[foolrush]

> Am I the only person who thinks Google specifically and the mobile app market in general combined with previously subsidized by carriers phones have completely destroyed the consumers perception of the value of software?

Not entirely fair to Google here.

No one would have purchased the original iPhone were it not heavily subsidized by AT&T. No one. One could argue that the same forces apply today regarding most phone purchasers.

> and god knows what else when if much rather just pay like $49 for a properly made application with a permanent license.

Except the numbers of downloads show that this approach isn't gaining traction. In fact, look at how many applications switched to a subscription model the moment Apple permitted it?

On the side of development, subscriptions make sense. Software development isn't a one-off fee to make software these days, as 99.995% of the people here realize.

Isn't subscription the only sustainable model?

[s73ver_]

"No one would have purchased the original iPhone were it not heavily subsidized by AT&T. No one."

The original iPhone was not subsidized by AT&T at all. It cost about $500, had lines of people waiting to buy it, and went on to sell about 6 million units, making it one of the best selling phones of it's time.

[foolrush]

I should have been clearer: it required a contract that AT&T offered lower data rates on the actual phone. This recovered the money they were paying to Apple IIRC. Still subsidized, but perhaps not explicitly on the phone itself.

[vilmosi]

I'm not agreeing with the grandparent either but I do have to admit that once carriers subsidised the iPhone, the sales skyrocketed. It can't be a coincidence.