[SamuelAdams]

You are very rare. Most people are not like you.

Apple tried this with iOS 2 and 3. Minor versions cost users roughly 5-10 USD per update.

Therefore many users did not install the latest OS on their devices. The cost, although small, was a barrier for many people.

Apple quickly pivoted and now all software updates are free of charge to all supported devices.

If Mozilla starts charging for Firefox, I predict either people stick with the oldest version that is free, or stop using Firefox and use a fork that maintains its free (in cost) license. Or maybe only 2% of users convert to a paid version of Firefox.

[mikeocool]

I don’t disagree with your point — however apple only charged for the early iOS updates on the iPod touch. And they only did it to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act — which required that if you upgraded a device not on a subscription, you had to charge.

They stopped doing it after they lobbied congress to change the law.

https://www.macworld.com/article/189247/ipodtouch-3.html

[jbaber]

Honsetly, pay-what-you-want-if-you-can would work well. Just make a button appear once in a while (that you can permanently turn off in about:config).

If firefox asked me once a month "Enjoying the entire internet? Is it worth $1 to you?" I'd press the button often.

[aaomidi]

OS updates are not comparable.

Apple charging for updates is idiotic because as a user I don’t have a choice to go use a different OS.

[aetch]

You do have a choice, just keep using the OS version you have. Just like using the an older Firefox version.

Adding security updates and new features costs time and money.

[evah]

If Apple delivers a defective device to the customer, I see no reason why they shouldn't be fixing it using the money the customer originally paid. A security vulnerability may eventually leave a device completely unusable.

[GTP]

The point is that with browsers there's also the option of using an entire different one, not just keeping an older version of the same browser.

[HighGoldstein]

There are a couple of problems with this argument. One is that with a device (especially a premium one) the cost of support for a reasonable lifetime is considered baked into the price. The other is that security updates imply a security issue, meaning the company sold you an insecure, i.e. defective device in the first place.

[redserk]

Apple seems to have made the economics work out well with devices alone.

You don’t even have to touch their services revenue to consider ongoing iOS development a significantly successful return on their investment.