[bachmeier]

> I happily pay the subscription fees, because this is the only way to sustainably maintain an app.

No, it's not. Sustainably building an app requires revenue. Whether that revenue comes in the form of a subscription, a one-time payment, or multiple payments in return for updates does not matter to the developer. There's this idea that people are idiots, not knowing that they're paying more if it's a subscription. If that's your business model, you're screwed, because it doesn't work that way.

What makes subscription-only even worse is that it's a big burden to keep track of subscriptions and, if you decide to cancel, putting up with all that BS. I spend far less on software as a result of subscription models. I don't have time to play those games.

> And I'd much rather have a few really good apps than a plethora of half-baked ad-ridden garbage.

That's not the choice that's being made.

[jwr]

Do you run a software business for a living? I do. And I've done the calculations many times. It's exceedingly difficult to build a sustainable business based on B2C sales, and without subscriptions your customer lifetime value is basically nowhere. Either you have god-level skills at marketing and you're able to get your CAC rock-bottom-low, or your business is destined for failure.

Of course, you can also play the game of "a new major version every year". Build new features and encourage users to upgrade. I really dislike this approach, for two reasons: you end up with bloated software instead of well-maintained software (features need to be added to convince users to upgrade), and because it's really a subscription in disguise.

If you want proof, look around. There aren't many successful pay-once apps, and those that exist either play the upgrade game, or disappear after a couple of years.