I think it’s totally legitimate to say ‘this company is not providing anything of value’ but I think the way to say that is to argue ‘they mostly just make money off people who forget to cancel subscriptions: look, it’s inconvenient to cancel subscriptions and they don’t notify you when they’re about to charge you money” or “they have been trying to stop other companies from selling [ink that works in their printer; blades that go in their razor; juice bags that go in their juicer]’ or “this breaks down really quickly and is a shoddy product”.
In other words, if they’re not providing anything of value, there’s probably some more specific thing they are doing wrong. “they are selling something I think you’d have to be stupid to want” does not count. “They are selling subscriptions” doesn’t count. If there’s a shady business practice, criticize that; if you can’t find any shady business practices, then maybe other people actually want the thing and loudly insisting that no one wants the thing is a pretty bad criticism of the business.
It is absolutely not true that any company selling something is creating value. But the existence of shady business practices and bad products doesn’t mean all you have to do to prove a company is shady/ has a bad product is point and laugh. And if you can’t name anything the company is doing wrong, and people are using the product, I do think the simplest assumption is that they want it and it’s worth the money to them, and that it’s condescending to insist they’ve somehow been deceived.
I totally get your point, but marketing very much exists, and people spend millions figuring out strategies with which to sell things to people who actually have absolutely no need for them.