Free "apps"

It's easier that way. Most people browsing mobile app stores would pick free stuff because they don't really know what they're getting until they try it. Can't blame them. Besides, most apps do have paid versions without ads.

>>55949930
because 95% of people don't have a payment option linked to their google play and 99.99% of people don't view software as a "tangible" thing you should buy

Because it's more profitable

When an app is free, the product being sold is you.

It starts with a J and rhymes with a rare, psychic Pokemon.

A user is wayyyyyy more likely to get a free app on a whim than a paid app.

As for ads, just use AdAway/Adguard/AdBlock or whatever.

>reeeeee stop using [platform] to make money
every time, every thread

>>55949930
most of them don't have ads, they instead sell your personal data for profit. 'free' as in '1984'

>>55950328
The problem here is several pieces of mobile software not having a paid counterpart to skip all the bullshit.
I do appreciate that it's more profitable that way, but if that is so, might as well offer everything for "free".

>>55949930
I bought a few Windows programs, but never an Android app.
I do want to support the devs, but Android is so toyish and disposable and you can't even use the store without going through Google.

Can you pay the developer directly, but then still get updates through the Play store? (Manually entering the license or something.)

>>55950079
>it's more profitable

Unfortunately, OP, this is the reason. Unless it's a service that charges a periodic fee, they'll make more from ads.