Bleh, subscriptions. I'm fine with them if your app is offering features that require use of your servers, but it seems many indie developers are interested instead in charging for the "privilege" of running local code on your device (as with Photoshop). I'll pass.
You're right — users shouldn't expect their apps to get major updates for free. But this is a PR problem, solvable by other means. As a user, I'm OK with it. I've been using Adobe CS 5 for the past 3 years and it's still working great. Were there an upgrade path where I could pay some cash and get the latest version, I would probably do so. Unfortunately, Adobe has decided that they're not the company for me, and so I've been happily moving on to alternatives like Pixelmator and Affinity Designer. From what I've seen in the response to Text Expander's subscription pricing and other similar business model changes, I think many others feel the same as I do: that above all else, the software running on their local machine must continue to work without having to pay a bloody tax.
A text expander is not a "service", nor is a password manager, nor is an audio looper or a to-do lister. To suggest otherwise would be disingenuous. Of course, we don't know what's going to happen in response to this change yet, but statements like Gruber's "win-win-win"[1] and Brent Simmons' request for clarification[2] indicate to me that indie developers will be more than happy to adopt this model with their decidedly non-service software.
Those should be addressed by app store mechanisms for charging for upgrades. Then those who want them can pay and those who don't can ignore them.
I seldom accept any upgrades and keep old versions of apps backed-up in case I rashly do click 'yes'. I know I'm not unique; if an app works, why tempt fate by upgrading it?
Unfortunately with this subscription model everyone will have to pay regardless of whether they want those new features.
