[zdragnar]

I think the argument is that you shouldn't choose to price a product as a subscription simply because you have recurring costs.

If I subscribe to a magazine or a streaming service, I continually get new content. Apps that aren't doing that are basically price gouging customers.

[hanifc]

It’s nice of you to consider the wellbeing of other users, but I think every adult has the right to make their own decisions about how to spend their money.

If it’s not a price you’re willing to pay, that’s fine. But if someone else gets value out of it and thinks it’s a fair trade, that’s between them and the app creator.

[simoncion]

> But if someone else gets value out of it and thinks it’s a fair trade, that’s between them and the app creator.

Since we're apparently now doing Freshman Civics:

There are many sorts of transactions that someone would get value from and think are a fair trade, but are prohibited for one reason or another.

Even for those somewhat-antisocial transactions that aren't prohibited, there's no rule that says that you can't complain about how those transactions could be more pro-social.

[oasisaimlessly]

> Even for those somewhat-antisocial transactions that aren't prohibited, there's no rule that says that you can't complain about how those transactions could be more pro-social.

Yeah, and there's also no rule that says that other people can't tell you to shut up.

[AlexeyBelov]

Why do you feel the need to tell them to shut up?

[_flux]

How about the argument that having recurring income incentivizes further development, whereas single-pay fees incentivize customer acquisition?

[zdragnar]

That's called gambling. Pay me now and maybe you'll like what comes next!

[_flux]

And the customers don't like it, they can stop paying.

Seems like a risk to the author. Keeping existing customers is typically easier than getting new ones.