> it's not one time payment because I don't know what would the right price be for supporting an app for years to come and still have people willing to pay for it
I dislike this very, very, very much. You do realize that with this attitude, we'll soon be bickering with our toilets to please let the seat down without making a small 4$/month in-loo purchase first?
But since when has a toilet ever required ongoing maintenance by the manufacturer to remain functional in the environment around it? In this case the dev will have to provide updates and bug fixes, committing him to a level of work in perpetuity, whereas the toilet maker builds the shitter and never has to work on it again.
Yeah that’s a model that most people seem to like, and I would agree it helps soften the blow by providing some ongoing value for a set period of time.
If Apple sold their own toilet, you can damn well be certain you'd pay a per-shit fee as their customer. This is exactly what you get supporting a platform that relies on monetizing it's users.
It would be less weird if there was any feasible strategy for releasing an app that Apple doesn't take a cut from. Unless you pay for 0 apps, you are supporting Apple with recurring service revenue.
I dislike this very, very, very much. You do realize that with this attitude, we'll soon be bickering with our toilets to please let the seat down without making a small 4$/month in-loo purchase first?