Two quick thoughts,
 
1.  A subscription model should also include the time value of money, IE it should be slightly higher than a regular purchase (assuming normal upgrades) because the company isn't getting all their money upfront.
 
2.  I think a lot of programs are often reaching a point where they are running out of must have features to really get people to upgrade.  MS office is a great example, but I think the same goes for a lot of audio programs.  The core program is already working great, so what's a company to do to get people to upgrade?
 
And if people don't upgrade, then the company goes out of business...  

Kroneborge. I do get that the companies need to make money, but I think greed and misguided attempts to battle piracy are bigger factors. Regular adobe customers tend to upgrade. They may skip a version or two, but the everchanging landscape of the visual world means creatives have little recourse but to upgrade. 4K editing needs were non-existant outside of hollywood a couple of years ago. As for Avid, they are very much cashstrapped.

The two examples, Avid may not be doing so well financially.  Media Composer is over $1000.
 Adobe is no longer bundled with Apple products.  That hurts.
 
 If more things go subscription, I guess I'll be using "vintage gear" with hardware and software.

Avid's financial situation is not great at all the last time I checked.  I think that may be why they are test ing the subscription model waters.  I know production facilities I have worked for that used Avid had very little reason to upgrade immediately.  Avid, like Pro Tools had a big advantage on competitors by 1) being established early and 2) being heavily reliant on hardware compatibility.   If you have a post-production facility, only the rough cut is being done in Avid and which version rarely makes a difference.  Workflow from products made 10 years apart is not that much different.  The noney saved on upgrading Avid can go to other parts of post like coloring and compositing suites.

I think this discussion is kind of a waste of time. Everything will move to subscription, or some form of it, because computing will eventually change. We won't have computers like we have today. We will have terminals that we access to our own stuff. Accounts, if you will. The reason prople don't want to accept it is because of capitalism. We want what we want no matter how wasteful it is and capitalism is extremely wasteful.
 
I won't go further except to say that it won't be easy but it will, eventually, be better. Don't forget the phrase, "you have to take the good with the bad". Capitalism creates a need for theft. Which is why companies want to move to a subscription service. Ironic isn't it? They want to use subscription to avoid theft but rely on a system that creates it.

"capitalism is extremely wasteful"
 
This is a pretty bold statement.  What is your solution that more efficiently distributes goods and services than capitalism and the free market?  A command and control economy where government bureaucrats decide who gets what and when eh comrade?
 
Capitalism doesn't create a need for theft, the fact that we live in a world of limited resources creates a DESIRE for theft when people try and get stuff the easy way.

If capitalism is so great, how come 3/4 of the world's population live in poverty?
 
Capitalism relies on theft. United Fruit is a prime example, BP is another. Why is it a waste? The aforementioned corporations use military intervention to take what they want at the cost of many lives. The lives of those who owned the land where the fruit, or oil, who previously owned. 
 
Why is it a waste? The technology exists, today, to feed everyone. It's that simple and we can do it using less of the most precious resource of all, water.
 
Why is it a waste? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to use fossil fuel. The technology exists to power the entire world without it. What's sad about this is the tech was invented in the late 1800s. Why do we choose to harm our children for they will suffer the consequences of our apathy.
 
Why is it a waste? It is proven that a more egalitarian society produces more innovation and work than one that is not. You can say that capitalism fuels innovation but tell that to Walter L Shaw.
 
I can go on and on, can you? The fact is we are programmed to think that way. The 1960s was a wake up call for those in power. They decided that people were too educated to maintain their status quo and subsequently, quality education dropped dramatically after the Tri-lateral commission of 1973. There are no democrats, republicans or anyone else in office. There are only corporate sponsored "do as their tolds". Once you realize that, and others, we can get on with living.

Wow, this convo has shifted.  Although i think most home computing will move to a network based access, certain processes will likely be the realm of offline functionality, leaving wiggleroom for piracy to continue.  Even with the terminal only model, I have no doubt some kid in Lithuania would figure out some form of "subscription spoofing".
 
I won't even touch the capitalism topic.

The point was that we, even me, have a hard time thinking we can live without capitalism. If you think about it, really think about it, without it, there would be no need for piracy or theft. That kid in Lithuania would be contributing his computing skills to making programs better. I don't think it will be easy though. It will take well over a hundred years, several generations, to forget how to be cruel. First off though, we need to have elected officials who earn their place in leadership and know that government is "for the people" and not for the corporations.
 
This thread is about the advent of subscription services and although I'm going pretty deep into it, it is still a valid point. Though, some would say not.

Guitarpima, I can see your side.  I'm just not absolutely sure it is provable.  we have no true control to measure such theories against.  For starters, capitalism, like democracy  are somewhat loosely used terms in the sense that pure examples of both are rare.  The US and most countries are hyvbrids with elements of multiple economic and political models coming into play.  There has never been a purely communist nation.  Even nations who have branded themselves communist often acknowledged that despite the state controlling many key aspects, they were still in the midst of a revolution (which IMHO is perpetual) heading towards communism.  It's no secret that the higher ranking Soviets indulged in plenty of personal wealth accumulation contrary to the principals of communism.  When I look at political and economic theories from right or left wing, they all seem to make assumptions about how people would behave in hypothetical situations. Eaxample:  The stereotype of the right wing (and I will add disclaimer this is very general and simplified) is that if we create laws that lean toward the advantage of businesses, the businesses will prosper, jobs will be created and it will all "trickle down" for the greater benefit of all. The stereotype of the left wing is often depicted as if we give the poor and middle class things to make their lot better (affordable health care, government safety nets, affordable or free education) they will contribute more to society as a whole and business will prosper.  I have seen both views play out true and false. I have known welfare mothers who have become CEOs.  I have seen Businesses give generously.  I have also seen people milk the system.  I have seen business owners cheat on taxes and use savings to shower themselves with luxuries without benefiting anyone but themselves.  Individuals have a way of making theory somewhat of a moving target.  I think economics/politics and a few other topis make for popular debate material because everyone can walk away feeling "right". You never see people in a bar debating Calculus or linear Algebra because at some point someone might pull out a piece of paper and calculator and come up with a definitive and absolute answer.  i guess I offered all that to say that although i believe the greed inherent in capitalism does provide incentive for thievery, other alternatives may not necessarily change that.  Some of the biggest thieves I know were wealthy and stole things just for kicks.  Humans are strange and hard to predict.