There's some truth to that, but I'm not sold it's universally the case (or needs to be).
Speaking for myself, I pushed those minor updates - with lots of little feature enhancements - as soon as they were ready (sometimes mere days after being envisioned/suggested). The major upgrades generally included stuff reliant on larger overhaul efforts or new foundations. I wouldn't typically hold anything back artificially. My team was small (for a good portion of time solo) and our efforts were focused, which probably helped.
On the other hand, I've seen increasing examples in the last decade of meaningless UI changes that trip up the user by moving their cheese (instead of being carefully thought out in the first place), needless bugs introduced with no remorse, and a whole class of "features" there not for the user but instead to serve the interests of the vendor or their data-hoovering partners. (Windows sadly became a great example)
My beef isn't inherent to the subscription model itself, but the shift in revenue structure made it tempting for companies to uncouple development from user wants. Where upgrades used to be forged on the anvil of user acceptance and pitched to our wallets first, they're now shoved down our throats with little choice whether to adopt. (And cloud delivery eliminated the option to stay on that old version you liked better.)
I'm not convinced users jump ship quite so rapidly just to get new features. We saw a big move to mobile even when the apps lacked anywhere near the breadth of their desktop counterparts.
Personally I gravitate toward products which do a good job of solving their primary purpose. As an example, I loved Dropbox for years but plan to migrate away soon because sync got worse and their dev efforts have been focused on all kinds of new fluff I never wanted.
Speaking for myself, I pushed those minor updates - with lots of little feature enhancements - as soon as they were ready (sometimes mere days after being envisioned/suggested). The major upgrades generally included stuff reliant on larger overhaul efforts or new foundations. I wouldn't typically hold anything back artificially. My team was small (for a good portion of time solo) and our efforts were focused, which probably helped.
On the other hand, I've seen increasing examples in the last decade of meaningless UI changes that trip up the user by moving their cheese (instead of being carefully thought out in the first place), needless bugs introduced with no remorse, and a whole class of "features" there not for the user but instead to serve the interests of the vendor or their data-hoovering partners. (Windows sadly became a great example)
My beef isn't inherent to the subscription model itself, but the shift in revenue structure made it tempting for companies to uncouple development from user wants. Where upgrades used to be forged on the anvil of user acceptance and pitched to our wallets first, they're now shoved down our throats with little choice whether to adopt. (And cloud delivery eliminated the option to stay on that old version you liked better.)
I'm not convinced users jump ship quite so rapidly just to get new features. We saw a big move to mobile even when the apps lacked anywhere near the breadth of their desktop counterparts.
Personally I gravitate toward products which do a good job of solving their primary purpose. As an example, I loved Dropbox for years but plan to migrate away soon because sync got worse and their dev efforts have been focused on all kinds of new fluff I never wanted.