This is out of necessity, not necessarily because of the desire to do so. Not every musician wants to tour 300 days a year just to make a living. Writing music and performing music are not the same thing.
You absolutely need to then do something to monetize said audience. Selling a course is the common model. But that’s selling access to information which is what we’re trying to argue against here.
I have also been pleasantly surprised that you can sell access to a livecoding series. That’s sort of like tickets to a live show.
Workshops are another form of a live programming show that people will pay money for. Have also done those and it’s a lot of fun.
Most paid forms of these are in exchange for teaching. Access to intellectual property in your brain.
I know there are training companies that charge.
You also have workshops as part of paid conferences but I assume the vast bulk of those workshops are done for free by people being paid by their employer. And Meetups are usually free with the same people from companies along with those showing off or promoting some side project.
I agree with your general point around teaching/training. It's just that you're competing with a lot of free content, often subsidized by some company's product sales.
Besides, turning my profession into a sharecropping existence on Twitch/YouTube/Patreon, choosing to either be a living ad banner or a mendicant, holds absolutely no appeal for me.
The solution to "subscriptions for things that have no reason to be provided as a service instead of as a product" is just trusting that people will pay if they like your product, or creating alternatives in the open-source space. Which will be much easier if you can rightfully use prior work. Your other concerns already exist, so at the worst we just have what we already have.
> Also as a programmer i'm not sure how i'd go about doing a live show :-P
You may be surprised. Many programmers do live-coding sessions as they work on open source products.