Regular updates = expensive to develop = monthly or yearly fees = reduced/eliminated concept of ownership.

> The expectation of updating also seems to be making the software industry even more slipshod and crappy, with a just ship it now ans fix it later attitude.

Possibly. Or it's the other way around: Companies don't get all the money upfront and have to continue to deliver. Otherwise they get complains, bad ratings and customer churn.

> But that would require competence and forethought.

And much bigger wallets from consumers. I think most people wouldn't pay a few hundred bucks nowadays for an operating system, or for MS Office, or Photoshop. And surely not for most software these days: apps.

Don't get me wrong. Your points are valid, but I think the market has spoken. People want software that continues to work on the newest OS. They want new features, compatibility and whatnot.

Back in the day, you bought Office 2000 and knew it'd be outdated at some point in time. Your Windows XP Professional you bought for 200 bucks is worthless today. Try using Photoshop 5 – works on your XP machine I guess – but can't open files from other designers.

Software 10-15 years ago was delivered once. Updates were an annoyance. But the upfront cost could still be divided through the number of months you actually used the software – and for most software, it's probably not that much different from the monthly subscription or yearly license fee you have today.