True. Yet, if you don't charge for the software itself, but instead you make that purchase only unlock a skin or some fake currency in that software, and worse, only have a small chance of being the one that user wants, suddenly people will pay 10, 20, or 100 dollars for your software, over and over again.

It's almost as if people are made of inconsistent meat

It's gambling at the core that's the issue here. We used to have robust regulation of it for decades (and it was recognized millennia ago that gambling is bad for societies anyway), the problem is that the global gambling industry moved far too fast for regulations to catch up - and now we're at a point where children, even toddlers are getting lured into gambling mechanisms. It's all lootboxes nowadays.

Personal take on it: that's all just preparing children for the inevitable fact that everything from education over employment and housing to dating is mostly depending on luck...

Agreed. Gambling laws are stuck at the notion that you need real cash payouts for an activity to be gambling when psychologically a database entry with enough lipstick can be just as enticing.

I'd really wish Apple would add a "Exclude apps with in-app purchase" filter to their app store. I don't mind paying for an app, I mind subscriptions and in-app purchases.

> I'd really wish Apple would add a "Exclude apps with in-app purchase" filter to their app store.

Unfortunately that would still exclude plenty of good apps. There are a ton which are “free” with limited options and then have a one-time in-app purchase to unlock the full thing.

Many good apps use subscription models still to great effect, if their user base is of the right type. E.g. overcast the podcast app. It makes excellent money because of the type of user who pays for it is looking for a premium experience. The $0 app thing is for race to the bottom style app markets, which, let’s be honest, has always been that way.