You ignored my point:
The problem with renting software in this case is that it was only after Adobe captured the market with the sale of their software, that they turned the screws on their existing customers forcing them to the subscription or die option.
I am inclined to think this as well.
Adobe knew they had captured an audience and whatever their motives (survival, or greed?), they
chose to eliminate options that were friendlier to hobby-level artists/photographers* and treated everyone as if cost was not an issue. It's not so much the
price I am now paying for Adobe's hostageware (though gawd knows I am paying
more than twice what I was per 24 months), but the fact that Adobe's scheme for continuing to buy into their toolset treats me as if I am making swimming pools of cash using their tools, when in fact I make ZERO from my work. (Unless I sell a print, which these days happens less and less: maybe one every 2 years at the current rate)
Fact is, I really cannot justify the cost (and the emotional burden) of paying for Lightroom anymore, since it's only supporting my hobby (because no matter who you are, if you're not making $$$$ from photography, then it's just a hobby). If I stop paying, I am cut off from much of the functionality supporting a 10 year archive of work.
It also irks me that I do
not have an option to subscribe to Lightroom alone - I
must buy a package that includes Photoshop (and now Bridge, and the Firefly AI crap that is now inserted into their software, plus their creative cloud, which I will not use, since Adobe has it in their TOS that they can scrape my CC files to train their LLMs). You can rationalize Adobe's business model all you like, and even though
I agree that "the subscription models guarantees their survival", there is no option to buy just the tools I need at a price that I can reasonably justify. I have every right to feel used/abused by Adobe. The FTC agrees with me.
*which is undoubtedly 99% of the people reading this forum.