Actually, I do pay for software, but not as often as I used to--and the reason is peculiar. This has been especially true since I started using Android on my Samsung Note 4 phone, and more recently, a Galaxy Tab S3.
Now, I still pay for commercial Windows software, like the brand new Affinity Publisher, which might be enough of a competitor to InDesign for me to dump InDesign and be rid of Adobe's regular copy-protection tantrums. Android apps are a whole 'nother universe, and in recent years, many of the apps I've tried are free--with ads. Used to be, you could choose between having ads displayed, or paying for the app. I'm seeing more and more apps that simply display ads, without any option for me paying to remove the ads. I found this puzzling. Why turn down user money?
I'm sure I'm not be the first to suggest this, but I have a theory: There's cash flow in ads. But before I unpack that, some history. Back in the '90s, software was evolving furiously, often to keep pace with Windows. So we eagerly forked over money every couple of years, sometimes considerable money, for new major releases of Office, WordPerfect, Lotus, and the other bit-behemoths of that era. I'm pretty sure upgrades were a huge part of those firms' revenues.
Today, not so much. I used Office 2000 from 1999 until 2012. That's when I bought Office 2007 so I could work on a collaborative book project for which Office 2007 was the minimum requirement. Why did I use Office 2000 for 13 years? It did what I needed it to do, and I was good at it. A friend of mine still uses Office 97, for the same reasons: It does whatever he needs to do (which is nothing exotic) and he knows it inside and out. So Microsoft got his money 22 years ago, and nothing since.
That's not unethical. Carol and I still use things we got as wedding gifts 43 years ago. The Realistic stereo I bought in 1976 is still our main stereo. On the other hand, firms that used to rely on two- or three-year upgrade cycles are finding that people are using software they've had for eight or ten years or more. The big companies' solution was Software as a Service; i.e., the subscription model. You pay for the software every year, and if you stop paying, they disable it the next time the software phones home to check if you're a deadbeat or not.
To be charitable: Screw that. My primary objection to SAAS is that the skills I've developed on Office (or other packages like InDesign) belong to me. Disable the software I've paid for, and you're basically stealing my skillset. So I'll have nothing to do with SAAS, and may well use Office 2007 for the rest of my life.
As I expected, pay-once packages like Affinity Publisher are popping up to compete with SAAS products like InDesign. I already have the Atlantis word processor, which actually has features that Word 2007 does not. If I need a more ramcharged spreadsheet, they're out there. But...why? I like what I have, and currently, what I have is plenty good.
So. Back to Android. Most Android apps are now ad-supported. A few years ago, I bought a few games and some oddments for five-ish bucks each. I'm sure a lot of other Android users did the same thing. But once the vendors get your five bucks, that's all they ever get. I have some sympathy: They provide updates, which are worth something. I've bought InDesign four different times, and Atlantis twice. But even with a user base as large as Android, five bucks doesn't go very far. Worse, it makes for very unreliable cash flow. The ad business model helps here. What happens is that the vendors of ad-supported software get an ongoing dribble of money from advertisers. The dribble from any single instance of a product is small. Put together fifty or a hundred thousand of those dribbles, though, and you're talking real money. Better still, pauses in that multitude of dribbles average out into a reasonably predictable cash flow stream.
I dislike ads, especially animated ads, double-especially force-you-to-watch ads, and triple-especially ads with audio. I've been suspicious of ads ever since Forbes served up malware through ads on its Web site--after demanding that readers disable their ad blockers. This is still a problem on Android to a great extent, though the mechanisms are complex and far from obvious.
There's not much to be done about ads on Android apps. The money from selling ads is too good, compared to getting five bucks once and nothing ever again. I avoid malware primarily by installing all updates to the OS and downloading only well-known brand-name apps, and only through the Play store. That's all anybody can do.
It's an odd thing to think, but I think it often: Sigh. I miss the days when software actually cost money.