Sorry....will never give in to a subscription model and neither should anyone else!
Subscriptions make a lot of sense for certain applications.
Microsoft Office 365 is an OUTSTANDING deal on a subscription. Instead of buying Office every few years for several hundred dollars (upgrade fee) you pay $99 a year (I have the Home subscription for 5 users). So you end up paying the same, but get regular updates and features, instead of one big update every few years. To top it off, MS throws in 5TB storage (1 per user).
I doubt Apple is trying to get ALL developers to go to subscriptions, as many Apps simply don’t fit that model. More likely they met with developers with Apps that made sense to use a subscription model - those that provide an on-going service as opposed to a “fixed function” App (like a calculator).
I find it funny when people complain about subscriptions for software when they already pay “subscription fees” for everyday services (cable, internet, cell phone...).
I bought Office 2003? and it lasted until 2011 which I'm using now. so if the app lasts 8 years, the subscription cost is $800 vs the $300 I paid to buy it outright?
Office 365 is the equivalent of the old Office Professional. What did your Office 2011 include? Support for 5 users? Up to 10 devices including mobile? Word, Excel, PowerPoint only or the full suite that came with Professional? 5TB of cloud storage? 300 minutes of Skype per month?
For the people who want to pay once for an App, I have a question. If a developer creates an App and sells it at a fixed price, where’s the incentive to continue supporting it (new features or bug fixes)? Do you honestly expect that after paying your one-time fee that you should be provided a bug-free updated App for life? If an App is popular then the developer would likely take in a huge amount of money in a short time. What prevents them from “taking the money and running” and leaving you without support?
what’s next, a bed that charges you each time you sleep in it? A chair each time you sit down? FaaS = Furniture as a Service?
Sorry, Apple, charging people for bug fixes and no work, it’s unethical. I buy a product, and I expect bug fixes are part of what I pay for. If I should outgrow that product, I may decide to buy a newer, hopefully better version of that product, or a different product.
But I will not let it happen that my critical data is held hostage to my ability to pay arbitrary subscription fees. If I don’t own the software, I don’t own my data, and that can’t happen.
This sheds also a light onto the discontinuation of Aperture, macOS Server, etc. and the crippling of various features without big iCloud subscription.
Subscriptions/renting are not "the same as" buying with financing.
So, no buying an iPhone ever 2 years does not mean you are paying a "subscription" for iOS. If you have an original iPhone (in working order) you can still use it as a phone or as a (old, limited feature) iPod touch if you don't want to subscribe to a data plan.
If you buy groceries with a credit card and don't pay your bill each month in full, you are paying finance charges (at a very high interest rate), but you aren't "renting" your groceries.
If you rent your house and can no longer afford the monthly rent, you're in a very different situation than someone who can no longer afford their mortgage payment.
I have plenty of software that I bought (a license for) years ago that I still use today. If I didn't upgrade my OS, I would have a lot more software like that. There is a role for that model and a role for the software subscription model. In the business world, paying a fixed cost per user per month is a lot more manageable than buying licenses.
Personally, I wish more companies simply offered options. 1. Subscription: pay a lower price annually or monthly and get to use the software until you stop paying. 2. Lifetime purchase: pay a higher one-time price and get the software and free upgrades as they happen (most iOS apps) 3, Major version purchase: pay an intermediate price for the software you can use forever with patches as they are released, but you'll have to pay an upgrade fee for major new releases (but less than the cost of a first-time purchaser buying the same software).
Option 3 is what we're used to and it's the one option that the App Store doesn't support, unfortunately.
I haven’t been that happy with the subscription model, but I understand the economics of why it is better for apps that are continuously updated. In a way, it’s just following the “freemium” and “lootbox” revenue models pioneered by online & mobile games, but without the gambling/addiction gamification needed to sustain a revenue stream. I’d support it if it meant perpetual updates and fresh content.
what’s next, a bed that charges you each time you sleep in it? A chair each time you sit down? FaaS = Furniture as a Service?
Sorry, Apple, charging people for bug fixes and no work, it’s unethical. I buy a product, and I expect bug fixes are part of what I pay for. If I should outgrow that product, I may decide to buy a newer, hopefully better version of that product, or a different product.
But I will not let it happen that my critical data is held hostage to my ability to pay arbitrary subscription fees. If I don’t own the software, I don’t own my data, and that can’t happen.
