Don't get too excited about the App Store's Try Before You Buy

Rather than arguing for a demo option that Apple will never approve (for myriad reasons), it might be more productive to argue in favour of all developers being encouraged to develop lite version to showcase their software. That is a far more readily achievable goal and moreover one that is not reliant on Apple changing what is, for them, a hugely successful store model. Indeed some might suggest that Apple has devised this new section specifically to point developers in that direction.

@TJ: thanks for clarifying Apple's abundant trialware offerings. It neatly blows my posit out of the water in terms of a cultural reason.

Like you, the lack of it still concerns me to a degree from a personal level, so I can only offer that my second assertion that Apple currently views it as a low priority in light of App Store success and numerous developers successes therein.

There are without a doubt at least thirty apps I am interested over $10 that I just don't have enough faith in to take the plunge, mostly based on reviews or lack of good marketing materials demonstrating if they will meet my needs and parent websites that just look hinky, and do not give me any assurance that their low quality will not be reflected in their app, as well.

On any other app at $5 and below, I will just pay for it and if it turns bust, just skip another luxury item like a glass of wine at the restaurant to punish myself for being frivolous; yet, as the same time, feel good for supporting the efforts of a (likely) struggling developer in need of some encouragement to improve.

Please note this attitude applies to personal purchases; I consider the purchase and loss or success of a business tool to be a necessary research expense. I am only be hesitant to throw away money on a guess when the price is over $100, and then we are right back to the original problem.

Then, however, I do not hesitate to contact the developer directly and inform him/her how many $100+ seats they might sell if they will kindly arrange a demo for me.

Cheers

F

@gazoobee: I spent much of the 90's as an Apple Consultant, and I can tell you first hand that I would have lost hundreds of clients, and Apple themselves thousands of seats and the related mindshare were it not for fully functional trialware and shareware.

The ability to actually test drive, not just kick the tires, on some pretty major business and educational software is what kept many Mac-centric shops and labs Mac-centric, during a time when Windows 95 finally came up and showed itself to be "good enough", and the hardware perceptually (if not actually) cheaper.

Apple in the 90's was a house of cards, made up of a a dozen or more crucial keystones, any one of which if you removed it would all have come tumbling down. Developers are one, evangelism another, and so on. It was a delicate and scary time for those of us who wanted our living to revolve around a company's legacy and a philosophy of excellence.

As a minor developer, all I can tell you is I never would have sold enough to make it worth my while were it not for the ability to offer demoware. this supports your assertion that small developers depend on it as a marketing tool. But clearly Adobe & Microsoft feel the need to offer trailware for software costing hundreds and thousands of dollars, too, and it's not like they are unknown.

The point, if you still don't get it, is that trialware and demoware serve a purpose; and developers see that and many wish it were a tool in their kit. You can call it whining if you like -- and I certainly agree that much of what TJ writes comes across as pure whining and complaining -- but if you continue to deny the facts, well, then you're just being obtuse and seemingly only interested in picking a fight with your incendiary and overly generalized comments.

I seriously doubt you know "most developers", or could even list "most developers" if you tried. You only know about the vocal ones who do complain because that's what sells blog hits, and you got lured in today, for sure.

Kind regards

Frederico

I can't say for sure that the lack of demos is *actually* increases piracy, but I can say that it is the *justification* for a lot of App Store piracy. I don't justify piracy for that reason, but it has kept me from downloading apps that I would have tried if I could have.

"smaller" publishers use demos? You mean like Microsoft:

http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office2008/trial-download.mspx

And Apple:

http://www.apple.com/iwork/download-trial/

Aperture also has a demo. iLife and Final Cut Pro do not to have one, but they are so large as to requires a DVD for install.

And Adobe (every app on this page has a demo):

http://www.adobe.com/downloads/

If you could find Mac apps that *don't* have demos, they would be the exception, not the rule.

I made it clear that it was the more expensive apps that are nowhere near the price of a cup of coffee which cause demos to be necessary. Once you start getting to $10 iPad apps.

Speaking of "adamant about the topic" I see that you've left essentially the same comment at the original article on 9to5mac.

@gazoobee, ever hear of a company called Adobe? What about Microsoft? Those are only two of many majors that offer fully functional trialware.

@TJ, et al, besides MobileMe, does Apple itself offer any trialware? They build a fair amount of commercial software (some included with hardware purchases but available commercially nonetheless). I'm not sure they don't; I just posit that there may be a cultural attitude within Apple that finds trialware or crippleware to be distasteful.

All I can say is the Mac, and Apple, IMHO, would absolutely have died in the 90s but for Shareware and trialware. Perhaps the instant success and continued blowout of the App Store has Apple focussed on what it considers to be far more important core feature and function improvements to Xcode and App developers tools. If the App Store were floundering and wanting for hard sales, they might consider a need to invest the necessary coding dollars required to implement this kind of promotional tool.

And let's not discount that most mobile buyers are not necessarily computer geeks; I.E., they have a very different set of expectations about what a phone is supposed to deliver, as do other market types; e.g., can you get demoware on Playstation, PSP, Wii or Xbox? I don't know for sure, but I don't think you can, and their apps certainly don't sell for $0.99.

I think the App Store should have a video demonstration or tutorial in addition to screen shots. Watching someone else use it would be enough for me to determine if I want to buy an app.

Why couldn't a developer simply put their app in the AppStore for free, then after a certain number of days put an "in app purchase" screen that allows the app to run?

Wouldn't this accomplish the same thing?

Didn't this exact same post appear on Engadget, just nine hours earlier? You guys are SLIPPIN'!