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 StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
Let's not to cut that 30% business standard general revenue. Let's talk about how developers should use the right of this 30% to globally access end users' feeling on buying. The best way for indy developer to develop apps should be in terms of users interface. 'Patterning' is the best example! I can imagine how this cash cow app is! Is this app a technically a drum synthesis which needs a deep life time drum practicing and theoretical calculations on sound projectory derivatives? Absolutely irrelevant for the sales! It is the need on our hand that Patterning gives us this variable changers! That is way to make intuitive money! It sells us MAGIC for the rhythmic drum sounds. Once developers understand these. They should stop porting PC synths and musical software. They should continue to discover users natural behavior on these iDevice with our mind, hands with music. That is how a cash cow app can make developers richer.
I felt so sorry that I can not see Diode-108 here for further makeovers. It needs not be the end of any existing music apps to be abandoned. Back to my words, it is the interface designing for those functions apps aesthetically presented to us that is relevant to developers' prosperity.
Make it pretty and effortless and they will come ...
Well, couldn't there be two versions of the app? One free with no saving or cutting out audio or promo audio message etc and one full at full price. It's been done before: live fx, neosoul keys.
This quote and the recent neo-kerfuffle over Auria Pro upgrade pricing heard 'round the webs reminds me of the fair amount of heat Tweetbot 4 took after deciding to charge everyone for an overhauled, more functional version of their app. Few seemed to argue that the improvements weren't helpful, most just wanted/expected them for free.
If you break that down into a mathematical equation – since you can't easily manipulate (outside of Steve Jobs or P.T. Barnum) what people want – a vendor might be better served trying to manipulate/manage expectations. So I imagine it will take a few brave, high-profile developers to simply stand up and say, "Look, it's a lot better now, but I'd like to get paid for all the work that went into that improvement, thanks," to better control consumer perception regarding upgrade pricing.
To see how this has demonstrably worked, albeit perversely, look at the much-over-tolerated gaming model where in-app purchases make a game less difficult to complete. With prices going all the way up to $100.00, that's completely ridiculous when 13 and 14 year olds could easily be at the helm - all a parent has to do is misread just one of those purchase requests. But, standing firm, EA, Gameloft and others have managed to embed this an expected, if cringe-inducing, freemium pricing model. And the foul little $5 satchels of gold, etc. continue to sell.
So, maybe what you could be asking users to accept is a new IAP for advanced functionality, rather than a new version number at additional cost. That seed's already been planted, so manage what you can - expectations.
All this while operating profitably within a niche corner of a niche market. Easy enough for me to say (goes back to idly strumming guitar and humming aimlessly
This might provide a bit more incentive to the small guys for whom every penny counts.
Considering on how low a margin supermarket industry operates 30% is absolutely huge. Especially for digital media with no packaging, floor staff or promotion required/provided.
Apple stubbornly refusing to let developers do this has already killed pro apps on the Mac App Store. But on the Mac side of things developers have at least a way to sell their software outside of the Mac App Store via their own websites. On iOS that isn't possible, which is why we're talking about Kickstarter/Indiegogo or other things.
There's no question that Apple will do something about this eventually. It's just a question when that is going to be. The longer Apple waits, the more attactive other platforms become. Microsoft would love to take a nice big bite out of the iOS developer community and convince them to make touch-based apps for Windows 10. My LinkedIn profile gets visited by 'market researchers' from Google and now and then we get a nice email from people at Google about what they can do to make the Android store more attractive for iOS devs.
So far the alternatives to Apple's platform aren't really viable, but eventually that's going to change, if Apple doesn't work on keeping its lead.
The problem with free apps with IAPs is that they get almost no visibility because they get mixed in with other free apps in the music category. And the free music apps charts are full of ringtone makers and free music download stuff that blocks many slots.
Sure, the iPad Pro has all the iPad apps and the Surface just a fraction of it but i don´t think that we see much more "pro" apps on the iPad Pro. It will be an interesting future but at this time i think apple has no competition product in this league.
Just my 2 worthless cent!
This is a great thread. Thanks to all. I don't think I have much to add that hasn't already been said but wanted to share a great article I read some years ago about "commiditizing your compliments". It's describes why it's in Apple best interest to keep app prices as low as possible.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
Mind, it's from a software developer's perspective and it was written long before the iPhone existed.
Well, yes, they want prices to be as low as possible. But that's just the question here: how low can you go before things become impossible. And if things are impossible, is there a mechanism that can either raise prices or increase revenue (=products sold x price) to a level where apps can be created sustainably.
