Just the other day, I was talking about the difficulty of monetizing an app I wanted to build with my partner. We agreed that the app had an extremely small tar

Just the other day, I was talking about the difficulty of monetizing an app I wanted to build with my partner. We agreed that the app had an extremely small target audience - university types for whom the app would provide hundreds of dollars of value a year (paid out of their grants, not their salary). The problem is that absolutely no one pays >= $100 for a phone app. Adobe was in the same situation years ago. It provided products generating thousands of dollars in value a year for professionals and the corporate world. Photoshop CS6 cost $700, the version of it for "students" $250. This put it well out of the budget range of most ordinary people. Photoshop was built for a relatively small target audience. You might argue that piracy was the normal, expected solution to this. The "real" customers were supposed to pay for it. Either way, this generated a lot of ill will toward Adobe and turned pirating Photoshop into a bit of a meme. That changed when Adobe realized you could nickle and dime people out of the same amount of money in the long run. The photography subscription (Photoshop + Lightroom) costs $720 over six years. Given that Adobe offered upgrade promotions (e.g. CS5 to CS6) for about half off, it's roughly the same price as it was before. This approach makes it much more palatable to the average consumer (for the same reason that people are willing to buy sofas on payment plans). The only people this pisses off are a handful of hardcore users who expect to "own" all the software they use, but probably not the corporate world which is used to paying subscriptions. It almost certainly makes them far more money through making the software available to those who can't (or won't) pay the one-time price.