Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

What is Loopy Pro?Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.

Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.

Download on the App Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

The App Economy

The App Economy......... I am writing this post not to disrespect anyone's viewpoint. I just want to maybe get a few people to view things in a different frame of mind. Most of us here probably have some kind of job. I would challenge anyone to take a project they worked on during the year and update it in their own time for free. If not that then surely some of us would work on a new project improving and building on our previous work with a 20% pay cut? That would only be fair as our employer paid us to do something similar in the past. My point here is not to piss anyone off but everyone needs to decide if they want the music app economy to be viable. If we want developers to continue to be motivated to make and improve on these amazing pieces of relatively cheap software we need to be willing to consider an in app purchase for a significant upgrade every year or three.

«1345

Comments

  • Yes for most devs it's a cottage industry, and they're not making big bucks, so they deserve our support for all the awesome and innovative apps they create.
  • I'm not a software developer, though I've programmed before and understand something about the process. I know little about how it all works for developers on the iPad. As a user, though, I get annoyed at other iPad app buyers who appear to expect so much for so little. Amazing the kind of criticism and demands you can see for something that costs a few bucks here in the U.S. And free upgrades? We used to have to pay people for their work. It's hard (maybe impossible) to steal software on the iPad, so maybe paying a few bucks does seem like a big investment to some people. Personally, I want to support a developer putting out good work, and I'd like to see more professional-level apps on the iPad with attractive but realistic pricing---assuming Apple can get it together with a reliable and stable OS. For now, iPad users are lucky to be able to take advantage of the situation, but I wonder how it can hold up, much less progress, if developers can't make a good living at it.

  • these wonderful apps sell for the price of a sandwich, yet people wait for a sale before purchasing...I have often wondered how devs have the incentive to continue.

  • The prices can (at least) double as far as I'm concerned but trial versions should be available for people to be able to determine whether the app works for them.

  • edited December 2015

    @supadom said:
    The prices can (at least) double as far as I'm concerned but trial versions should be available for people to be able to determine whether the app works for them.

    Please know that all app developers would love to offer trial versions but Apple's guidelines don't allow us to.

    Thanks for making this thread. At some point I'm probably going to write more about this but the key point here is that if you like our work (and I don't just mean the Audiobus team but all developers of the music apps you love) then very low prices and permanent sales are actually against your interest. If developers can make a good loving, they will have more time to work on great features and will need to worry less about monetization.

    If you want to see what happens when Indy developers are paid well, take a look at Michael's Masterpiece Edition blog (http://masterpieceedition.tumblr.com/) where he documents his progress with his next app. The amount of thought, preparation and creativity flowing into that app is only possible because he's one of the very few app developers who can afford that.

    I'm thinking hard about how to work around the shortcomings of the App Store (no paid upgrades, no bundling of apps with other developer's apps, etc.) every day. And I'm wondering if there is a willingness in the community to try some other way of ensuring a project's viability without having to rely on the relatively broken mechanic of paid apps, where developers get paid once and the have to find ways to fulfill the user's expectation of unlimited free updates, forever.

  • what about clearly understood roadmaps, or even obligated roadmaps were basically it's like a contract between what the dev is going to do and what the consumer is going to pay based on knowing what is going to be developed.....

    just a shot in the dark?
  • That could be one option, but it would basically be Kickstarter. Which is not a terrible idea.

  • Good thread. I don't feel guilty about buying something on sale but I have also bought many many apps at full price and if the price increases I'm ok with that as the apps that are tools for me are worth a ton. It would be great if demos were allowed, because then you're sure you want something and not that it's $5 app that gives a few minutes of fun then never gets used again. Those pile up quickly.

    I think that the app price model didn't take tools into account, but was originally for things like angry birds, that is what it is and doesn't really need new functions. Music production isn't like that though. I wonder if Apple envisioned the iPad being as useful of a creation device as it has become, rather than just a Netflix and iTunes Player...

  • I would like to see more information in the Apple Store about each app. To this end I would like to see Devs make a commitment to an to keep an app up to date for a specific period of time. Then I would like to see apps reduce price over the lifetime of the app.

    This way no sales are necessary. If you buy the app day one, it should be the full price, knowing that the app will give you a year of use and updates. Alternatively, the app could be for a certain duration of iOS iterations. Later the app would be reduced in price, as you have less gaurenteed use and updates. If you decided not to update a particular iPad, then the app continues to be of use. I don't see iPads being of great use with updates years down the line, they halt progress with limited ram and speed.

    A new version after the last version has expired in updates would then be charged at full price again. Apple also need to have a system so we can easily see which iPad and iOS that the software will work on. Old iOS versions and old apps need to remain available for back up purposes.

