Practically every major software these days is sold as a service. The terms used may be more along the lines of "subscription" or "cloud based product" or "perpetually updated software" but the end meaning is the same. Now I suspect that anyone who would actually be on this site distrusts the concept of software as a service on its face. If not, here is a video from Ross talking about how the concept is fraud. He talks about games, but his points would really apply to any type of software.
Ross's video focuses on why the concept is unethical, i.e. that you are sold something as if you actually own it and can keep it forever, only for the companies involved to suddenly and arbitrarily remove it from you. All of his points are valid, but there's a counterargument that he can't address. It is this: many people (especially millennials and zoomers) don't care if they are being fleeced as long as they get something nice for it. You see this attitude when you tell people about how they are being tracked on social media. A common response is "sure companies may be selling my personal data, but I like using this site so I don't care" often with a side order of "besides, everyone is doing it, so why get worked up about it?" The same thing happens with software as a service. For example, people will say sure a company may yank out everything from under your feet, but in the time that you can use the product it's a better experience than it would have been otherwise. After all, you get updates!
The problem is that in many caes the updates are not worthwhile. For example, take Microsoft Outlook. What worthwhile features has it gained since, say, 2010? I'll grant security updates (though companies managed to do those even without holding your software in the past.) But what else? Most of the significant updates come down to UI changs, i.e. keeping the same features but changing how you access them. To the extent that features actually change there are more cases of features being removed than added. For example in the web client there used to be a menu that let you change autocorrect preferences. But that is gone, at least in every version of the client that I have access to. (Thanks to A/B testing I can't say with certainty whether there are a few people who have been allowed to use more functional versions of the software.) Thus when I type B) it is changed to a sunglasses emoji every time. When I say i.e. whatever comes afterwards will usually become capitalized due to outlook thinking that I am starting a new sentence. But this does not always happen. Using underscores will have outlook interpret what is in between as markup and italicize it. This is a problem for me since I often use underscores to indicate subscripts in mathematical statements. Thus when I type x_1+x_2 = y it becomes x1+x2 = y. None of this can be disabled, meaning that I am forced to write my e-mails in a text editor and copy them over, making sure to not type anything extra lest outlook "helpfully" replace things. The signature feature often removes the last lines of my premade signature, forcing me to type them by hand again. Worst of all, for several months the spell check feature was completely absent.
Now yes, everything I said in the last paragraph does amount to a bunch of bitching about Outlook. However consider the fact that this is a program which has been continuously updated for years. Why should I accept issues that would be embarassing in a late beta version of a project? Especially when there were previous versions of the program which did not have the same issue? I don't pay for office; at home I use stable open source alternatives. But my work does, and in exchange all they get is Microsoft making the software worse.
The service model generally kills off innovation. This may seem counterintuitive; with the model where you buy a product once and are done, what motivation is there for the company to improve on the existing product? Companies can and did update things that had been purchased, mainly as a way to generate brand loyalty or to draw in new sales. But where the innovation really ocurred was in making the next product. If I have a word processor that works perfectly fine and the company wants me to buy another one, the new one better do something that mine doesn't or at least do things more efficiently. If they do not then I can continue using their old product without paying them any additional money. But with software as a service I am tied to the company to continue to use the current product. Even if it is not a subscription service, they can do things like disabling or handicapping the old service to force me to swap to something new. Thus there is no real competition to maintain the interest of existing customers. The main reason that a customer might leave is if he does not see changes over time, making the service look pointless (especially if he is paying for a subscription fee.) Thus companies do tend to push out updates, but they don't necessarily have to be actual improvements. Changes to the UI are the most obvious for the customer, and the easiest to push out, thus you often get tons of pointless UI changes. It doesn't really matter if some quality of life feature breaks, because it's not like the customer has anything that he can use instead (at least without completely abandoning your ecosystem.) And if you do break something, then you can always fix it in a year or so and pretend that it is a new feature. Thus the motivation for the company is not to make actual improvements to entice the customer, but instead to make continual meaningless or even detrimental updates to create the illusion that the service model is neceesary.