Basically, it's about the leadership.

Boeing leadership used to be exclusively the engineers who have worked their way up. They knew the ins and outs of every step, what works and what doesn't work, and therefore had a huge focus on safety because they weren't profit driven.

Then they brought in someone who wasn't an engineer and things immediately went south. I want to be cheeky and say that MBAs ruin everything because that way of management takes everything human out of management. Making that line constantly go up forever is the issue.

So, for a company to produce products that actually work, you need leadership who isn't profit driven and who actually has experience at all levels of production.

"But have you considered our ever-rising quarterly profits?!"

The main thing about the prevailing circumstances is that it showed idiocracy was way too optimistic. Their eugenics-ish narrative happened over way too long a period of time. We just needed a bunch of billionaires to poison the information supply.

That’s not true at all. 

In Idiocracy, the president and his cabinet put their smartest people (well, person) in charge with zero pushback and listened to and trusted expert opinion. When a policy failed (Brawndo went out of business and took the economy with it), there was swift punishment for those directly responsible, and when policy succeeded (crops were growing), they quickly pivoted and elevated those responsible. In Idiocracy, the most competent people were put in charge.

What we have is MUCH worse; people stupid and short-sighted enough to destroy everything in the name of ego and greed, and just smart enough to be successful in their destruction of our societies, governments and planet.

I would much rather be in Idiocracy if I’m being honest. At least those people were trying their best; can’t fault them for that.

Thats a documentary. Not a movie.

One of the driving forces behind this phenomena is that business types value having that reoccurring revenue on the books more than "normal" revenue. If you have two companies with identical revenue but one of them gets it from customers locked in on a subscription, that company will be valued significantly higher. If you're an exec or a big investor who owns a lot of stock in a company then you're effectively incentivized to push the company towards that subscription based reoccurring revenue model because it will boost the stock price and make you richer.

I understand some of it tbh. Not the cars. A car is one and done, you manufacture it and you don't NEED to spend much more after the fact to keep the happy new owner happy. There's no way servers cost as much to run as they want for their cloud services (e.g remote start via app, unlock via app, etc). Sure there are R&D costs and they're pretty big, but those usually end when a model comes out, so you can divide it by total cars sold to get how much it is per one car. Before Tesla, cars didn't really get software updates unless there were major issues.

But I'm starting to understand why the software industry adopted the service model. Having worked for multiple companies doing B2B SaaS... The customers just keep asking for new things. Does a meal planning app need to be a subscription service? Probably not. But anything that keeps on adding new features costs a lot of money. Software engineers aren't cheap.

Of course my view may be skewed because it's B2B, not software anyone would just download off an app store or website. At my different jobs we've had billion dollar companies come and say "we love what you're doing, we want to keep using it, but you have to do X, Y and Z or our workflow just won't work and we can't use it efficiently".

Also in the world of consumer facing software, nobody wants a big upfront payment, but people are more willing to stomach a small monthly subscription. We could do away with proprietary software altogether, but oftentimes what happens with open source software is that due to lack of funding, devs don't have enough time to work on things, and they lag behind proprietary offerings. Large software suites like Adobe Premiere are never "finished" and thus neither are the open source alternatives. But Adobe has a ton more engineering resources to throw at improving their product than most open source projects.

TL;DR: Software engineering is expensive. People working open source projects are often doing it in their spare time after the work that actually pays their bills. If you want free and open source software to be competitive to paid subscription software, you gotta set up recurring donations and convince other people to do the same. At least it'll be forkable, voluntary and democratic, unlike with proprietary software companies.