Possible solution for allowing trials on the App Store

You can do that now. It's called freemium. The app checks its original purchase date (either using an entry in the user's iCloud key-value file or the device's keychanin or the app's receipt). If the date is within the past 30 days the app is fully functioning. If after 30 days the app operates at a 'lite' level enticing the user to purchase the upgrade through IAP. See, for example, the app OptionPosition+.

It is difficult for anyone other than the app's code itself to disable the app.

Apple doesn't like to (a) surprise users that don't read the disclaimers, etc. and (b) deal with refunds that could have been avoided by adhering to current practice.

Feel free, otherwise, to make a feature request via bug reporter, bottom left and good luck.

Would be wonderful if there was (is going to be?) support for trials for 1 time purchase apps. That is, the user can download the app, use the full version of the app for a period (7 days, 14 days, 30 days, whatever). After that time period is up, the OS locks the app puts up a dialog and says trial period over to continue using the app you must purchase it...

Far as I know, you def. can't do this now on iOS. Will we be able to in iOS 10 now? On Mac you can't do it unless you are outside the App Store...and it's on the developer to do all the work. On the Mac especially if they added trial periods for App Store apps, I think devs would sell more.

I guess I ought to check out that WWDC video on expanded subscriptions.....maybe you should check it out too...perhaps they answered your question? https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2016/301/

Does this new subcription stuff only apply to iOS?

Edit: They don't talk about trial periods at all in that video I linked. I guess there isn't much new in that regard?

They added some new features to subscription pricing and made all app categories eligible to sell subscriptions. Cool, though I'm not sure what type of response I'd get it offering a utility app or a graphic design app on a subscription. Yeah Adobe does it, but big corporations can get away with murder. 😮 The rest of us have to play by the rules. I'd be more interested in being able to offer a trial for any app, regardless of whether it has iAP or not.

BTW I wouldn't be willing to give Apple anymore of a cut for supporting trial periods... I think trials would help everyone sell more. 30% I think is enough though.

1) What you wrote above about "subscriptions" is actually referring to "autorenewable subscriptions" not "subscriptions" which include "non-renewing subscriptions".

2) What you want to do can be done quite easily using an In App Purchase. See my post above.

You could, but it feels kind of like a workaround. Plus after the "trial period" ends don't you still have to provide the user wth an app with some functionality? You can't just show them a screen saying "Trial is over, you must purchase the app" and get it past App Review, can you? Have you been successful in doing this before?

I'm talking about an all or nothing situation. No ads, no 'lite' version. You can get the full app for a couple weeks. After that if you like it, you have to buy it (like traditional desktop software). No lite version, no separate target to maintain. No watered down version of the same app. And....it'd be great if they made it so users can't leave a rating on the App Store while using they are in the trial period. This would prevent a lot of trolling fake app reviews from appearing from losers, liars, and unethical competitors.

"You can't always get what you wanted, but if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need."

You can't always get what you wanted

Def. aware of that fact. I'm just weighing in.. . I don't believe the second half of that quote is relevant.

Lots of devs have called for trial support on the App Store, particularly Mac developers. Devs with a lot more resources than me have cited this as one of the reasons for leaving the [Mac] App Store (companies who got the red carpet treatment from Apple on the App Store). Would be nice...but I guess we won't be getting it anytime soon.

Did you ever do Mac shareware, back in the day?

"You get what you need". If you need an app to function at full level for a period of time for free and then stop functioning at that level unless a purchase is made then "you get what you need" using IAP as I explained above. If you want it to stop functioning completely and freeze - you can't get that. If you need it to freeze then you may be misdirected and missing the best marketing opportunity available to your app. Rethink what you want and what you need.

Well, not freeze. Just tell the user that the trial is over and show a prompt that it is time to buy the app (or they can delete it). On the Mac (the desktop) trials typically work this way and users expect trials to work this way. I make Mac apps more than iOS apps.

On mobile, the freemium model you are talking about is more accepted. It would be an awkward model, one that wouldn't make sense for thousands of Mac apps (this applies to certain types of iOS apps too..many productivity apps probably don't come to iOS b/c the platform doesn't offer developers of these type of apps a reasonable chance for success). There are tons of apps that are single purpose productivity or utility apps out there where a "lite" version makes no sense.

How exactly can you make a "Lite" Text Editor make sense? On iOS you'd probably use ads (now Apple doesn't offer an ad network...so there is that)...but how many features can you really pull out of a Text Editor to make it seem like making the purchase is worth it to the user (without completely torpedoing the 'lite' mode of the app)?

Apps that do something very specific, do it well, can't be watered down to a 'Lite' version. Letting the user try the app for a few days before buying it, is reasonable.

You can tell me that I can't always get what I want, but you can't tell me not to dream...not on the dev forums. No way. 😁

>How exactly can you make a "Lite" Text Editor make sense?

Limit the text to 250 words. Limit the font to Helvetica 12. Don't show marked changes. And be very clear - "If you want these functions back, purchase the upgrade through an In App Purchase." You seem to be worried that such a "Lite" version won't convince the user to upgrade. But be realistic here - you are offering a 30 day free trial of the full version - in that case the "Lite" version can be absolute crap - if the user doesn't remember how great it was during those 30 days they aren't interested in your app.

>How exactly can you make a "Lite" Text Editor make sense?

You can't in today's market - open source will cut any interest off at the knees. 'lite', aka cripple-ware, went out with rotary dial phones. Today it's all make or break, hinged on branding. Witness Apple's directed pages here: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/insights/

>Limit the text to 250 words. Limit the font to Helvetica 12. Don't show marked changes. And be very clear - "If you want these functions back, purchase the upgrade through an In App Purchase." You seem to be worried that such a "Lite" version won't convince the user to upgrade. But be realistic here - you are offering a 30 day free trial of the full version - in that case the "Lite" version can be absolute crap - if the user doesn't remember how great it was during those 30 days they aren't interested in your app

What you are saying is technically possible, though it is definitely a workaround. In-App Purchase APIs weren't really designed to be used for this, whether or not Apple would allow it on the App Stoe is unknown. Perhaps you've done something like this in a production release? Please don't interpret my posts as "complaining." I'm just mentioning what I'd like to have, what many devs I think would like to have. Spitballin'

I see Mac apps with IAP that extend functions all the time. Example is iSentry, where you can connect a limited number of cameras for no charge, then use IAP to add more, allow multiple camera recordings, etc.