This sheds also a light onto the discontinuation of Aperture, macOS Server, etc. and the crippling of various features without big iCloud subscription.
Time to seriously reconsider Linux or FreeBSD.
You will get bug fixes more readily when the developer isn't starving. And if you are not happy, end the subscription.
I haven’t been that happy with the subscription model, but I understand the economics of why it is better for apps that are continuously updated. In a way, it’s just following the “freemium” and “lootbox” revenue models pioneered by online & mobile games, but without the gambling/addiction gamification needed to sustain a revenue stream. I’d support it if it meant perpetual updates and fresh content.
Not really, in app purchases are not the same as a subscription. Much worse in my opinion.
Sorry....will never give in to a subscription model and neither should anyone else!
Subscriptions make a lot of sense for certain applications.
Microsoft Office 365 is an OUTSTANDING deal on a subscription. Instead of buying Office every few years for several hundred dollars (upgrade fee) you pay $99 a year (I have the Home subscription for 5 users). So you end up paying the same, but get regular updates and features, instead of one big update every few years. To top it off, MS throws in 5TB storage (1 per user).
I doubt Apple is trying to get ALL developers to go to subscriptions, as many Apps simply don’t fit that model. More likely they met with developers with Apps that made sense to use a subscription model - those that provide an on-going service as opposed to a “fixed function” App (like a calculator).
I find it funny when people complain about subscriptions for software when they already pay “subscription fees” for everyday services (cable, internet, cell phone...).
I bought Office 2003? and it lasted until 2011 which I'm using now. so if the app lasts 8 years, the subscription cost is $800 vs the $300 I paid to buy it outright?
Oh! Now there you go again! Screwing up the whole system with facts and logic! Geez!
Context needs to be given in this article.
Originally, when apps were created, Apple does not allow developers to charge for major upgrades of the same apps. That meant that developers could not charge again ever.
Now, we have subscription model and it seems to be the best way to keep them existing if you want to support their businesses.
Don't like it? Tough. Developers need to make a living. Pay up or use free apps.
I think chargeable upgrades are exactly the way to go. If the developer puts in significant work to produce a better version of an app, they should be able to charge for it. If they don't put in that work (as leading players have been accused of) then why do they deserve more money? The upgrade model puts the decision about the value of the updates into the users' hands.
If there aren't significant updates then why is the developer entitled to a continuing revenue stream anyway? If they're not updating, presumably they're working on something else that they will then sell, thus maintaining their income.
This model also addresses the common issue of 'feature-bloat' where a developer has to keep adding features, whatever their value to users, to justify continuing revenue. Some apps have a natural 'finished' state where more features will just degrade their core functions (iTunes anyone?); no update = no charge justifies ending updates and, hopefully, both developer and user will have a further happy relationship on a new product.
That works from an ethical standpoint. But in real life I suspect that the majority of people, when faced with an upgrade fee will simply just ignore it and stay with the old version. Subscriptions solve that issue because instead of being a question of old or new its "New or nothing". (NOT that I'm defending subscriptions, just that I see the rationale for them.)
If a service/app offers ongoing provision of new information/data/research etc., then subscription makes sense. If the service/app is simply static, occasionally updated software, then never does subscription make sense. For example, I'd never see any sense in subscribing to Microsoft Office 365 or Adobe Creative Suite/Cloud. They're dead to me. Instead, I am far happier with buying permanent licenses for equivalent software. That makes sense. I pay subscription fees for rolling media streaming services and news sources.
Whether currently Apple gets this or not isn't clear. What is clear is that Apple is to blame for their own ridiculous concept that a user pays for an app once, then never again. If Apple bothered to take the time, there is NO reason an update fee system for significantly updated apps can't be instituted. They only have to DO it. Their reluctance is irrelevant. Apple is acting as a service and conscientious protector. They have no role to play as authoritarian dictators to the developers and customers they serve. If Apple is going the way of Fearless Leader overlord of all it surveys, they've driven their future off a cliff like so many corporatocracy clowns in our current era of parasitic biznizziz. Historically, Apple has striven to be the opposite of parasites.
If you don’t see the value in Office 365 then you’ve never done a cost analysis comparison with Office 365 and regular Office. Or you live in Bizzaro World and have a very specific use-case where paying almost the same price and getting less makes sense.
Why do I need (as opposed to want) to upgrade to the latest Office? Perhaps 2010 is fine, 2013 is ok, 2016 works well for me, you see where I'm going.