Currently there is no such mechanism and revenues are just not high enough. Apple doesn't know this and they won't care, until it is too late and developers are already leaving. I have very little hope Apple is able to react to this, that's why I want to react to it first and involve this great community in the process.
I don't understand what the problem with paid updates is.
give the updated app another name then its a different app,
so you get paid for the update.
no?
And piss off existing customers? Or offer it at a super cheap intro price as a sort of 'upgrade' period but then you're also exposing yourself to giving it away too cheaply to those who didn't invest earlier.
The model is broken. What's cool is that other models are being experimented with. Unfortunately, the experiment involves real developers with real bills and real customers with real expectations.
Demo versions and upgrade pricing are the way it's been done for 25 years. Maybe there's another way but we are yet to find it.
Some devs did that. It's not always a popular move but definitely possible. Also it is possible to charge more for your apps if you want to. And I got the impression it has been an overall trend to raise prices for relatively full-featured apps. The question is: will it actually raise the profit for devs or will it have the effect of limiting the overall quantity of apps sold in proportion so there is no real gain because more people will be fence-sitting and less people doing insta-buys out of curiosity. There's no doubt that sales like the recent black Friday ones have a huge promotional effect that will make people buy what they don't really need but think they can't pass up such a great bargain. Overall I'm sure they end up spending quite a bit more than they would otherwise without getting the feeling of saving money by spending it... Another function of sales or even limited free offers is that other people will see the great app a friend is using and will often buy it for full price instead of waiting for months for it to go on sale. So there's definitely a promotional effect that even adds to the whole platform's attractiveness.
I would strongly suggest Apple to lower their cut to maybe 10 to 20% or maybe even change it to some other model. They could do that so easily and it most probably wouldn't hurt them at all. I do see that they have costs to cover with the app store so I wouldn't say they shouldn't have a slice of the pie. But definitely a smaller one. Also it's a little weird with the current percentage model. At 30% they get €15 out of every €50 Auria Pro purchase for example. Rim only gets €35. That's ridiculous. Apple don't have much higher costs for it than for a €5 app of which they get €1,50. That doesn't make sense at all. So I think this is one area that really needs to be improved both for the devs and the users. Apple could cap their cut at €5 max for the most expensive apps. In the example of Auria Rim could then get €45 and Apple €5. I don't think the majority of users will be ready to pay a higher price for apps just like that. Ask the dev of Different Drummer how many copies he sold at his initial price around €90 (I think). Probably not many at all. Now at €9 probably a lot more. I also don't think people will do subscriptions or kickstarter campaigns. Maybe some would, but not the majority. For content IAPs (samples etc) one could probably do them outside of Apple's App Store through websites and then "Open In" to the app you want to use it with. It's less elegant and maybe harder to promote. Another idea might be to offer merchandise like shirts, hats, stickers and stuff for adding continued support and to promote your apps. /2¢
The problem with that is that as a developer you have to start your new app from scratch. If you're using stuff like notifications to reach your existing users, then all of a sudden you're going to have to build your audience for the new app from scratch. And you potentially annoy your users by sending them notifications twice - once in the old app, once in the new one. It's not ideal.
And another massive problem with making a new app is that there is no way to reward your existing customers for their loyalty. With paid updates, you could make the update price less than the price of the (new) app for new customers.
It's all annoying because Apple gets in the way between the relationship between developers and users. Developers can't do as many nice things for users as they want to, because of Apple's restrictions.
To the point of trial versions.
WR6000 got around Apples limitations by offering limited features with the full app as an IAP. I found it good and bought the app. However, many people complained, having to pay for what they considered a free app!! I find this crazy. Ability to test out the app, yet people still moan.
Auria Pro. Great new app. Great features, great price. The Dev even developed an update for existing users of Auria, so they could continue to use without upgrading. Yet people still moaned.
I could name many more. Thing is I won't be popular for saying this, but I truly do believe many people feel the world owes them something for nothing.
I see, thx.
hm, apple could really lower their share from 30% to 15%.
Its not like they do much for you.
Appsstore is a complete chaos ...
buying testflight didn't make things faster ...
...
Maybe a scaled charge. I wonder what the cost of processing all the various micro payments on 1 buck apps is. On more expensive apps a much smaller % would cover the admin and infrastructure costs.
Ok, I'll play devil's advocate because I think this is a great discussion: Apple does quite a lot for developers.
Related to (3), Apple provides two very very significant services to developers-cum-entrepenuers:
And, without a doubt, MS, Google, Amazon and others are all over this stuff to whatever extent they can muster but at this point no one is doing it as well for developers/entrepreneurs as Apple.
