The subscription model is a business answer to a recurrent problem in tech: how do you make your revenue streams more reliable?
If you build the perfect product, and everybody buys the first version, then you'll have no revenue stream left after everybody who wanted to purchase it has purchased it.
And that's where the subscription model steps in.
It's also a way of slowing down innovation (and therefore risk) while remaining profitable. In a world where your revenue is based only on how many new copies of your product you sell, you are forced to innovate and keep selling, or your sales will drop and competition will eat your plate. If you already have a user base of subscribed users instead, it's much harder to attack your bottom line.
So yes, it's a great model from a business perspective, but it's an absolute nightmare from a user perspective.
I personally started paying between $300-400 a month just in subscriptions at its peak (about 3 years ago), and we're talking just of 8-9 services. I decided that it was not sustainable, and that I had to fight back.
Today I reward news outlets that let me pay for content "on the go" over those that put the "subscribe now" paywall in front of my eyes. I am very happy (and proud) to scrape and pirate those services without feeling an inch of guilt. If in order to read a single article I have to start a subscription that involves cumbersome interactions with your customer service just to terminate it, then you deserve piracy.
And, when it comes to other services, I started self-hosting everything. There's plenty of open-source alternatives to literally every paid service that you can run yourself. A Celeron minipc in my house with a few TB of storage connected cost me about $350. After 1-2 months running Nextcloud, Miniflux, Wallabag, Matrix, Ubooquity, wger, Bitwarden etc. on it, it already paid its own price back in terms of subscription savings.