> By that logic none of us should be paying monthly subscriptions for anything because obviously someone would disrupt that pricing model and take business away from all the tech companies who are charging it?

Non sequitur.

If a market is being ripped off by subscription, there is opportunity in selling the asset. Vice versa: if the asset sellers are ripping off the market, there is opportunity to turn it into a subscription. Business models tend to oscillate between these two for a variety of reasons. Nothing there suggets one mode is infinitely yielding.

> If Apple does finally come up with a fully on-device AI model that is actually useful, what makes you think they won't gate it behind a $20/mo subscription like they do for everything else?

If they can, someone else can, too. They can make plenty of money selling it straight.

> If a market is being ripped off by subscription, there is opportunity in selling the asset.

Only in theory. Nothing beats getting paid forever.

> Business models tend to oscillate between these two for a variety of reasons

They do? AFAICT everything devolves into subscriptions/rent since it maximizes profit. It's the only logical outcome.

> If they can, someone else can, too.

And that's why companies love those monopolies. So, no... other's can't straight up compete against a monopoly.