> What you've described is what Apple has already created IMO.
If something is legal Apple has no right of preventing users using it and developers making apps for it.
Recent case - where an application delivering realtime information for US drone strikes was rejected.
Apple should be technical gatekeeper and not moral.
When compared to $0.99 games it seems expensive, but let's be realistic. It's good quality software, and on a desktop it would be worth that price. The difference is that it's 100x more convenient on iOS since it's always with me.
In a perfect world Apple would allow a trial mode for apps which would enable all features for X hours or X uses. But that's just Apple. It'll never happen. I heard though that MS does something like this for its apps? Or is it only for games?
Would the iOS price suddenly not be "ridiculous" if they charged $25 for the Android version too?
It wasn't exactly ethical, and even when used for semi-legitimate purposes (obtaining software "not available" in your region) it was slow, cumbersome and unreliable.
Also, isn't iOS sandboxing designed to ensure no rogue apps cause havoc on the system?
It is possible to find holes in the sandbox, see for example the jailbreak.me exploit from iOS 4. But it's hard, and Apple will patch any holes that they find out about.
This is a point that people badly misunderstand, sadly. The sandbox is what keeps you, as a user, safe from malicious code. Apple's checks don't really help at all, aside from their ability to pull malicious apps after the fact. Apple's checks are there to ensure a basic level of functionality and avoid content Apple doesn't want to publish. They do essentially nothing for the security of the platform, and are not intended to.