Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they need to keep earning your money a little at a time So release new products or paid updates, the way everyone did before subs. > A one-time unlock front-loads 100% of revenue Also known as "buying", which is a thing > making all maintenance work have negative ROI unless the app experiences constant, consistent growth forever Unless you release paid updates, which is what a number of developers do. > Eventually…
I am surprised to see your comment about bloat. If anything, the fact that you only ever got paid again for a major update, and an update HAD to have whiz-bang features to sell, that was what contributed to so much bloat. Think of how many home users needed anything that was added to Word from 1990-2000. By contrast, to keep subscribers happy you don’t need new features, you need to continually keep the experience gr…
So if you didn't do anything, why should you get paid?
> those paid updates are very likely to either be not consequential enough to justify paying, or to add bloat. Presumably, when you bought the app, you were satisfied with the functionality it already had (and indeed if they make big changes it often gets hate just for the disruptiveness).
So if your updates aren't doing me any good, why should you get paid?
> But my point is software costs money (time) to support, forever. And once a product (especially a specialized one) has already found most of its buyers, that means the developer has every incentive to abandon the app because maintaining or updating it is never going to justify the cost.
Some things aren't meant to last forever. Some apps aren't meant to be ongoing business models. Apple isn't still producing the computers it sold in the 90s. Sunsetting a product and ending support for it is a natural part of a product's life cycle. This is how pretty much every company operates.
Part of running a successful company is handling change and continually innovating and evolving, not just expecting your customer base to subsidize your stagnancy.
> So yes, a developer doing your preferred model absolutely must have a half dozen apps ... The mature ones will be left to wither even if they are widely-used and popular, because there aren’t enough new buyers.
That's part of business. I can't think of any successful business with only one single product that it maintains for eternity. There might be one, but that's not how normal businesses operate.
> many modern apps have a server-side component which needs to be paid for forever.
I don't have a problem with paying for resources I'm actually using. I use a note-taking app that includes a cloud subscription for syncing across devices; I'm fine with paying for that, because I'm getting something in return that I actually want and use.
> The updates I’m talking about, which you “don’t want to pay for,” include “making the app continue to run on a current OS”
What I said—and what you included in your quote—was "maybe I don't feel I need any updates". I want a choice. "Stupid feature we added just to justify demanding 10 bucks a month from you" is one thing. "This app works on the latest OS release" is another.
Copying-and-pasting from above: I'm fine with paying for that, because I'm getting something in return that I actually want and use.
Your basic logic here is that you just want to write one little app and then sit back and have that one little app support you for the rest of your life. That's not a reasonable business model. I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but that's just you wanting money without having to work for it.
Essentially you're trying to take an unprofitable way of working and force it to be profitable by demanding money you don't deserve. I think that's wrong. A lot of us think that's wrong. And I'd go so far as to say that, judging by every tech forum I'm active on, most of us—with the exception of a handful of wealthy tech influencers and their dev friends—think that's wrong.
So yeah. As I said: Grubby.