frankschmitt.org:

Apple released the beta version of their iPhone SDK yesterday, and the response from the developer community was an unintentional DDoS of the entire developer.apple.com domain. But there are a few caveats to the otherwise Christmas-morning-like announcement.

Among them is that to get an app into the hands of users, a developer must sign up for a $99 app-signing license, and then sell the app through Apple’s iTunes-esque store, with Apple taking a 30% cut. This is really convenient (if a bit expensive) for the developers, but runs up against the established business model of the vast majority of indie Mac OS X developers: try-before-you-buy shareware. In this model, the software is distributed free-of-charge, often with limitations or nagging that can be turned off (or extra features that can be turned on) only by entering a license code purchased from the developer. It’s not completely clear how this would work under Apple’s model.

But another thing Apple released yesterday was a Mac-OS-based iPhone simulator. Right now it’s Mac-only, and it may or may not be a major PITA for Apple to port this functionality to run under Windows, but it represents an ideal solution to most instances of the try-before-you-buy conundrum: Apple would merely need to allow developers to link their app against the simulator and to distribute the resulting bundle as a trial version of their app. If by playing around with it on your (non- or less-mobile) desktop or laptop you decide that you like it, you would pay to download it from Apple’s store.

Now it’s true that a linked-against-the-simulator app could lead to piracy, but realistically the App Store will do little more than to keep honest people honest; dishonest people will most likely just copy the app from a hacked iPhone. It’s also true that people might use the simulator-widgets on their computer in lieu of paying to use it on their iPhone. But typically anything that can be done on an iPhone can be done better on a PC, albeit in a less pocket-sized fashion.

So I believe that represents another category of people who wouldn’t have purchased the app anyway.