I'd actually say that when you consider all of the above (including all the stuff under 'other' I can't think of at the moment) 30% is completely reasonable. Indeed, I would be at least mildly surprised if they make any money at all from the 30%. As already noted, if they make anything, it's not enough to cause even blip on their earnings reporting. Not the profit reports anyway.
So... advocating for the proverbial devil out of the way, I absolutely agree that Apple should immediately stop taking 30%.
They get the 30% back in hardware sales increases (which are more probably profitable anyway). Presuming commoditizing their compliments remains good for their business, which isn't much of a presumption, that 30% could go an awwwwwwwwwwwwwwfully long way in the pockets of the non-mega-hit-creating indie developers who are creating apps that inspire people to purchase Apple devices. How can we affect this change?
30% is a lot of money, at any scale. I don't actually know the scale of App store big hits/small hits/minor apps but let's play with some fake numbers:
No one has said it yet but I think it's important to note that a software developer in almost any market can beat those numbers easily if they go work for BlahBlah Corp (and could skip the cost of marketing and support while gaining sick days, insurance, paid holidays..). There is labor of love involved with most every app we care about around here and though that's been mentioned, we haven't really even begun to discuss how to actually value that. It starts to get into the evergray area of 'what is this piece of art worth?'
/two late night cents.
I have no doubt about the platform,
but the App Store rules are much to old,
this isn't 3$ save the princess phone games anymore ...
its almost 10 years next year ...
Absolutely agree about higher margins. I guess the progressive thing to do would be an international developers coalition(aka: Union). A large enough contingent of developers could potentially do this. Developers are smart guys, organizing them and then having customers demonstrate what power they have might work.
For instance, a "cyber strike or boycott" of sort.
If developers were able to show Apple they could have a 3 day moratorium from people buying apps or iaps, that may wake them up. Unless Apple stands to lose time and money they don't give a f_ck.
The one caveat. Audiobus.
At this point proprietary programming is a vehicle rather than a means to long term profits. Licensing and trademarks along with the ability to play chess in a market of app checker players. You can't tell me that Audiobus can't make a sweet deal with APPLE? Especially before they end around and change the rules somehow first or thier devs"discover" a comparable app.
Just theorizing.
Like most products that come to market in the new "global" economy, the the question is if one is dedicated to profits or the product? Love what you are doing or making money? Age old question.
Generally speaking the route to the greatest profits is licensing or straight selling the product to a company who can take it to an extreme level of market share occupation.
I always feel in life, business included, it is better to deal with the devil you know then the one you don't.
Not sure why it's important to single out Apple's earnings from their 30% take on apps, whatever it might be. They make billions, and apps for their devices contribute mightily to selling their products. I think the bottom line is whether developers are happy with the system and what the developers can make from their possibly years of hard work putting out and maintaining their software. Apple can provide a wonderful platform, access to millions of buyers, safety and security, a great distribution system, and take however large a share they want, but what does it matter to us if pro music app developers go away because it's still not worth it to them?
but what does it matter to us if pro music app developers go away because it's still not worth it to them?
oh I will be a sad mac.
It doesn't.
Because SOMEONE ELSE will always do it. As long as people want the music apps.
Oddly, all this well-reasoned discussion revolving around a mandate that Apple forego their 30% of the pie policy reminds me of Tom Bombadil. When discussing the fate of the One Ring, somebody suggests sending the ring to Tom Bombadil, and I think it's Gandalf who answers, "He would not take it. Perhaps if all the free peoples of Middle Earth gathered on his doorstep and begged him, he might take it, but he would not understand why. Not understanding its importance, he would likely misplace it. No I would not trust the ring to Bombadil. He would be a most unsafe keeper." - or words to that effect.
From Apple's perspective, if an app developer wants out because they don't like the deal, they are free to go. If they want to stay and ride it out, they can do that, too. Either way, Bombadil shrugs. A most unsafe keeper. Far out of reach, humming their own tune, master of their own wood and stream, and likely to remain so as long as their pretty app machines continue to churn out goodies that please a fair chunk of the civilized world. No message from Taylor Swift, even if she were backed by all the free peoples of Middle Earth and Katniss Everdeen to boot, I expect, will move them one second before they are good and ready to move of their own accord.
Look at 28 straight quarterly reports from the most profitable company on the planet and explain to them why, exactly, they should do otherwise? As @syrupcore described in the devilish half of his post, 30% does buy you a booth inside one enviable beast of a marketplace, whether you regard that cost as fair or far too steep.
BTW, in this horribly twisted analogy, a subscription model would be the equivalent of Sauron capturing Frodo and Sam, regaining the ring and bringing 1,000 years of darkness upon the land