> If the developer cannot make a living by creating an app (or any other piece of software for that matter), why would they bother creating it at all?

If you're trying to make a living doing X, and you can't, then don't do it anymore. There are tens of thousands of apps that did not need to be made, yet were (no doubt the first step of someone's get-rich-quick scheme). If there is a need, the need will be met, eventually, by someone, and if it is truly a "need", people will be willing to pay money for it.

As others have mentioned, requiring updates to run correctly is actually a fault of the underlying system, and the change therein.

> People should be paid for creating and maintaining software.

This "should" is really nebulous. By whose standard/ethics? What belief system led you to believe that you were guaranteed to be paid for your work (software or otherwise)? You get paid when you sell something. You can create the shit out of lots of things and maintain lots of things, and not see a dime for your efforts. Software is no different -- you need to create something that will SELL and be profitable.

These two things do not go hand in hand. Creating and a necessity of maintenance are not necessarily the case. Remember when software used to be sold on CDs? You bought and were able to use the software for your given operating system, and for the given time that it had no bugs. There were no other guarantees, and I don't think there should be today.

If something in your app breaks, release an update and either release it for free, or charge for it. There is no need for me to pay you forever -- your certainly won't be releasing updates forever.

It's obvious why companies want to move everyone to this model though -- much easier to setup recurring incomes, and once it's ingrained in the culture, people won't remember a time when you bought a piece of software and you actually owned it.

Maybe this will be a chance for F/OSS to make a resurgence? Once people get tired of paying for Office 365 and their Flappy Bird subscription, they'll start looking for software that they can truly own

I like your customer-oriented point of view. Because ultimately, it's not about the developer, but about the customer. A few points I want to add though:

> As others have mentioned, requiring updates to run correctly is actually a fault of the underlying system, and the change therein.

Theoretically yes, but this changed from the customer perspective as well. Whereas a few years ago, it was a sign of quality software that no updates were required, it's now a sign of an app that is unmaintained. No updates is a negative signal and thus, updates are mandatory to be perceived as high quality software and to a certain extend, to prevent 1-star reviews.

> If there is a need, the need will be met, eventually, by someone, and if it is truly a "need", people will be willing to pay money for it.

"If there is a need, the need will be met, eventually." Period. The rest of the sentence isn't always true. People aren't necessarily willing to pay money for it and there are other revenue streams ("pay with your data").

> As was previously mentioned, software like requires updates to continue running correctly (new OS versions, bugs, etc)

.. not really? There are only so many bugs to fix (and are they really significant enough to be a major hindrance anyway?), and bit rot is a platform problem, not an application problem.

And even then, shouldn't users be able to choose whether the "upgrade" is worth it?

They do get to choose whether the upgrade is worth it. They can stay on an old version and system that it works with, or they can move to an app that has a business model they like better. Subscriptions are adding options, and that's great.

It's a temporary option though. As soon as you need to restore a new device and you don't keep the apps backup, you will get the latest version. If I were to bet, I'd say not many people keep a backup of their current apps' versions.