    Sales only confuse matters. Get rid of sales and discounts, but make sure a purchaser knows what they are getting, for what cost at what length of use time. If Devs don't continue to work on new better versions, people will simply not buy their app again.
  • seems like the linchpin would be clearly knowing what the updates entail, this protects the users and the devs because the devs will know whether people will want to pay for those features or not.
  • That could be one option, but it would basically be Kickstarter. Which is not a terrible idea.

    Actually, I have do add that one aspect of this is pretty terrible: app developers cannot sell anything outside of the App Store and then deliver it to people on the App Store without massive hurdles. There's no redeem code system that allows for this, at least not officially.

    I would like to see more information in the Apple Store about each app. To this end I would like to see Devs make a commitment to an to keep an app up to date for a specific period of time. Then I would like to see apps reduce price over the lifetime of the app.

    I'm not sure this is possible. How would developers be able to make a commitment like that. That commitment is actually already sort of in place, because it is implied. But to really commit to something like this would also mean that developers would be able to be sued by users if they cannot deliver it. Imagine the situation where a developer commits to 2 years of updates, then nobody but ten users buy the app, which does not pay for 2 years of support. But if the developer decides to abandon the app after just 12 months, he can get sued by one of the ten users?
  • these wonderful apps sell for the price of a sandwich, yet people wait for a sale before purchasing...I have often wondered how devs have the incentive to continue.

    Because people cannot afford to buy every new app that creates excitement on the AB forum, some of us have to add things to our "wish list" and wait for a sale to afford an app that is maybe not essential , but something more of a unnecessary 'luxury' item. Therefore Devs are not relying on the bargain hunters or sale chasers for their income, they are relying on the instabuyers, the Appoholics, who in turn rely on the chatter on these forums for the genuine heads up on what is good. As I see it, the Devs can help themselves alot by releasing proper demo vids etc in order to create the hype. Why should I have to depend on Doug releasing a demo vid before I decide to purchase ? Some Devs could really do more to persuade me to become an instabuyer. Almost drunk, almost off topic, rant over. Sorry.
  • edited December 2015
    @kobamoto said:
    seems like the linchpin would be clearly knowing what the updates entail, this protects the users and the devs because the devs will know whether people will want to pay for those features or not.
    Explaining what kind of features an update includes is no problem at all. But from a developer's perspective, it's always a gamble. You can either make that feature and hope enough users buy it, or you assume it's not worth it and work on something else.

     The right way to do it would be to make something like a Kickstarter, see if there's demand, then if the demand is there make it.

     Then there would need to be some sort of login system in the app to unlock that feature for the Kickstarter backers. Tricky but doable.
  • That could be one option, but it would basically be Kickstarter. Which is not a terrible idea.

    Actually, I have do add that one aspect of this is pretty terrible: app developers cannot sell anything outside of the App Store and then deliver it to people on the App Store without massive hurdles. There's no redeem code system that allows for this, at least not officially.

    I would like to see more information in the Apple Store about each app. To this end I would like to see Devs make a commitment to an to keep an app up to date for a specific period of time. Then I would like to see apps reduce price over the lifetime of the app.

    I'm not sure this is possible. How would developers be able to make a commitment like that. That commitment is actually already sort of in place, because it is implied. But to really commit to something like this would also mean that developers would be able to be sued by users if they cannot deliver it. Imagine the situation where a developer commits to 2 years of updates, then nobody but ten users buy the app, which does not pay for 2 years of support. But if the developer decides to abandon the app after just 12 months, he can get sued by one of the ten users?
    Updates do not need to form a legal contract. If the apps are not kept up to date, people will be less likely to buy from that Dev again.

    Price reductions over the apps lifetime would replace sales.
  • So the core of the problem is the Appstore/IAP beeing the only way to do business between users and devs, which is perverting the market. To ensure Apple their 30% cut of every transaction. 
  • So the core of the problem is the Appstore/IAP beeing the only way to do business between users and devs, which is perverting the market. To ensure Apple their 30% cut of every transaction. 
    I wouldn't put it exactly like that but yeah, that's one of the main problems. It's not the only way to do busienss, but it's the most accepted way.
  • edited December 2015

    Price reductions over the apps lifetime would replace sales.
    Almost app already has price reductions over its lifetime. So that's not a solution.
  • Is it allowed to ask for / facilitate donations in apps ?
  • Capitalism, seldom understood.

    Always enjoyed.


  • edited December 2015
    Is it allowed to ask for / facilitate donations in apps ?
    I'm not entirely sure. But the problem with donations is that 30% of them go to Apple. Not sure how many users would be willing to 'donate' a significant amount of their money to the richest company in the world just to support their favorite indy developers.

