[baldo]

With so many different configs of peoples hardware (pc, phones etc) should they offer a trial so we can test it out? Would be great feed back to them. I know its only 99 cents but i have been burnt so many times. Those 99 cents add up to big bucks. I have bought many apps after I have tried them out. It just seems all of a sudden there is no more trials and everything is 99 cents.

[SteveCoops]

I just got myself a Nokia Limua Windows phone and pretty much every app I've seen so far has a trial version and I think it's a great idea.

[yllus]

I intend to offer my upcoming new app as a 14-day trial before paying the $1.99 price - I figure it's a good way to get people used to the app, and have it become part of their lives that they won't want to lose. Have no idea if I have to code it in a special way for that to work - hopefully not.

[EpicSoftworks]

14-Day trial seems a bit on the wide side of this matter. 3-5 days should be enough to get a good feel weither the app works great or not and to decide if the app is good for u as a users.

I'm particularly worried about investing in games such as Angry Birds and other 'high quality' games as they do tend to be very expensive. This all because of the sole reason that the 'developed the app specially for the Playbook'. I'm an easy to entertain guy and take full advantage of the free stuff that is available as some might have noticed on the forums here but do agree on the trials.

It would certainly be nice for a few developers to offer a trial.

[Kleopatra]

What frustrates me is lack of trial if there isn't a good description combined with a series of representative screen-shots.

[Foreverup]

I just got myself a Nokia Limua Windows phone and pretty much every app I've seen so far has a trial version and I think it's a great idea.

The trial is a requirement from Microsoft

[Willard814]

Yes, Yes, Yes! This would help weed out all the junk apps that don't work! It will also help the developers fix any bugs. It's a win, win!

[Spencerdl]

I voted #1, I think ALL apps should have a trial version. Maybe a three to five day trial should be long enough to determine whether a consumer likes the app or not

[yllus]

14-Day trial seems a bit on the wide side of this matter. 3-5 days should be enough to get a good feel weither the app works great or not and to decide if the app is good for u as a users.

Hmm, good point - that is a little long. Maybe 5-7 days is a good number, considering you may not get to properly sit down and use an app right after downloading it.

What frustrates me is lack of trial if there isn't a good description combined with a series of representative screen-shots.

App World does a terrible job of letting developers show off their app. The screenshots should be required to be full size (1024x600) and you should be able to view a little full screen slideshow of them in App World prior to downloading. App World should also allow you to provide a link that when tapped launches the browser so the user can learn more about the app. Actually... I think I'll tell that exactly that to the people I know at RIM right now.

[Marty_LK]

9 times out of 10, when looking for new app in the Appworld, I have wished there was a trial of apps or games I was interested in. I look at an app or game and it looks very interesting and I read user reviews which praise it. But I can't bring myself to buy it because it may not be right for me. Had there been a trial, I likely would have eventually bought the app if it suited me. As it is, I generally look at paid apps with few or no user reviews that have no trial as scam apps. If the app was good, they would have offered a trial. Since there is no trial, the app may or not be good and the dev is merely trying get quick money, as once you buy, that's it.

[Morten]

One way to do it,.. is to let all purchases be "open" for 2-3 days, so that we can purchase the app, and use it for a few days, and make it easier to get money back IF you are not satisfied....

but - I guess a lot of developers would not like anything like that - they would loose a bunch of money - when users realize what crappy app they purchased - and reverse the purchase...... On the up-side - perhaps a move like that would help bring more good quality apps instead of ..... #��%%

AppWorld also need in-store-credits, instead of direct purchases via Credit card. For many users it takes 10-14 days from a refund is issued onto the card until available again. In-store-credit could be purchased via Creditcard/PayPal, and in case of refunds, the credits would be available again as soon as AppWorld accepts the refund.

RIM does not want to be involved too much in the transaction, they only want their share... but - the fact is that since AppWorld is the only way (currently) to purchase apps for the PlayBook, they will have to involve themselves a bit more in the process - and not just lean back and say "all purchases are final" and in many cases tell you to contact developer for refund... something which is bad - since RIM already would have taken their commission - so whenever a Dev "refund" you directly - he loose money...

[russnash]

As a developer myself, I believe 100% in offering trials. My smartphone app SpeedNotes offers a 7-day fully functional trial, this is a method I will definitely be sticking with.

[narci]

First thing RIM should fix is the ability to delete previously installed apps in 'My World'.

I would like to try alot of the free apps (and would probably buy a couple worth buying) but I don't want 'My World' to be clogged up with hundreds of previously installed apps.

Imagine if you downloaded and uninstalled 100s of apps and the pain you go through to re-install the ones you actually want.

[Marty_LK]

First thing RIM should fix is the ability to delete previously installed apps in 'My World'.

I would like to try alot of the free apps (and would probably buy a couple worth buying) but I don't want 'My World' to be clogged up with hundreds of previously installed apps.

Imagine if you downloaded and uninstalled 100s of apps and the pain you go through to re-install the ones you actually want.

I've found it can be a beneficial thing to have your install history available for instances when previously free apps can be reinstalled if desired. Example: Pew Pew was free. Now it's a paid app. I installed it while free and still have access to it.

But I do understand the clogged issue.

[Zirak]

I choose do the be so cheap and here is my reasoning. This past Sunday the family got together for a bit-day party and everyone had their electronics out. It was a great example of the diversity of stuff out there with 3 OS's in attendance. (I used my PB hooked to the TV playing YouTube videos)
The android crew had some funny apps, 1 where you take a picture of someone and it ages them and another where you take a picture of someone and it turns them into a zombie and eats your finger to where you touch the screen.. Both enjoyable for alimited time. I could not see anyone getting a trial of those apps and 2 days later purchasing it?

