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
@technemedia
Many don't seem to mind IAPs. My self I really like some addons. But yes Apple does limit options for Devs and to my mind has created an environment that works for some, but not others.
How are you finding the IAPs being received on the whole? I know in life some would moan about a warm summer day having the wrong tone of blue sky, but Different Drummer was a great fun app before the Zenterface. The IAP gives us a nice easy option to make it more fun....seems a no brainer for a few squid to me
To my mind the IAP approach has advantages for the user. We usually get free maintenance and bug fixes being delivered each time an IAP is added. No need to buy the IAPs to keep your app working if you so choose. I've not seen any forced IAPs, unless we count free apps as testers, which is fair enough.
I like the idea @technemedia, but how would that best be presented to Apple? I imagine a single dev wouldn't have as much chance as if it were done collectively. I generally oppose unions, but there are instances when I see their purpose, and in this case, Apple still holds all the cards, but it might be more effective. Us users also have a vested interest. There's quite a bit of abandonware out there that I miss, plus I want to see more incentive for devs to make the most of this platform.
I don’t mind using an app that works perfectly for what it was bought for even if it never receives another update or any further attention to the point that the manufacturers may have retired that product or even have gone out of business. However, that never actually works that way. An app that does a job may well never need any further maintenance but the surrounding software and firmware (the hardware on an iPad obviously doesn’t change, which I see as an advantage) will change, and can rock the boat such that the once functional app no longer functions in new seas.
This is of course not the liability of the app manufacturers and I see the device manufacturers at fault there. My phone (Sony Xperia Z) is simply not the phone I once bought, and it’s frankly baffling and often annoying, where once, several years ago, it was enjoyable and engaging. I simply wouldn’t have bought it like it is now. How dare they change what I’ve invested in away from the points that caused my choice in the first place? That’s hardware fraudulence.
An app manufacturing company should be able to release a product and rely on it working more or less forever on the devices it was released for. That this is not possible, and worse, that the responsibility for corrective maintenance to keep it working, is not done once by the device manufacturer but instead hundreds of times by each app manufacturer, is simply an incorrect situation.
Therefore, people buy an app, and keep hungrily looking for signs that it is still alive, praising new updates with a sigh of relief that it’s not abandoned (even if the before app and the after app are functionally indistinguishable). This is accompanied by a general unwarranted mistrust of apps that have not been updated for several years.
The thing I see that is incorrect with the whole iOS app situation is (given the apps are nearly free) that there is an expectation for continued attention by the manufacturer for pretty much no additional income. I know most people disagree with me, but as I keep banging on about, I would see a “subscription” approach rather than an outright purchase, as the way forward for both sides, with the one significant proviso that if I don’t pay next year’s subscription, I can still use my previous year’s version of the app (which may or may not continue to be maintained as that version — I would of course understand that that could occur). A new version is a new year’s subscription (or new season’s, or new asynchronous temporal interval if it comes out as and when). The previous version should still work and for many people will be still sufficient. Most will of course, move up to the new version by paying the money.
Apple themselves seem to realise the way to make money is to keep charging for the same old tat. Look at the way that the youngsters listen to music these days. Services like Beezer, Scabify and Apple’s new thing called “Music” (whatever that means), are all ways of extracting regular and repeating amounts from pockets. Yet when you try and do it to apps, nobody is happy.
I would also posit another point. iOS is the first time that, er, someone that I know, was introduced to the idea that it is possible to actually pay for software, having previously never been able to afford the exhorbitant costs of such before in the ’90s. And for the first time, this notion was accepted by, er, that someone else. I know a lot of people who are designers like I was, and the only way they could ever become marketable was to know QuarkXpress Photoshop Illustrator off by heart, and the manufacturers of those software knew full well the role that surreptitious obtaining played in the spread of popularity of their products in the mainstream design industry. iOS is doing the opposite — making it ridiculous to even think of not paying for it, but in doing so, they’re likely to strangle the app manufacturers other than the lucky lottery winners of the perennial top five apps.