    It's also not possible to link to an external website for donations. Anything that could theoretically be offered as an in-app purchase needs to also be offered as such, or cannot be advertised for at all. That's why you can't buy any books in the kindle app.
  • But you could link to an external website in order to access documentaion for example ?
  • @RustiK said:
    Capitalism, seldom understood.

    Always enjoyed.


    It is fun to come up with solutions for these problems. But Apple is making it very hard. That's why you see stuff like this happening: BOHEMIAN CODING PULLS HIT APP SKETCH FROM MAC APP STORE

  • Price reductions over the apps lifetime would replace sales.
    Almost app already has price reductions over its lifetime. So that's not a solution.
    Apps have unstable prices and sales, this is not a reduction that corresponds to use time. Apps often come in at a reduced price. This feeds into the 'I think I will wait until the price has been reduced or on sale' thinking.

    Its about all the Devs changing values over time. At the moment we all know that certain times it's worth waiting for a lower price. This is now a common trait and can only be changed by all Devs changing perceptions as a whole. If a Dev tells people that I can have their app cheaper at certain times, many will wait.....it's now buying values.

    I believe it's about being honest and charging honestly. Devs are also to blame for the current perceptions of worth, just as much as Apple and societies values. People have been taught this 'something for nothing' behaviour.
  • 30% for nothing.
  • edited December 2015
    @Sebastian said:

    Price reductions over the apps lifetime would replace sales.
    Almost app already has price reductions over its lifetime. So that's not a solution.
    Apps have unstable prices and sales, this is not a reduction that corresponds to use time. Apps often come in at a reduced price. This feeds into the 'I think I will wait until the price has been reduced or on sale' thinking.

    Its about all the Devs changing values over time. At the moment we all know that certain times it's worth waiting for a lower price. This is now a common trait and can only be changed by all Devs changing perceptions as a whole. If a Dev tells people that I can have their app cheaper at certain times, many will wait.....it's now buying values.

    I believe it's about being honest and charging honestly. Devs are also to blame for the current perceptions of worth, just as much as Apple and societies values. People have been taught this 'something for nothing' behaviour.


    You're absolutely right. But there is no way to make all developers understand that. Even when they understand it, they're forced to now behave in this way because that's how the market works. I can't even rule out sales for Audiobus or other products that I'm involved in.

    I think if there is a solution for this problem, it's just going to have to be an entirely different way to pay for apps/upgrades/support. And it's going to have to focus on the users who understand what they're paying for and are happy to do so, because they're getting their money's worth.

    Which brings me to another problem: because the App Store interrupts the relationship between developer and customer/user, it's really hard to even form some sort of ongoing relationship between the two. As a developer, there is hardly any way to talk to one's own users, because we don't see their email address or even their name when they buy anything. That's what makes this forum unique: here we can actually talk to our users.
  • ...the problem with donations is that 30% of them go to Apple. Not sure how many users would be willing to 'donate' a significant amount of their money to the richest company in the world just to support their favorite indy developers.
    If the iOS upgrades 'worked' first time, and were backwards compatible, then maybe every cycle of upgrades ( both iOS and then apps ) wouldn't be such a problem and people wouldn't mind paying for upgrades. 
    As it is, everyone ( users and Devs) are all seriously fucked over by Apple every year when the iOS upgrade happens. Why would anyone want to pay for that chaos 
  • We're not talking about iOS upgrades here. We're talking about updates to apps made by third party developers like us.
  • Can I please interject?

    "30% for nothing"

    I'm actually laughing to myself at this moment.

    Do people understand the millions of jobs and income that Apple is allowing to form and grow throughout the world?

    Never mind the fun and activities for millions of people who enjoy the apps.

    Apple never had to let anyone else even sell apps.   They could have made is licensing deals or something along those lines.  They allowed this to all happen for the good of us all.  Apple gives millions in donations from the money they make.

    My suggestion to those who think Apple is the boogie man, make your own company, create your own world changing product, and have it be the greatest technological revolution in 100 years. Then you can be the leader of your own charity based app system.   Good luck with that.


    Thank God for the profit that has motivated APPLE to keep innovating for the good of all of our lives.

    No one forced anyone to use an Apple product or apps....................LULZ
  • @RustiK said:
    Can I please interject?

    "30% for nothing"

    I'm actually laughing to myself at this moment.

    Do people understand the millions of jobs and income that Apple is allowing to form and grow throughout the world?
    And they're getting neatly compensated for that by having turned iDevices into a hardware subscription model that. Apple should not be charging a cut from developers (or users) for the apps that are the main reason their devices get sold. I've ranted about this before. https://storify.com/dittsn/indy-developers-have-an-app-store-problem
Sign In or Register to comment.