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.

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.