But why should people do apps for free?

Obviously they want to be paid.

"having to set up payments, etc"

people (including me) complain about apple taking a 30% cut from developers, but for that money, they do make that part easy.

I should have been clearer. Apps from big publishers were more expensive than the indies in the 1980s. And indie shops that were charging ~$40 ($100 in 2024 dollars) for their titles. This is a direct comparison to the type of pomodoro app mentioned in the upthread comment.

The thing is, all software constantly needs new updates. If not platform-driven, then security, bug fixes, etc.

The more niche (like a pomodoro app), the fewer users over which to amortize the dev costs. A lifetime fee of $1, sold to a huge audience of 100k paid users, will pay for ~1 year of a single dev in the US, perhaps 2-3 years of a developer in a low-cost country. And then where does the money come from for updates in year 4 and beyond?

Subscription payments recognize the realities that a) development never ends for most apps that are in use and b) developers are not going to be free in the future just because the publisher only charged once.

Adobe was $600 per update. Per app.

This is happening with a lot of companies that don't really have to care about "startup value"; they're tiny (sometimes even one-person) shops that aren't likely to ever go public, be bought for millions, or so on. I think you've got the cause and effect reversed for a lot of these -- the App Store pricing model has driven the price people expect to pay for apps down substantially, which made the "buy outright and then buy a new version in a couple years, at a discount, if it appeals to you" model much harder to sustain. I don't love subscriptions for apps that don't have a server-side component, but I get it.

(The example of the Pomodoro app with the subscription is pretty dubious, though.)

> Why go that far back?

Because this is the era before really any major software was sold by subscription. Even 2008 was a hybrid era where some Web software was already subscription-based. Consumer behavior had already started to shift by 2008.

> for year apps were sold for a flat one-time fee.

This model also makes a lot of assumptions about where user data is stored and who is paying for that storage. Many apps have non-trivial backend requirements to support very normal use cases like "I also would like to access this from a Web browser sometimes." Those requirements cost money on an ongoing basis. One-time purchases are not a good fit for this either. We do not see many one-time purchases of Web software; many mobile apps are essentially parts of a larger whole that includes other modes of access to underlying services.

I totally agree with you. I don't mind paying for creative devs to build awesome software. I do mind cash grabs. Mobile gaming is the most frustrating category. It's sad that pay-once-no-ads games like Crashlands and 80 Days are the exception. Enterprise software is a close second, but I'm not paying those bills out of my own pocket.

That kind of proves that one time sales can be a successful business model, doesn't it?

They were a successful business employing 23 people after more than a decade on the one time sales model!

Subscription fatigue is very real today, but to your point, as a business you can't provide eternal updates (work) for free.

In the old days, you'd buy a new version of Mac or Windows or any software that you run on it (Office, Parallels, etc.) when you wanted the new features each year.

I think Apple's App Store has a lot to do with why everything is now subscription-based. They used to offer developers a smaller Apple-commission (15%) for subscription sales instead of the typical 30% for in-app purchase sales and paid-apps.

This was great for businesses, but in my opinion, only service businesses should be subscriptions - this transition would help reduce subscription fatigue. Normal software should mostly go back to just issuing new versions each year (or whatever frequency), so that consumers re-frame the purchase cycle to something that feels more reasonable again.

In order for this to occur, however, Apple may need to adjust the App Store algorithms. If you were to launch a new app (ex. "Kino v6"), you'd start all over again from day 1 with 0 app ratings and reviews, and not rank well on any keywords nor in the top apps charts.

Some apps simply rename their app with each new version, but that introduces similar complexities, especially for users who already paid & downloaded the previous "version". So in a big way, the App Store de-incentivizes any kind of transition away from a subscription-based business model.

The "new versions" business model vs. subscription may be similar cost to consumer (it wouldn't support monthly users), but it would allow consumers to only update when their ready and could continue using an old app version (especially on older devices) as long as they'd like. If a customer really likes the software, they'd likely buy the new version to access new features & device support before too long anyhow

What about releasing new features as in-app purchases? This way you can make money from existing users too.

I don't understand what people have against subscriptions.

To me that's the fairest. First, it incentives them to make a good product, and keep developing it as opposed to just throwing it out there and then not updating.

And secondly it's also fair for the customer. If I don't find something useful I might stop using it after a week, but I paid the full price, same as if I found it useful for years.

Sofas don't need constant bug fixes; they don't inexplicably stop working when someone upgrades their apartment with a new TV. Also, the up-front cost of a piece of furniture is a couple of orders magnitude higher than most apps, which help keeps the retailer in the black until it's time for the customer to buy another, similarly high priced item.