For a company, the product itself, what makes money, cannot be OSS, as it makes its resell value effectively zero. If the software was OSS, then the software is _not_ the product, but added values are (support, consulting, etc... the classic trope)
But if the software itself wants to be the product, and is created by devs who require their monthly salary, typically the question is between a non-FOSS license or it not existing at all to begin with. Not between a non-FOSS and a FOSS license.
It can. I work for XWiki SAS, and we sell some extensions under LGPL at store.xwiki.com. And it works, people and especially companies, choose convenience over installing the tools to compile and install the extensions themselves. It works because it's usual and easy to understand for companies to pay for software, and way easier to justify than donations to sponsor free software.
There are also several open source Android or iOS apps that you can buy. OSMAnd+, Conversations, DAVx⁵, Amaze Tools, Fair apps and are/were examples of this
In this case I feel that the answer might ultimately be that it works because it is mostly a niche market and there are other value adds such as support from the makers themselves, which is always a good thing but already is not the software itself per se.
I don't think many companies would be confortable with such a brittle grasp on their sales. Basically it relies on nobody else wanting to do the same (and maybe risk that they execute better).
Imagine if Photoshop was OSS... well, it is good food for thought.
(EDIT re. the apps you mention: also interesting cases; not sure how much that model is actively hurting them or otherwise helping them, would love to see writeups from the companies or creators)
This is the point number one in their free software guideline,
