only exist at this intersection between there being a business model, and the software being useful. The condition is, the usefulness must be enough to be worth paying for, and the result is what we have now.
Imagine rewinding to 1990 with unlimited borrowed VC funds, hiring every person employed in tech full time until 2023, and building a massive suite of useful software for individuals, companies, govt, with a few different alternatives for each use case (like we have now), except they communicate via a series of well defined and public APIs. The entire software stack would be developed in this way, for maximum usability, performance, interoperability, features, etc. . After getting to the set of features we now have in late 2022, we pause the thought experiment, note the date, and split the cost between the users. Ignoring the various practical issues with this experiment, I bet it would be possible to get to where we are sooner and far cheaper per user.
Long story short, I don't think the goal of making money as a business is very well aligned with the goal of producing really good quality and long lasting software, even if the users are willing to pay, and this is a real problem. For personal use, I won't tolerate ads, DRM, etc., so I now self host.