" They have the ability to force their customers onto a new business model from the previous business model as a result of that. It is an unfair advantage."

How is this an "It is an unfair advantage"???

I wonder how many of the people who rail

in online forums against the evils of companies like Autodesk

and Adobe have ever had an actual job in a real  U.S./Western business.

I'd like to respond from a "business owner's" perspective. I have owned an incorporated manufacturing company that produced technical products and have dealt frequently with complex business issues relating to concerns in my industry. There's a very simple principle that I have learned and most business people will tell you: When your business becomes dependent upon factors that the business does not control, risk is dramatically increased.

There are always certain "conveniences" that businesses and owners can take advantage of. Tax dodging using loopholes in corporate tax law is never a primary concern, but asset ownership, corporate-wise, may be and certain durable goods, real estate, equipment and other asset considerations may be an addressable issue that, given certain regulations, could produce opportunities for savings and risk/liability reduction.

But, these are specific issues, not industry-wide concerns. They're to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

However, whenever a company becomes beholden to third-parties and becomes reliant on them for key operations, decision making capability is taken from those most intimately concerned with it and placed in the hands of others that, by definition, have no intrinsic interest in the welfare of the company. This is basic "Business Reality 101" that is not always taught in "buzziness skool" and is even not always addressed in MBA programs. An example of this that anyone should be able to understand is "What if" the Federal Government changed regulations dealing with a certain business market? Everyone in that market, relying on the previous regulations, would be effected. "What if" a software manufacturer changed the specifications for their software? Everyone reliant on it would, in turn, be forced to change their own operations/work in some way.

I don't hate anyone, don't really care too much about subscription models in software and am, now, only barely effected by it. However, one must understand that this is a relatively "new" dynamic. While there are anologues with tangible and durable property and services, these anologues are not broadly comparable, since we're also dealing with a relatively new medium.

However, I will say that taking certain issues and placing them upon the end-user, like end-user subscription models for non-business use, is, perhaps, moving certain sorts of products outside of the reach of common consumers. Businesses may prefer this sort of model because it precludes the necessity for site-licenses, which can be expensive, and certain manufacturers have made allowances for businesses in order to make their product desirable for them, since they're large consumers and industry-drivers.

But, it's the "little guy" that gets screwed. Largely, that's "us." We don't get tax considerations, mostly, for our continued payments to a third-party. I, for instance, wouldn't get tax considerations by paying a monthly fee to Autodesk, since it's just a hobby for me. However, I would get tax considerations for paying for a Microsoft Office subscription, since I'm also a writer.

The ones most damaged by creative software subscription models are the "hobbyists." And, since in this medium, hobbyists have extreme impact on the sort of content produced and innovations that are made within it, a subsciption model for end-users isn't a desirable thing. And, it wouldn't be desirable in any industry that had end-users that made such creative impact.

PS - I have no interest in whatever discussion you may be having with others in the thread. I'm just addressing the issues you raised in your above post. While they may be warranted in certain situations, they aren't, necessarily, broadly relevant, relating to general interests here. That's just my opinion, though, and everyone's got one.. :)