That could be a rational way of looking at it, but consumers aren't rational. I think revenue being tied to value is much more important in purchasing decisions.

Most software that was a one-off purchase model and have now become a subscription model, have added significant service-based features. Examples that come to mind are 1Password that now has family sharing and team collaboration features, or Office 365 which has sync/storage and more web sharing features.

It could be argued that the sustainability of subscriptions enabled these features, but I think it's much more symbiotic - these features enabled a subscription model to work.

For an example of where this hasn't gone as well, I'd look to Ulysses which has moved to a subscription model but doesn't have service based features, and which you do not get to keep using at all if you stop paying. This has resulted in a backlash from customers that can be seen in the reviews online.

If it’s a one-off payment, you have your lifetime worth of chances to extract value. So I’m not following your point here, can you clarify?

Subscriptions have higher chances of survival than permanent licenses because developers have intentionally deferred revenue. So 6 years from now, the motivations to continue operating the business will be higher by a team selling a subscription at $99/year than a permanent license at $299. This way your workflow relying on that tool has higher chances to survive new operating operating systems, new formats and other forms of obsolescence.

I liked Microsoft Money but it is not anymore around. Had it been Money 365, it would still probably be around.