Subscription model is the only one that makes any sense. These days you can't expect to run a program for many years, because the environment changes too quickly. Programs need to be updated for newer OSs and the world that changes around them. This costs money.
I am happy to exchange money for new versions of software that offer new features, or for compatibility with new versions of operating systems. I expect to pay money for software, have it functioning and supported for an agreed period (say, a couple of years), and then to pay again if I want to continue using it with fancy new features.
That doesn't seem unreasonable or difficult to offer?
I've seen this model used at collectorz.com - you buy the software, and it comes with one year of updates. When that year expires, you are basically frozen at the last version of the software, or you can choose to buy an additional year of support for about half the cost of the initial purchase. Seems to be a reasonable compromise to me.
At what point are software developers obligated to provide purchase models to suit you? Is not like there's an inherent right to have whatever software you like in whatever form or payment model you like, any more than the OP complaining that somehow having bought multiple versions of software isn't getting a new feature back ported.
I should be clear that nobody’s obligated to do so! Sell your software using whatever model you want. But I think it’s fair to complain when companies don’t offer basic models like “sell me new versions of your product in exchange for money”.
