> If you're lucky the subscription price is similar to the price of the standalone price after X years,

Yes! That is how it should work. Think of it as costing the same if you find value for years, but you have the option of bailing early and getting a refund if you don’t find it as valuable as you expected.

> where the subscription is several times the price of the app in a year

Don’t conflate the price and the model. Those developers found that they were not financially viable and changed both price and model. The thinking was probably something like “in order to make a decent living, we have to increase price by 3x” / “wow! Nobody will pay that up front, it’s too risky. But subscriptions will produce the same financial result and not scare off new customers.”

This is a pie-slicing problem. Developers want to make money, users don’t want to pay. Upfront pricing is a lose-lose, with lower sales for developers and higher risks for buyers.

Not only that, in case of the App store it also made me spend way less on paid-upfront as well. Time and time again, software I paid for was replaced on my device with shareware that nags me for subscription later on. Once you experience that maximal user-hostile conduct a few times, it makes you wary of "buying" anything in that ecosystem except for maybe the occasional 1$ throwaway thing— Why should I spend 69$ on an app that will most probably pivot to a "sustainable" rentsomeware model once they have milked the market of people willing to pay upfront, and, again, take the software you paid for away from you and replace it with shareware on your device.