I guess the bigger question is even ignoring the LLM angle is why this project is worth 10-30x than another design also created by a human. I feel like the Ruby gem and integration is worth a premium, but I'm not sure that the premium matches what you're charging. I've purchased third party themes and paid someone on Upwork to "Railsify" them, leaving me with ownership of the code, and I'm pretty sure I paid less than you're charging for the team level. (I hope you don't take this as a personal attack on your business model, and simply an analysis of X vs Y)
No matter what you choose, there's work to be done to adapt to each app's use case, branding, copywriting, etc. Rails UI definitely isn't "complete" and is a constant work in progress, hence the subscription model.
Whether that's valuable to you is definitely up to you. Some folks don't want to be beholden to an AI for design and prefer a ready-made human-engineered system to refer back to and evolve as their app does.
I use this project for my own stuff. That's why I originally built it; however, I'm biased and am deeply on the Rails bandwagon. Ultimately, it saves me a bunch of time, which to me is the most valuable thing there is.
We (developers) were all sold a promise years ago of technology/software being our future. That's changing rapidly, and there's no going back.
Yes, Napster was specifically started for sharing files people didn't have the rights to share, but I still don't think it's a fair comparison because nobody sharing files on Napster ever tried to claim it was their music they were sharing. If people were taking Metallica's music and recording their own versions of it that were 99% identical and then claiming they were the original artist, that would be a closer analogy. Napster also didn't receive the massive PR campaigns, huge institutional investment, the government blind-eye-turning, etc. that AI is enjoying today. Napster was also successfully sued for promoting copyright infringement.