So, in my Bizzaro World, we upgrade to a new version if it meets an unfilled need. There is VERY little in new Office that I desire, much less need.
For me, I'd rather not have a triple digit bill each month for subscriptions to app that I use infrequently.
Shoot, even my workout app went subscription! After the revolt, they decided that existing customers would be grandfathered and avoid the $4.99 monthly bill.
This is like cord cutting that started out as a way to lower/eliminate your TV viewing bill. Now, NetFlix, Prime, CBS, HBO, Plex, etc, etc. You have to add your expanded internet bill to that. How much are you saving? No, no. Now it's for binge watching. Hooray!
Naaah, I'll stay bizarre and resist subscriptions as far as I can.
Yep! I think Microsoft took their lead from the American car industry of the 50's & 60's. They moved stuff around and changed the colors and called it a "New" car! But, it was just the old one in a new wrapper...
Sorry....will never give in to a subscription model and neither should anyone else!
Subscriptions make a lot of sense for certain applications.
Microsoft Office 365 is an OUTSTANDING deal on a subscription. Instead of buying Office every few years for several hundred dollars (upgrade fee) you pay $99 a year (I have the Home subscription for 5 users). So you end up paying the same, but get regular updates and features, instead of one big update every few years. To top it off, MS throws in 5TB storage (1 per user).
I doubt Apple is trying to get ALL developers to go to subscriptions, as many Apps simply don’t fit that model. More likely they met with developers with Apps that made sense to use a subscription model - those that provide an on-going service as opposed to a “fixed function” App (like a calculator).
I find it funny when people complain about subscriptions for software when they already pay “subscription fees” for everyday services (cable, internet, cell phone...).
I bought Office 2003? and it lasted until 2011 which I'm using now. so if the app lasts 8 years, the subscription cost is $800 vs the $300 I paid to buy it outright?
Office 365 is the equivalent of the old Office Professional. What did your Office 2011 include? Support for 5 users? Up to 10 devices including mobile? Word, Excel, PowerPoint only or the full suite that came with Professional? 5TB of cloud storage? 300 minutes of Skype per month?
For the people who want to pay once for an App, I have a question. If a developer creates an App and sells it at a fixed price, where’s the incentive to continue supporting it (new features or bug fixes)? Do you honestly expect that after paying your one-time fee that you should be provided a bug-free updated App for life? If an App is popular then the developer would likely take in a huge amount of money in a short time. What prevents them from “taking the money and running” and leaving you without support?
I wish Apple would just allow bloody upgrade pricing! I’m more than happy to pay for a new version of an app if a new version is out. But The whole subscription model thing assumes that I use all my apps every month, which I don’t!
subscriptions work for music services because there’s always new content available. Subscriptions work for video because we rarely want to watch things over and over.
I dont need my word word processor or graphics app to be a subscription service because I might go months without using either one, then I might use it every day for a few months. I would rather just buy it and use it until it isn’t compatible with my device/OS.
As others have pointed out, you don’t seem to understand how subscription works. Your own example is a perfect case for subscription over outright purchase: an app you use very occasionally and in bursts saves you significant money by buying only during the period when you need it, and ending the subscription when you don’t — rather than buying the full or nearly full price of the app every couple of years when the old version is no longer updated/functional under the latest OS or has features you want, etc.
Can you even imagine how many thousands of dollars you’d have paid for Creative Suite under the old model, over let’s say five years, when you only use it let’s say two months of the year, compared to the $100/year you’d pay under the subscription model to use the supported and updated CC suite for two months a year now?
I’m not a fan of subscriptions for everything, but reality outside of the computer world suggests that this model works better in a wide variety of cases, so it makes sense that it would work for certain software cases.
I might add that the Mac and iOS user base’s demand for $1-$3 apps (okay, $5-$25 apps for Macs) is what’s driving the subscription model. Developers have to make a living, and subscription is incredibly attractive over one-time purchases once every few years ... to the point that hundreds of devs now offer their apps on SetApp, from which they probably get $1 a month (maybe) per user. But $12/year every year is $60 over five years ... more than you’ve likely paid in upgrades for any app you’ve owned.
Last but not least, if there’s really as big a market for one-time purchase as is being claimed here, then the subscription market will collapse and “standalone” prices on most apps will simply go way up. The market will tell you fairly quickly over the next couple of years if you “never subscription” people (who likely make insurance payments, cable payments, cell payments, etc) are right or not.
