It looks like the trend is moving toward Subscription Software (Ransomware) . I predict, in a few years, most top level application software and all Operating Systems will be via subscription only.
The companies are going this route because it is to their advantage to do so. It gives them a solid base of almost guarantied cash flow from which to work without the need for new sales. It also gives them much greater control over the use of their software by the consumer.

Here is what I don’t like about the ‘Ransomware’ business model as a consumer.
It forces me to accept possible unwanted updates and changes to the way the program looks and feels. This means I will always be behind the learning curve or a feature I like might be removed against my wishes.
It costs me each month, weather I use the software or not.
As a very light user(once every few months), I am forced to subsidies the mega-user who uses the program every day, all day long. (My computer has a good number of programs I have used only once in several years and some I will use only if required, due to a problem.)
It tends to lock me in to using only that software and therefore subjects me to creeping increases to the monthly rate; and other whims and abuses by the provider, over which I have no control.
In the long-run, cost/use will be higher for me; especially if it sets on my computer for a long time.

Not necessarily true. The raw file contains a much wider range of information (12 to 14 stops, these days). The JPEG contains around 5.5 to 6 stops of information. So if you record a raw image, you can use post-processing software to compress the tonal range of the raw file into the usable range of a JPEG file. OR, you can pick which part of the information you wish to save in the JPEG file. Or a bit of both...

Many people work exclusively in raw. They deliberately "expose to the right" or "expose beyond the right" of the histogram. The "blinkies" are blinking, but they know (through prior testing) that they can "overexpose" their raw files by a stop or so and still record recoverable highlight detail. A side benefit of this is improved shadow detail and enhanced dynamic range. In this case, they totally disregard the look of the JPEG preview image... They know they will process the raw file to get what they want.

As a software writer, and user, and armature photographer, I would say that the leasing of mature product such as Adobe wants to do with Photo Shop, is done and has been done because the company felt that the market might be willing to pay the cost for the product and service. I for one have an old copy of that software, I don't need a new one I don't need up-dates, just like my 2008 car it works fine for me. That is what Abode has taken away, I can not buy a new one because it is not available. I bought my photo shop 10 years ago, I bought my car the same year. I can buy a new car and drive it for 10 years, I can not buy a new Photo Shop. As for cost of maintenance and support, they have spread the Kool-aid and many have consumed. It takes a ton of work to develop new software, granted, but what Adobe has spent on up-dates and support on PS is miniscule in compared to the profits the generate with this flag ship product. I have a friend who is a graphics artist he has 3 seats of the latest PS with all of the whistles and bells. I work for him from time to time as he has observed they have you over the barrel he used to buy the annual service for his product, that was a tenth the cost of the lease fee. Adobe like others knows their audience, we vote with our dollars. The sales of PS are down year over year as many of the users are like me using one of the last standalone offerings and not up-grading. So it is up to companies to run there business as they see best, as consumers if we are unhappy look for a product that will work for you. However my knowledge of software tells me this is a cash cow for Adobe, because the software is ageless in its need, so they can do a little and reap alot.

When we buy a car we expect to use it for a while and then when parts need ‘upgrading’ we either pay for the repairs or get a new car.
Alternatively we lease the car, upgrade it every couple of years and keep paying a lease charge.
BUT when we want a software package we expect the company to keep investing money to upgrade it and then supply us with the upgrades forever, free of charge. If that company decides that is not a way to keep their shareholders happy and wants to lease the packages with perpetual upgrades, we holler that is not fair and the company is greedy! Using that last thought process I should be able to pay a one time fee to my cable company and then get to use their services forever with no additional charges. I can give many more ludicrous examples however the point should be clear. There ain't no free lunch.

RAW is not a universal file. It requires special sotware to bring back all the goodness the file has to offer. Because it is raw data from the sensor none of the settings made to the camera will take effect, that you have to do during editing. A JPEG file is a universal file, all editing programs can read it. If you are experienced editing JPEG files there are many parameters that can be changed and WB is one of them...but you have to know what you are doing.
I have shot many JPEG files with my D610 and honestly, the files need very little to no adjustments in Photoshop, that good I find them in quality.

Here's the deal. The menu settings on your camera, including white balance, are all used to process the JPEG preview image you see on the camera's LCD, and any JPEG FILE you save in the camera.

The JPEG PREVIEW image is stuffed inside the raw file, if you save one.

Part of ALL JPEG images, including the preview, is an EXIF table of metadata, or data about data. The EXIF table is what actually STORES the white balance and other menu settings from the camera!

A RAW file — and a NEF is Nikon's raw file format — is simply ALL the digitized data coming from the sensor array, with almost no processing done to it. It's in 14-bits per color channel mode. So it has billions of possible pixel colors. So yes, a .NEF file IS a true Nikon raw image.

A DNG file is Adobe's Digital Negative file. Essentially, it too, is a raw file, but it is converted from the proprietary camera file format to a UNIVERSAL, PUBLIC DOMAIN raw format.

All raw files are not the same! Every model of camera generates a slightly different format of raw. It may have the same .NEF, .CR2, .RW2, or other manufacturer's extension, but a .NEF from a Nikon D300s is not the same as a .NEF from a D810. The difference is a color profile code. Each camera model has its own sensor characteristics, and unless your software knows what they are, it cannot open the file. NIKON software always knows how to read the camera it came with. Adobe and other third party software companies have to come up with their own "keys" to the code for each new camera model. Inevitably, Adobe's defaults do not look like Nikon's, or Canon's, or another manufacturer's defaults. They look like the folks at Adobe think they should look like.

When you open a raw file, MOST camera manufacturers' supplied software will read the EXIF table from the preview image, and convert the raw data to a bitmap that looks like the JPEG, because the software is using the same parameters that the camera used for processing. But you have COMPLETE control over that bitmap before you save it as a TIFF or JPEG! You can improve the processing by adjusting the sliders in your software. Hopefully, you will be using a calibrated and custom ICC-profiled monitor, suitable for adjusting images, when you adjust them! Otherwise, you risk wrecking perfectly good color, and your lab or friends on the Internet will not see what you saw.

For now. If anyone has the idea of investing in a camera system over the years, lenses etc. - rather than buying a new smartphone every two years by comparison - then the situation WILL be very different one, two, or five years from now. A simple camera is easy, but the investment in a system has longevity. There are reasons why Nikon and Canon have been cautious about the market for mirrorless cameras, they have the most to lose. They can also step back, watch, and let others invest in what makes a successful product and the mistakes that they make.

As I have stated several times, I would not personally buy a Nikon or Canon mirrorless now, despite my investment in Canon gear, but it won't be long before the market landscape changes. This is a well proven pattern with technology products and companies. Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus are the current leaders in mirrorless for sure. Canon is behind, Nikon is missing in action. However if lenses are part of the puzzle, then moving to full frame system is a big shift unless you already have a stable of full frame lenses. It is much easier to produce a full frame mirrorless camera than a portfolio of lenses. Both Nikon and Canon have those. Apparently Canon has three separate full frame mirrorless development projects in flight. We have to wait and see what comes to fruition, but I am confident that Canon will get it right. I also expect Nikon to do the same, they're just lagging a little bit. Neither Nikon nor Canon are a 'dead end' for mirrorless cameras, they're just slow starters with big budgets and a lot of incentive to get it right.