The challenge with modern consumer software is that:
1. Users expect their apps to work on their computers, tablets, and phones, which generally means you need to provide some ongoing service to keep your data synced between all of the devices. (For some simple apps you can get away with using a third-party service, e.g. Dropbox or iCloud, but many apps with complex data will need their own custom-built solutions.) Depending on the kind of data you are storing, this can get expensive.
2. Users expect perpetual upgrades for every new version of iOS/macOS/Android/Windows that comes out. This obviously requires development work, especially since iOS/macOS/Android are annual releases at this point.
These ongoing costs imply that some kind of recurring revenue is necessary to keep the software running and up to date, which is why the move to subscription revenue has become more popular lately.
Besides, I question the premise that "perpetual" licenses have ever truly been perpetual except in name only: eventually that software you bought will stop working on newer operating systems and devices and you'll have to buy a new version anyway.
1. No they don't. Some may want it, but no one "expects" it and will gleefully accept your invalidation of their previous purchases so you can provide a feature they didn't ask for.
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxXs0Yy5-0Y
For 2, yes, users may get mad when some vulnerability ends up leading to a leak of PII or worse, but to claim they "expect" it, again, no.
1. Yes, they do. Especially consumer software like 1Password or Evernote is expected to be accessible on your phone, tablet, and computer.
2. I'm not talking about OS updates. I'm saying consumers expect their apps to be updated to keep them compatible with new versions of their OS. That means someone that bought your app for iOS 6 five years ago absolutely expects it to be updated to work on their new iPhone 7 running iOS 10.
Besides, Windows is probably the outlier here. People might hate Windows 10's automatic update system (which was clearly implemented poorly) but a lot of people update to the latest iOS, macOS, and Android versions right after they're released.
You actually cut to the belly of the beast right here with this comment. After thinking about this a lot as the author of the article, I am inclined to agree with you. Perpetual in name only, perhaps we had it coming?
1. Users expect their apps to work on their computers, tablets, and phones, which generally means you need to provide some ongoing service to keep your data synced between all of the devices. (For some simple apps you can get away with using a third-party service, e.g. Dropbox or iCloud, but many apps with complex data will need their own custom-built solutions.) Depending on the kind of data you are storing, this can get expensive.
2. Users expect perpetual upgrades for every new version of iOS/macOS/Android/Windows that comes out. This obviously requires development work, especially since iOS/macOS/Android are annual releases at this point.
These ongoing costs imply that some kind of recurring revenue is necessary to keep the software running and up to date, which is why the move to subscription revenue has become more popular lately.
Besides, I question the premise that "perpetual" licenses have ever truly been perpetual except in name only: eventually that software you bought will stop working on newer operating systems and devices and you'll have to buy a new version anyway.