My biggest worry about subscription models is that when you stop paying, your software dies, even if over the years you've paid way more than the purchase price would have been if you bought a perpetual license. I would be less worried if it just stopped getting updates but continued to work indefinitely in an unchanging fashion with no new features.
While you are in a well paid job, subscription pricing is fine. You can well afford it. Along with subscriptions to cable, satellite and online TV services that provide more hours of content than you can possibly ever consume at a price which is more than buying the Blu-ray and DVD disks and having access to the same contet indefinitely. You could easily blow more than several hundred dollars a month on a rental lifestyle that is affordable now but not later when you get older.
When you retire and live on a low and fixed income (pension) or just try to eke out your savings, you cannot afford the rental fees and your software dies. You won't be watching much TV either because you won't be able to afford those rental fees. That means you can no longer open the family history photograph collection, play the videos, edit the media and other assets you collected over the years. You are now hostage to a subscription that you can no longer afford.
Nobody seems to have a plan for senior citizens being able to pay for a one time perpetual license for a locked and non upgrading version of the software when they want to exit the subscription.
If you like subscriptions, that's fine and that might be just what you want but I wish the software providers would give us other alternatives as well. Instead of trying to lock us in to a more expensive licensing model.
There are always other alternatives out there and I would hope that the companies who offer perpetual licensing would then thrive on the business from people who want to migrate away from subscription based models.
If there aren't significant updates then why is the developer entitled to a continuing revenue stream anyway?
Subscriptions can be cancelled.
Not if the apps then stop working.
Other apps are always available. Pay to use it for a year, then if you're not happy about it not being updated, refuse to pay any more and find another app.
I’d suspected as such, what with the blatant favouring of subscription-based apps in the App Store (I stupidly started reading the new App Store’s articles when it launched. They always, ALWAYS highlight cool new apps, and forget to mention that this cool new calculator app wants a fucking subscription for it.)
I’m a poor person, but I’m really in to Apple stuff - and if I wasn’t I would have significant lock-in stresses if I wanted to move away (and probably wouldn’t save much in the long run if I did, especially as I don’t upgrade to every new iPhone etc). At least before, it was possible to be a poor Apple customer. But these subscriptions really add up - I find it disgusting that people expect to be constantly remunerated for some bloody currency converter they developed. Argh. Apple you fuck me off these days
I'm a developer, as well as a long-time platform user of both iOS and MacOS.
I'm currently developing a western music notation composition application (with playback) that will support full notation at least according to a well-known music notation book, and will be able to be used for composing symphonic works.
Why would I do such a thing, when there are a fairly decent number of other applications that exist for the task?
Simple: they all suck in one or more ways, even though most have been out for several years. They suck in:
Usability
Completeness/correctness for standard music notation
Limited number of parts
Stability
Sound quality
Slowness for entering/editing music
They're all pretty cheap, considering what they should be able to do for the user.
They're all pretty expensive, when you consider how much time/energy is lost fighting those issues to compose something.
The majority of their updates have been to fix bugs that shouldn't have ever existed in the first place: really, western style music notation is a rather well-known solved problem: there are several thick books that fully document layout rules!
Experience in watching what happens on the App Store is that things that are updated get attention from would-be customers. Well, I know how to develop software that, with a given feature set, I won't have a useful reason to be updating it to fix crashing bugs, and since (again) the problem is so well-defined, I see no valid reason to spend a huge amount of time trying to wrack my brain to come up with upgrades, which Apple doesn't have a good model for, where subscriptions would make more sense.
And then there's the sad reality: the majority of App Store customers are cheap bastards with exactly no concept of how much time/effort/money/energy it takes to become skilled enough to develop a great application, and a huge number on the store are either developed by those with very little experience (and it shows) or, because of the race to the bottom pushed on by the typical customer, it makes no financial sense for a developer to spend the time/energy/money for proper testing, so people complain about the quality, while also whining they're still too expensive (and yet, they're stupidly, unsustainably cheap) when there's pretty much no chance for a developer to come close to breaking even in the endeavor, because App Store customers are cheap bastards.
Thus, it seems probable that unless something really changes in a very interesting way, freeware with ads will give some developers a tiny income that doesn't cover expenses for most applications because people won't go for subscriptions, are too cheap to pay a fair price for the functionality of an app of a given complexity, and all that's left are applications for big companies for shopping (like Amazon.com) where it doesn't matter that the applications are "free" because they're just a tool to get customers to spend money otherwise.
