I'm not sure this is the kind of thing that can be categorized as fair or unfair. The upgrade-pricing model follows the rationale that users pay a higher up-fro

I'm not sure this is the kind of thing that can be categorized as fair or unfair. The upgrade-pricing model follows the rationale that users pay a higher up-front cost for software, then each upgrade is a maintenance fee to support continued improvement of the software. The flat-cost model spreads the cost of continued software development equally over all users. The feeling of whether or not this is "fair" depends upon whether you're a new user or an existing user. With the upgrade-pricing model, new users are confronted with a much lower price point, which is unavailable to them. This can be a significant psychological barrier to purchase execution. However, existing users are more likely to feel appreciated and stick with the product because they receive favorable pricing. With the flat-cost model, you have the inverse. New users no longer feel marginalized, but existing users may consider alternatives at each time-of-purchase for upgrades. Apple's vision of flat-cost pricing dictates that the price point should be held as low as possible, increasing accessibility from a broader market. With software, there are no incremental costs, so your price point is a matter of supply/demand tuning. There are countless blog articles on this subject. While there isn't consensus on which model (flat-cost vs upgrade-pricing) is the most successful, each has its pros and cons for consumers. I don't think either could be characterized as fair or unfair.