[13echo4]

I voted no because of the wording. A dev shouldn't have to do anything. I respect their discussion either way. By making a free trial adds alittle more work to them and if they let you try all the features then there's loopholes tat you can keep using it for free. If they let you use a limited use version well then really you still don't know what it app can do.
It seems to me if your really into apps .99 isn't a major investment. Look at it this way on blackberrys you won't go broke because there is no apps. $20 should about cover it.

[Nrs819]

When I answered the survey the result was at 92.68% for YES. This gives a good Idea on how much we like to try prior to buying. Even if you release a Free version of the application, no need to put a lot of stuff into it, just want to try it out prior of buying.

I agree that it's only 1$ per app which is cheap, but consider the fact that If you decide to spend 1$ everytime you want to "try" something you may not like, you might spend a lot of money on it. That was my opinion

[Marty_LK]

When I answered the survey the result was at 92.68% for YES. This gives a good Idea on how much we like to try prior to buying. Even if you release a Free version of the application, no need to put a lot of stuff into it, just want to try it out prior of buying.

I agree that it's only 1$ per app which is cheap, but consider the fact that If you decide to spend 1$ everytime you want to "try" something you may not like, you might spend a lot of money on it. That was my opinion

Not only that, but people like myself who have very meager funds, $1 is a lot to spend. So I have to spend wisely. It's why I avoid an app that may look good and go for a sure thing.

[Zildjian71]

Limiting a trial by time is almost as rude as putting reminders up during app use as nag ware. Limit the function not the time and never, never, never nag for the upgrade.

Be user friendly and you will have loyal users.

Nagging and time limits is just so 80's and user unfriendly.

[1959gazza]

I choose do the be so cheap and here is my reasoning. This past Sunday the family got together for a bit-day party and everyone had their electronics out. It was a great example of the diversity of stuff out there with 3 OS's in attendance. (I used my PB hooked to the TV playing YouTube videos)
The android crew had some funny apps, 1 where you take a picture of someone and it ages them and another where you take a picture of someone and it turns them into a zombie and eats your finger to where you touch the screen.. Both enjoyable for alimited time. I could not see anyone getting a trial of those apps and 2 days later purchasing it?

Is this code for a swingers party? Had their electronics out indeed.

[13echo4]

Not only that, but people like myself who have very meager funds, $1 is a lot to spend. So I have to spend wisely. It's why I avoid an app that may look good and go for a sure thing.

I understand your case. Really I do. Forgive me cause things sounds worse written than spoken. I mean this in a humble way. Even still I don't see it mattering.
I'll just go with the possibility somebody got the PB for you. You are already 200 apps to the good. maybe they should not have gotten you something you need to continue spending money on.
There's reviews,CB and even google. Pressuring and making developers feel like they are suppose to is just unfair to they and not the way to get free trials.

[Marty_LK]

I understand your case. Really I do. Forgive me cause things sounds worse written than spoken. I mean this in a humble way. Even still I don't see it mattering.
I'll just go with the possibility somebody got the PB for you. You are already 200 apps to the good. maybe they should not have gotten you something you need to continue spending money on.
There's reviews,CB and even google. Pressuring and making developers feel like they are suppose to is just unfair to they and not the way to get free trials.

Hehe...I do understand the "written" vs. "spoken" thing very well. My PB was a gift and being unemployed, I have to be wise how I spend what few dollars I get from time to time. But maybe not very many ppl are in the same situation as I and can manage a dollar here and there with no problem. But every system has at least a refund period. Windows Phone has the option to "try" apps. Android allows refunds and has a lot of free versions. iOS has free versions of a lot of apps. I personally prefer the Windows Phone way of doing it, but am open to any way in which a person can sample before buying.

Nevertheless, whatever it takes for the PB system to take off and be prosperous is what we all should aim for. And that means making it as easy on devs as possible. Maybe, if and when the PB is prosperous, RIM can redesign the Appworld differently and design in trials and such.

[13echo4]

Hehe...I do understand the "written" vs. "spoken" thing very well. My PB was a gift and being unemployed, I have to be wise how I spend what few dollars I get from time to time. But maybe not very many ppl are in the same situation as I and can manage a dollar here and there with no problem. But every system has at least a refund period. Windows Phone has the option to "try" apps. Android allows refunds and has a lot of free versions. iOS has free versions of a lot of apps. I personally prefer the Windows Phone way of doing it, but am open to any way in which a person can sample before buying.

Nevertheless, whatever it takes for the PB system to take off and be prosperous is what we all should aim for. And that means making it as easy on devs as possible. Maybe, if and when the PB is prosperous, RIM can redesign the Appworld differently and design in trials and such.

I really do appreciate your situation. App world has lots of free apps. If you want to know about an ap you can search it here on CB. People will be talking about it. If theres not a thread on it then start one.

[SDM7171]

"Only a buck"?

That's not an argument for there not being trial periods - particularly as many apps are more (and please, spare me the cup of coffee analogy too), and some of us live in countries where the minimum price of an app is $1.60...

I voted yes - because I'd like to use a remote Desktop app, but don't know which suits me best, and refuse to pay for software that doesn't work for me, irrespective of the price.

How many desktop softare providers offer trial periods? How many mobile developers? Why the discrepancy - the principle should be the same, shouldn't it?

[masqueofhastur]

It would be nice if trials were mandatory. As is though I give a first look at apps that have trials. I appreciate the extra work by the devs.