I don’t like that many companies, particularly ones large enough to have some ability either alone (e.g. Microsoft) or in groups (e.g. car manufacturers) to compel people to subscribe to things as services that can/have/should be(en) ownable for a one-time affordable purchase. Having to subscribe to things is a way to get people to re-buy things over and over and have a nebulous and theoretically unlimited price. i.e. a lot of it is an attempt to sneakily siphon as much cash away from as many people as possible. MS Office is a great example of this – really, we could all use the 1995 version of MS Office to do most of what most people need and use MS Office for, pretty much as well as the latest version (or perhaps better because there are probably less complicated options and they’ll tend to use written words on the menus instead of strange icons). But by making new versions all the time and making them not compatible, they create a situation where many companies will want to have the latest version so it will be able to read files saved by the latest version… sigh. It’s also a way car manufacturers are getting people even more regularly giving them money. Built-in obsolescence wasn’t evil enough, because it created jobs for independent mechanics. But by computerizing their cars up the wazoo in proprietary ways, if something breaks, the main thing to do is replace the module (or lease or buy a new one before the warranty expires). Next up is the dream of self-driving cars “so people won’t have to drive, and they won’t have to own cars” – well if/when that catches on, it also means they can eventually price the drive-able own-able cars for the very rich, and charge every one else per-use, or via subscription. At least in that model, the manufacturers might possibly have some incentive to actually not perpetrate built-in obsolescence.