By Eng. Ahmed Bahgat Hassan
IT Expert and Consultant – United Arab Emirates
Has the Shift to Monthly Subscriptions Become a Natural Evolution of the Digital Economy — or a Growing Burden on Users?
Modern technology and the proliferation of digital applications have undeniably reshaped every aspect of our lives, influenced human behavior and creating new economic habits. From social media platforms and virtual reality applications to artificial intelligence tools available on mobile devices, online trading platforms, and everyday productivity software such as Microsoft 365, technology has become deeply embedded in daily routines.
However, balance remains essential. While these innovations enhance efficiency and connectivity, they also significantly affect users’ cash flow and liquidity—whether individuals or corporations.
Today, every platform developer—whether a global corporation like Microsoft, a regional firm, or an independent programmer—seeks financial sustainability through recurring subscription models. By offering services at seemingly modest monthly or annual fees, companies aim to attract large numbers of subscribers, collectively covering operational costs and generating steady revenue streams.
“Digital Feudalism”: A Fair Description or an Exaggeration?
The term “digital feudalism” may not be literally accurate, since users voluntarily subscribe and provide their payment details by choice, retaining the right to cancel (unless restrictive contractual terms apply).
Yet, metaphorically, the concept resonates when criticizing:
- Monopoly tendencies and wealth concentration among major global platforms—particularly American tech giants.
- The shift from ownership to rental, where users no longer acquire source codes or perpetual licenses.
- The emergence of long-term dependency—perhaps more accurately described as digital colonialism.
Ultimately, balance is achieved when users recognize that this relationship is based on mutual benefit. There is no coercion, but users should:
- Diversify their digital tools to avoid dependence on a single platform.
- Support alternative models such as open-source software, while respecting cybersecurity principles.
- Demand stronger data rights and portability.
- View subscriptions as payment for services—not as tribute.
Do Generative AI Operating Costs Justify Rising Digital Service Prices?
To answer fairly, one must consider the perspective of companies, developers, and engineers. Delivering advanced services—especially those powered by Generative artificial intelligence—requires substantial investments in infrastructure, computing power, data storage, cybersecurity, development hours, and continuous updates.
Unlike traditional software, generative AI technologies impose ongoing operational costs that are significantly higher. Companies that invested heavily in research and infrastructure naturally seek returns on these investments.
In short, yes—operating costs associated with generative AI largely justify the noticeable rise in digital service pricing.
How Have Strict Privacy Laws Reshaped the Advertising and Data Economy?
Encouragingly, many countries—particularly in the Arab world, including the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Morocco—have introduced modern information technology and cybersecurity laws. In Europe, regulations such as General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and in the United States, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA/CPRA), along with platform-level policies like App Tracking Transparency (ATT), have fundamentally transformed data-driven advertising models.
Key shifts include:
- Reduced availability of user data for tracking and targeted advertising.
- Movement from behavioral targeting toward contextual advertising.
- Real, enforceable opt-out rights affecting platform revenues.
The model has gradually evolved from “collect as much user data as possible for hyper-personalized ads” to “collect minimal data, obtain explicit consent, rely on first-party data and aggregated measurement.” Compliance costs have risen, prompting many companies to diversify revenue sources through subscriptions, paywalls, and data partnerships.
Have Users Lost the Concept of Software Ownership?
Simply put: yes.
The era of owning software outright has largely been replaced by temporary access rights. Daily usage patterns clearly reflect this transition from permanent licensing to subscription-based access.
What Is the Fair Balance Between Corporate Profitability and Universal Digital Access?
This is a complex question requiring empathy toward both sides—the service provider and the user.
A fair balance exists where:
- Companies secure sufficient cash flow to cover development, operational, and security costs, while earning a reasonable profit that rewards innovation and investment.
- Users maintain reliable, secure access to essential digital services without pricing becoming a barrier to participation in the digital economy.
Today’s market increasingly offers tiered subscription models that accommodate diverse purchasing power and aim to avoid creating a new digital divide between those who can afford access and those who cannot.
In its healthiest form, this relationship should evolve from a model resembling “technological feudalism” into one of service provider and partner—where users pay a fair price for genuine value, and companies grow sustainably without losing their ethical compass.