What's a developer supposed to do, starve to make cheap bastards happy? At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how good/bad/ugly the OS and platform is: if it isn't financially-viable to risk developing software for it, the platform will go away into the dustbin of history as it stagnates and dies due to no commercial viability in the ecosystem, and then the process repeats on the next platform.
This post is brought to you from someone with a perspective as a developer that's worked on multiple platforms that no longer exist, due to having that long of experience. The cheaper customers are, the more they need to spend eventually, because they are forced to change platforms entirely over time and leave all their old software and hardware behind.
Comments
Office 365 is the equivalent of the old Office Professional. What did your Office 2011 include? Support for 5 users? Up to 10 devices including mobile? Word, Excel, PowerPoint only or the full suite that came with Professional? 5TB of cloud storage? 300 minutes of Skype per month?
For the people who want to pay once for an App, I have a question. If a developer creates an App and sells it at a fixed price, where’s the incentive to continue supporting it (new features or bug fixes)? Do you honestly expect that after paying your one-time fee that you should be provided a bug-free updated App for life? If an App is popular then the developer would likely take in a huge amount of money in a short time. What prevents them from “taking the money and running” and leaving you without support?
I delete every single subscription based app.
what’s next, a bed that charges you each time you sleep in it? A chair each time you sit down? FaaS = Furniture as a Service?
Sorry, Apple, charging people for bug fixes and no work, it’s unethical. I buy a product, and I expect bug fixes are part of what I pay for. If I should outgrow that product, I may decide to buy a newer, hopefully better version of that product, or a different product.
But I will not let it happen that my
critical data is held hostage to my ability to pay arbitrary subscription fees. If I don’t own the software, I don’t own my data, and that can’t happen.
This sheds also a light onto the discontinuation of Aperture, macOS Server, etc. and the crippling of various features without big iCloud subscription.
Time to seriously reconsider Linux or FreeBSD.
Subscriptions/renting are not "the same as" buying with financing.
So, no buying an iPhone ever 2 years does not mean you are paying a "subscription" for iOS. If you have an original iPhone (in working order) you can still use it as a phone or as a (old, limited feature) iPod touch if you don't want to subscribe to a data plan.
If you buy groceries with a credit card and don't pay your bill each month in full, you are paying finance charges (at a very high interest rate), but you aren't "renting" your groceries.
If you rent your house and can no longer afford the monthly rent, you're in a very different situation than someone who can no longer afford their mortgage payment.
I have plenty of software that I bought (a license for) years ago that I still use today. If I didn't upgrade my OS, I would have a lot more software like that. There is a role for that model and a role for the software subscription model. In the business world, paying a fixed cost per user per month is a lot more manageable than buying licenses.
Personally, I wish more companies simply offered options.
1. Subscription: pay a lower price annually or monthly and get to use the software until you stop paying.
2. Lifetime purchase: pay a higher one-time price and get the software and free upgrades as they happen (most iOS apps)
3, Major version purchase: pay an intermediate price for the software you can use forever with patches as they are released, but you'll have to pay an upgrade fee for major new releases (but less than the cost of a first-time purchaser buying the same software).
Option 3 is what we're used to and it's the one option that the App Store doesn't support, unfortunately.
Jesus, the drama.
Also nobody really owns software, its licensed.
Not really, in app purchases are not the same as a subscription. Much worse in my opinion.
Can you even imagine how many thousands of dollars you’d have paid for Creative Suite under the old model, over let’s say five years, when you only use it let’s say two months of the year, compared to the $100/year you’d pay under the subscription model to use the supported and updated CC suite for two months a year now?
I’m not a fan of subscriptions for everything, but reality outside of the computer world suggests that this model works better in a wide variety of cases, so it makes sense that it would work for certain software cases.
I might add that the Mac and iOS user base’s demand for $1-$3 apps (okay, $5-$25 apps for Macs) is what’s driving the subscription model. Developers have to make a living, and subscription is incredibly attractive over one-time purchases once every few years ... to the point that hundreds of devs now offer their apps on SetApp, from which they probably get $1 a month (maybe) per user. But $12/year every year is $60 over five years ... more than you’ve likely paid in upgrades for any app you’ve owned.
