In 1995 or even 2001, this was a completely reasonable line. Most software was written for Windows, and Microsoft clearly considered it taboo to break old software, whether their own or third-party. You could install Office 95 on Windows XP if you really wanted to, which didn't seem unreasonable, as you spent $300+ on the suite.

Giving this advice to developers today is frankly absurd career advice.

1. Few apps can achieve the scale needed for a one-time fee to be sustaining for the app - most apps appeal to a finite set of people, and eventually most who are in your target market (and who are willing to spend actual upfront money), have bought the app.

2. An entire generation has grown up that has never paid more than maybe 99 cents for software, and most refuse to even pay that - they're used to adware. You can't price an "app" at $75 and expect it to be bought by essentially anyone. While adware can actually be a very financially viable route, many developers hate ads and want nothing to do with this model.

3. Unlike the multiple years of stability of old desktop operating systems, platform owners today think nothing of breaking even a plurality of apps with any major OS version - and for some insane reason they also think a new "major version" ought to come out annually.

If you want apps that cease getting updates after a few months and age very poorly, or just to have no choices out there besides adware, keep boycotting every developer who uses a subscription, regardless of how cheap it is.

If you want apps that are diligently maintained and which keep working forever, reward developers who produce apps with reasonable subscriptions. I have a password manager that's $19 a year and covers my whole family, and a podcast player that's $15. That password manager comes out to a nickel a day.

▲

artisinal a day ago | parent | next [-]

So if you have thirty apps installed that comes to $600 a year in subscriptions or $50 a month.

I pay exactly zero a month in subscriptions.

▲

xp84 a day ago | parent [-]

What a silly strawman though.

I wouldn't have enough time in the day (or month) to use 30 apps, or even 10, once you subtract all the first-party ones and ones that are just interfaces for things that are monetized separately (grocery store app, restaurant app, Uber, etc).

I have 3 paid subscription apps.[1] Total cost $43 a year. My only point was that if there's an app that is useful why shouldn't you pay a small amount per year that sustains it, guaranteeing that it gets good attention from a developer who is accountable not to their advertisers, but their users.

[1] Note: That doesn't count streaming services, but my family paid for cable 30 years ago and that was fine. It's entertainment.

	▲	cgriswald a day ago \| parent [-]
		I shouldn’t pay because I’ve already paid. Price updates for the same major version in. Let new sales be your incentive to keep it up-to-date. Let a new version I actually want be my incentive to spend more money. Subscriptions for software that don’t offer an external service put all the incentives backwards strictly to the benefit of the developer and expense of the user. There’s no question why it’s a great deal for the developer. But nothing you’ve said explains why any user should buy into this at all.

▲

encom a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not principally opposed to subscriptions, but subscribing to a camera app is absurd.

Your post prompted me to donate to KeepassXC, my subscriptionsless password manager, because I would be sad if that went away, and I would hate if the software landscape became even more a subscription hell than it already is.

Pedants corner:

>most apps appeal to a finite set of people

The set of people is finite.