That was a great post Vurbal, and it reflects many of my thoughts on licensing as well
As I wrote, I can understand his need to make money, and lifetime licenses are a short-term solution in many cases. My concerns were with the way he implemented the change -- someone on the forum even called it a coup
Like you say, lifetime licenses are sometimes used to get into a market. I think they can also work for some more mature products, if you sell them at a high enough premium that you feel reasonably confident they cover a large part of what revenue you could have realistically expected from one customer through regular paid upgrades (2.5-3 times the normal price seems to be a popular level).
Paid upgrades have the drawback that you have to periodically actually make enough useful changes that your users see justification in paying again. As you described, most software reaches a level of maturity where this becomes harder to achieve.
For many products, the ideal solution for the developer seems to be subscription based licenses, where you are guaranteed a steady stream of income, as long as you (at least appear to) continue updates.
The problem from a user perspective, is if the software stops working when you cancel your subscription. The order page and FAQ
do not seem to clearly indicate if this is the case.
Also, by restricting the license to a single machine, you all of a sudden force people who have a desktop, a laptop for travels, and perhaps a work computer, to have 2-3 subscriptions running.
Basically, what I reacted to, was that it feels like a big shift, from one end of the licensing spectrum to the other, with no warning. But of course I do not have all the facts. (And to be honest, I am a little annoyed I did not decide to buy a license a couple of weeks earlier, I would have been happy to buy the lifetime license if I had been told the option was going away soon).