Last but not least, if there’s really as big a market for one-time purchase as is being claimed here, then the subscription market will collapse and “standalone” prices on most apps will simply go way up. The market will tell you fairly quickly over the next couple of years if you “never subscription” people (who likely make insurance payments, cable payments, cell payments, etc) are right or not.
While you are in a well paid job, subscription pricing is fine. You can well afford it. Along with subscriptions to cable, satellite and online TV services that provide more hours of content than you can possibly ever consume at a price which is more than buying the Blu-ray and DVD disks and having access to the same contet indefinitely. You could easily blow more than several hundred dollars a month on a rental lifestyle that is affordable now but not later when you get older.
When you retire and live on a low and fixed income (pension) or just try to eke out your savings, you cannot afford the rental fees and your software dies. You won't be watching much TV either because you won't be able to afford those rental fees. That means you can no longer open the family history photograph collection, play the videos, edit the media and other assets you collected over the years. You are now hostage to a subscription that you can no longer afford.
Nobody seems to have a plan for senior citizens being able to pay for a one time perpetual license for a locked and non upgrading version of the software when they want to exit the subscription.
If you like subscriptions, that's fine and that might be just what you want but I wish the software providers would give us other alternatives as well. Instead of trying to lock us in to a more expensive licensing model.
There are always other alternatives out there and I would hope that the companies who offer perpetual licensing would then thrive on the business from people who want to migrate away from subscription based models.
Most of these subscriptions will be dollars a year, if that.
I’m a poor person, but I’m really in to Apple stuff - and if I wasn’t I would have significant lock-in stresses if I wanted to move away (and probably wouldn’t save much in the long run if I did, especially as I don’t upgrade to every new iPhone etc). At least before, it was possible to be a poor Apple customer. But these subscriptions really add up - I find it disgusting that people expect to be constantly remunerated for some bloody currency converter they developed. Argh. Apple you fuck me off these days
I'm currently developing a western music notation composition application (with playback) that will support full notation at least according to a well-known music notation book, and will be able to be used for composing symphonic works.
Why would I do such a thing, when there are a fairly decent number of other applications that exist for the task?
Simple: they all suck in one or more ways, even though most have been out for several years. They suck in:
They're all pretty cheap, considering what they should be able to do for the user.
They're all pretty expensive, when you consider how much time/energy is lost fighting those issues to compose something.
The majority of their updates have been to fix bugs that shouldn't have ever existed in the first place: really, western style music notation is a rather well-known solved problem: there are several thick books that fully document layout rules!
Experience in watching what happens on the App Store is that things that are updated get attention from would-be customers. Well, I know how to develop software that, with a given feature set, I won't have a useful reason to be updating it to fix crashing bugs, and since (again) the problem is so well-defined, I see no valid reason to spend a huge amount of time trying to wrack my brain to come up with upgrades, which Apple doesn't have a good model for, where subscriptions would make more sense.
And then there's the sad reality: the majority of App Store customers are cheap bastards with exactly no concept of how much time/effort/money/energy it takes to become skilled enough to develop a great application, and a huge number on the store are either developed by those with very little experience (and it shows) or, because of the race to the bottom pushed on by the typical customer, it makes no financial sense for a developer to spend the time/energy/money for proper testing, so people complain about the quality, while also whining they're still too expensive (and yet, they're stupidly, unsustainably cheap) when there's pretty much no chance for a developer to come close to breaking even in the endeavor, because App Store customers are cheap bastards.
Thus, it seems probable that unless something really changes in a very interesting way, freeware with ads will give some developers a tiny income that doesn't cover expenses for most applications because people won't go for subscriptions, are too cheap to pay a fair price for the functionality of an app of a given complexity, and all that's left are applications for big companies for shopping (like Amazon.com) where it doesn't matter that the applications are "free" because they're just a tool to get customers to spend money otherwise.
What's a developer supposed to do, starve to make cheap bastards happy? At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how good/bad/ugly the OS and platform is: if it isn't financially-viable to risk developing software for it, the platform will go away into the dustbin of history as it stagnates and dies due to no commercial viability in the ecosystem, and then the process repeats on the next platform.
This post is brought to you from someone with a perspective as a developer that's worked on multiple platforms that no longer exist, due to having that long of experience. The cheaper customers are, the more they need to spend eventually, because they are forced to change platforms entirely over time and leave all their old software and hardware behind.