I personally, want a lossless version that I can archive, have on my offline portable music player, stream to my phone, and stream through jellyfin to my stereo.
That fits better to the style of music I listen to, and how _I_ listen to music (I don't shuffle and listen to full albums only)
The idea was to create a true streaming service in term of UX. All the same features as you are used to, except you start with the empty catalog and you purchase individual albums and you get the streaming service for free forever (no subscription). The service operating cost being funded by newer purchase. That's why I'm talking about Steam as the model, it's how they operate: you have access to your library forever even if you only pay for games once. (And mostly, you never play much to most of your purchases).
The steady income of subscription service is nice for the streaming platform but it's not nice for the classical music artists: they receive nothing.
I could definitely see streaming wars in music happening like they are in video, although so far the music labels are content to watch the video labels hurt each other. But consider: Spotify's payouts are infamously low, lower than Google's or Apple's and I can imagine some labels deciding they can do better by providing their own streaming app. Since it's only a few labels, each will believe they have enough of a library to draw subscribers, and away we'll go.
But still: aside from the margins and market share concerns, what delivers a steadier income than streaming?
Streaming doesn't mean they can't experiment with additional revenue streams, including physical media sales and licensing opportunities, but it's hard to imagine something displacing streaming as a concept to the degree which streaming has displaced physical media sales.