Right now, if I want to check out an application in the iTunes App Store, I have to shell out full price for it and live with my decision. If the app is crap, I have no recourse for getting my money back even if I promise to never use the app again so long as I shall live.

And that sucks.

In fact, I've gotten so sick of this happening that I have put a self-imposed moratorium on buying apps, which means that I don't get to check out apps like Tweetie or Things because, well, a rule's a rule, no matter how small (oh, and for the record, yes: those are affiliate links. If enough of you buy enough of those apps, TMO might make enough back to buy me a copy of each of them, and then I'll test 'em out, but that's the only way I agree to buy either of those, just out of principle).

All this has gotten me to thinking, and all that thinking has gotten me to a solution. But first let's identify the broader points of this issue.

The Shareware Conundrum

There is no analog for the concept of shareware in the App Store, and I'm pretty sure most developers are happy about this. After all, if you're going to write an app as shareware, you have an interesting choice to make.  You can either release your app in a crippled state that allows users to check it out in a limited capacity, only to have to pay their money to unlock its full potential, or you can release an app that expires after a certain amount of time if the user doesn't pony up the dough. Either way, though, this requires extra coding time, and neither is really an option in the iTunes/iPhone App Store.

Lite vs. Full

The current solution that many App Store developers have implemented is to release two versions of their application: one feature-starved "light" version for people to download for free and try, and another full-featured version for full-price. The hope, of course, is that the light version will entice people to cough up the money for the features they so sorely miss in the light version. But this has (at least) two problems. First,  the developer has to compile two versions of their app.  This isn't a huge deal, since it's a few if/then statements in the build and it works, but it's still extra work. Second, the user doesn't actually get to test the very features for which they're expected to pay. Instead they're using a limited version of the app and have no real idea if the full version will suit their needs enough to warrant its price. Oh, and now you have two listings in the App Store competing for attention with each other when one consolidated listing would allow you to rank much higher in the charts. Trust me, I learned this with our podcast listings. It's not perfect, but it's the way it is.

Watch Me Pull It All Together

So we've identified the problem.  Are you ready for the solution?  I knew you would be, but first let me ask you a question: have you ever rented a movie from the iTunes Store? Have you ever not watched it and let it get to day 25? It starts pestering you with warnings like, "you have 4 days left to watch this movie before it magically goes away from your iPhone," (or something like that).  Get that last part? Magically goes away from your iPhone. Wait -- isn't this the same device downloading from the same store at which we get our apps? Why can't Apple just offer the same thing for applications?

I would love to be able to download an app and have a 24-hour trial period. If I like it, I'll buy it. If I don't, it magically disappears from my device, never to return unless I fork over the cashola.

Simple, right? I think so.

The Problem With App Trials

The only problem I see here is that crappy apps will be tested and tossed by thousands of users. Apple might lose a little money, and developers of crummy apps will certainly lose money. You know what? I'm OK with that. If you write a crappy app, you don't deserve success from it. Let the good apps shine, and they will.

Apple, are you listening?