Ok, I think there might be a way to constructive roll this into something that's actually relevant ...
You do not understand completely the meaning of capitalism, but that is ok, there is so much misinformation in the world now about it that is understandable. Capitalism and socialism have nothing to do with helping the poor or making rich people richer. They both deal with allocation of resources. One way does it by allowing free enterprise to automatically balance out the allocation of resources through capitalistic principles..the other uses some form of central planning to "engineer" social solutions.
If you give your money ahead of time to the vendor and trust they will engineer the best solution for you, then yes you are following a socialized path. A capitalistic path puts more emphasis on the dynamic between producer and consumer to balance out the allocation of resources depending on people making things of value so that people will give them their money for it.
Listen, sorry if I've been needling you - it was really intended to be good natured, but I really don't know where you're coming from.
I do agree with your general point, but I think were we're getting derailed here is that you're comparing two perfectly normal models of capitalist revenue of the modern software industry, which are legitimately compared and critiqued for their relative merits for the company vs the consumer, and injecting the word "socialist" - where there's absolutely no socialism happening in any literal sense , so you're invoking "socialism" as a metaphor for inefficiency in capitalism.
On its own, the subscription model itself can benefit or hurt consumers, consider
Composer cloud - can certainly benefit a certain type of beginner, effectively renting access to software that once cost 1000s of dollars in manageable instalments. It's not all that different from some of the micro purchasing schemes I've seen in parts of the developing world, and it can certainly be good for consumers. Significantly of course you can still buy the original products, and there probably aren't that many cases where there isn't a competing product that doesn't more or less the same thing.
Creative cloud, however, fundamentally different. It's only launched once the company has established an kind of natural monopoly, although this maybe isn't completely obvious at the time as its also right at the moment the extent of the other natural monopolies of silicon valley are just coming clearly into focus. Also - you can no longer buy licenses outright, and for technical reasons not necessarily involving actual functionality, there is often effectively no viable competition.
Now, I think this is a clear failure of market related to a new kind of monopoly dyanamic. It's a different kind of monopoly than Standard Oil, but I'd still argue that a kind of state regulation might well be the antidote because while it would be nice if consumers walking away would solve this issue through natural market processes, the nature of the web 2.0 monopolies (and the network dynamics therein) make it sometime hard for policy makers to get their heads around the nature of these monopolies.
So yes, I think you correctly perceive a failure or at least an efficiency of markets. And yes there are parallels to the dynamics by which inefficiencies appear in socialist systems. But as there's no pretence that any kind of socialist principle is at work here, invoking the word "socialist" to describe a perfectly normal capitalist market failure is really just using the work "socialist" as a metaphor of inefficient or disincentive.
(Leftists do this too, of course. There's a large stand of modern (post)-Trotskyism that dismisses the failures of the Stalinist regimes as "state capitalism" - which, at least arguably, is really just using the word "capitalism" as a metaphor for ruthlessness and cruelty.
So again, sorry if I've been needling you, but I think left or right, invoking the other team as a metaphor for what doesn't work in your own system only muddies discussions in unhelpful ways, and isn't really an argument one way or the other in good faith.
In any event, where this pontification might actually be relevant to us as consumers of sample libraries, is that, accepting the above analysis, the one place we see a threat of a creative cloud like model is from NI. Maybe they'll keep innovating and all will be good. But if Kontakt starts to update every year, and they move to a subscription model require, that's a concern.
That said, NI have generally been good citizens so I don't think there's any need to panic.
But except for maybe older VSL content, or pending the formation of a VSL - SF - OT cartel, I also don't think that subscription models make much sense to most of the industry at the moment.