If the developer isn't providing upgrades then they shouldn't keep getting paid for a product someone already bought. If the argument is that developers need _regular_ pay days then we have dedicated financial instruments for smoothing an irregular cash flow.
In any case, subscriptions aren't directly equivalent to upgrade pricing even when an upgrade is provided every subscription period because in an upgrade pricing model the end user can always choose to stop paying and continue to use software they already bought.
If the argument is that developers need _regular_ pay days then we have dedicated financial instruments for smoothing an irregular cash flow.
I think that ignores how little most developers make in the app store. They aren't rolling in money, most are just trying to figure out a way to eke out a living.
I think developers would make a ton more of money, if the App store didn't suck so badly. My spending on iOS apps has rather gone down over time, because the App universe got increasingly worse.
Oh yeah, I agree with you. I was replying to the above commenter about the Jetbrains subscription system and trying to understand how it differs from a pay-to-upgrade system.
Yes, most models converge in the case of frequent updates by the developer and regular usage by the customer and the customer upgrading regularly. The difference is, that when there are no regular updates, why should a developer get constantly paid? And sometimes, there are huge updates, which are not really reflected in value by a reasonable subscription. On the other side, the subscription model holds the customer hostage, the customer cannot decide to use an older version a bit longer and update later.
In any case, subscriptions aren't directly equivalent to upgrade pricing even when an upgrade is provided every subscription period because in an upgrade pricing model the end user can always choose to stop paying and continue to use software they already bought.