The AGPL is a completely unenforceable EULA, both practically and legally. It attempts to restrict your ability to run the software -- freedom 0
The AGPL will never ever succeed. It will only ever be used by egotistical idiots and dying companies that wish to sear a scarlet letter into their code -- noone but I may profit from this work
With a strict definition of "profit" this seems more a criticism of dual-licensed GPL works than the AGPL; software published under the AGPL does not grant any sort of monopoly to the person publishing it -- even if they were selling a proprietary version of the same code, it doesn't restrict third parties making money from it.
And if we weaken our definition of "profit" to mean some sort of benefit, then the argument is even weaker.
Third parties attempting to extend the software and sell access are intended to release source code. The only room for profit is in network effects -- any other attempt to sustain margins more than barely above actual costs would be tenuous, as someone else could come along and undercut you.
The copyright holder(s) that licensed their work under the AGPL are not subject to any such restrictions (no multi-licensing is necessary). There's no way to compete with them fairly.
Okay, so you're essentially describing a situation where the copyright holder offers access to a "pro" version and a "vanilla" version, with only the latter being licensed under the AGPL?
I would certainly concede that this scenario would make it difficult for third parties to maintain feature parity, but that's a long way from saying the AGPL offers "no way of competing" with the copyright holder; writing features that are not present in any version would be an obvious starting point. (You also grossly misrepresent the market for "network effects", but that's somewhat tangential)
The AGPL will never ever succeed. It will only ever be used by egotistical idiots and dying companies that wish to sear a scarlet letter into their code -- noone but I may profit from this work