...really? Sez you! Your condescension aside, I regard it as a small, really insignificant, fee for good tools. I make my living from good tools in cabinetry/carpentry and learned looooooong ago that that's *the* way to craft better, more efficient, product. And as a result, make consistent money. Someone could say that chipped flint has a better cutting edge but I don't use those tools and would much rather buy, then take my circular blades to a professional sharpener when they need it. I am turning my photography into money, slowly but surely, and will pay the price for the tools necessary to enable that goal. YMMV.

There are a few holes here, I bought lightroom 5 in 2015 i think at full price around $142 I think, if i wanted to upgrade to lightroom standalone it would be $72 from any version of lightroom, any. Roughly every couple of years Adobe has put out a new version. So lightroom 7 if it is to be released should be this year. If they offer the same upgrade deal as they have for 6 then it should cost me around $72 I think thats worthwhile for me and a good reason not to buy 6.

if we work on lightroom 1 being $142 and $72 per upgrade 2,3,4,5,6 that would be around $500 if you skipped 1 each time it's around $280.

On your 10 year cycle thats between $28 and $50 a year compared with $120 a year (being European i can't get that low a subscription rate anyway).

I'm doing better on the standalone front with Lightroom and Affinity Photo, than I would be with a subscription. Unfortunately i buy lenses

so financially no better off

Don't assume that just because you use a Mac that a Mac OS upgrade won't kill LR5. Here's what Scott Kelby said about the NIK issue, which is equally applicable to older versions of LR:
https://scottkelby.com/google-makes-official-nik-collection-dead-qa/. Also, I don't think Adobe is ever going to introduce LR7 in a standalone version. Why should they? If that was their intention, they'd be selling upgrades to the standalone version of LR6. Finally, if you're not using plug-ins, why not? I'd suggest you rethink that.

And some word workers sharpen their won tools themselves and feel they get a better job for it. Some have only a few tools in their shop and make do with what they have; they innovate and make what they have work; some even use tools that do use electricity and they make beautiful cabinetry and instruments. The point is; you do not need the latest and greatest of everything to produce good work. Marketing makes you think you do but I guess it comes to who controls your mind; you or the media?

Only the professionals on this board "need" any particular software. A hobby isn't about needs, but wants and recreation. I say carpe diem!
When the hobby becomes more than I can afford without buying groceries or paying power bills, I'll find a new one. I can always resort to playing solitaire on my 1997 Win 95 laptop.

As for the media, please. That fear is for the weak minds who still want to hang on to the "good old days." Anybody over the age of 19 should be able to discern the difference.
If you can't afford updates, or have other priorities like feeding a family, there's no shame, just say "too rich for my blood."
But don't try to justify your stance to others with condescension, made up facts and weak-ass insinuations.

Your argument is well supported and if this were a high school debate tournament, in theory you would score several points. But theory is never reality. If only technology stood still. I remember my dad offering, in 1994, to pick me up a "deal" on a 70 meg hard drive for my x286 PC (with my new CGA monitor). My reply was that I could never imagine needing that much storage space. Now we have apps that are bigger than 70MB, some RAW photos bigger and even email attachments of 5mb are common. Oh wait, that offer was before email was available to the public.

In 2007, LR was on version 1.3.1, not version 5. That's the year when I bought my first DSLR. A Nikon D40 with a whopping 6mp. Still have it today and my wife loves using it. I've upgraded cameras thrice, desktops 3 times and laptops twice in last 7 years. Why? Well, FIOS didn't work with a 33k baud modem and I didn't have hours to wait for simple browsers to load. MS Office ate up all my HD space. Fast moving grandkids and a desire for more resolution and larger prints. Photographing my first love, football. and on and on ...

AND, I started saving pics to HD and a 1TB external drive, which I thought would be more space than I could conceivably ever need (belly laugh and knee slap here for not learning old lessons, doomed to repeat history, etc).
I'm quite sure LR 1.3.1 wouldn't even recognize a D500 NEF file. Maybe not even LR 5?

BTW.... here is where your passionate premise based on dubious supposition falls apart. Fact check...courtesy of Adobe website... In 2010, LR was only on version 3.3 by year end, with the introduction of a point curve. LR 5 was released in 2013, so you couldn't have had it for 7 years yet. It also requires OS X 10.7 or WIN 7 or 8 to operate (oops, another NEW PC purchase!)

So if I had to purchase new LR versions to keep up with my camera needs (desires?) and PC and OS to match.... in today's dollars I would likely have bought versions 1.3, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 for $149 each plus some necessary updates at $79 each (x 3 minimum) ...... all equals = $1131. Had it been available, I would spread LR CC over 120 months at $9.95 (excluding taxes on both sides of argument because I've lived in 4 states) = $1194.
A $63 difference or $6.30 per year, or $.53 per month.

I'll just remember to turn the lights off and lower the thermostat at night and pay for that "convenience" fee.