It's good to remember music app developers are often musicians themselves and not large corporations though there are plenty of those. The corps can afford to throw away big bucks on app development because say Korg, for example, sells hardware all over the world 24-7 and the apps are sort of a clever marketing tool, probably paid for in the marketing budget. Then you have Apple which creates awesome freeware that is fantastic for users but squelches other developers who could never justify doing such things for free and will never even start, damping out innovation, IMO. I think of my customers as friends and when they buy something from me it's like buying me a beer or a latte. As I've said before, my main motivation is music and exploration of possibilities, not money. I think of Different Drummer as a sort of "meta composition" I'm sharing as an artist and not a financial mechanism. Ironically, I probably would make more money if my app were 5 bucks which is 3 bucks a pop for me...but if 100 thousand users bought it, that's big bucks. If a hundred bought it, not so hot. I've also found when you deflate the price, users are reluctant to ever go back to a higher price and will just hold out for a sale so I'd rather sell 100 for 10 bucks than 200 for 5 bucks because I can have a more personal relationship with my customers. I'll probably keep developing DD out of love no matter what because I enjoy it.
Living in Manchester, having the sky any colour other than grey is a bonus
@u0421793
A lot of good points there.
I accept that with software, there is almost an inbuilt time limit of how long we can expect to have our apps work, if we update iOS.
I think the IAP model helps to some degree. We buy the initial app and have longer than expected life due to upkeep that becomes part of adding the new ideas as IAPs. We get to pay for the any new features if wanted, but apps can still remain relavent for the latest systems.
Most will hopefully buy new features and the Dev continues to get income. Many people here are probably not using the apps they don't update.
The subscription model is difficult for a device owner like myself who uses many apps. I would have to drop apps, as I would not be able to upkeep subscription on apps that I only use now and again. The laptop world tends to be different in that users usually tend to have less programs, but some are much more multi purpose.
I think the subscription model would not help smaller more esoteric apps on iOS.
@technemedia I'm so glad you are passionate and have given us such a great app, thank you
I am curious though, if you have found many are reluctant to IAPs. I personally like them (if you haven't guessed that by now)
Ok off to play Gray Day by Madness
I would love it if Apple would just let developers decide which model works for them and them the market decide. You could have three basic models:
1. As is free upgrades with IAPs as driver
2. Paid major upgrades where user is free to keep last paid for version as long as they like and can't be charged twice in same year
3. Subscription model where it was a lower price but if subscription lapsed app would revert to demo mode
I prefer model 2 because I'd like to keep my app pure and fully functional though I could see additional content and special features as IAP...but those would NOT need to be upgraded and would be perpetual.
I like 1 and 2. As I wrote prior, I can't see subscription models working well for iOS apps. Maybe only the DAWs would work that way.
It would kill them, no-one is going to pay regularly for apps that they only use on occasion.
A true subscription model is pay to use, you pay for the year to be able to use that software for that year, if you don't pay you don't use, not even the 'old' version, which may not be 'old' as there may not have been any updates.
What @u0421793 is describing in the post to me is a support contract where you pay yearly to receive upgrades, if there are no upgrades you still pay. If you don't want the upgrades and want to stay on the current version you stop paying. This isn't a great deal for consumers. If you have this model and use it like @u0421793 suggests and essentially opt in and out to only pay on the years when there is an upgrade you want, this is actually an outright purchase and paid upgrade model.
Outright purchase and paid upgrades is the only real model that works for consumers and dev's alike, if you don't want to be 'forced' into paying for an upgrade then don't upgrade your iOS.
Dev's need to find a way to charge for major or even minor upgrades within the constraints of what is allowed on the store. What says that a minor upgrade hasn't incurred cost in time to the dev ?
Does that bring us back round to either IAP or releasing a new app for each major version as being the only viable options ?
Of the two I prefer IAP as my app keeps it's identity !
Other than that I don't see a difference, from a consumer perspective.
Now, will you all stop trying to distract me and make me stop thinking about getting my hands on my Launchpad tomorrow
Here, here
Andy, have you seen the jamming video for the Circuit yet? I was not very interested in the Circuit to start with, but it's beginning to tingle my spider sense (o how geeky)
Yes, on the forum here yesterday, and then about 100 times in my dreams last night
And the editor program(PC or MAC only) for it makes it even more desirable....
Since it's release I have been going round in my head, Circuit or Launchpad/LaunchControlXL combo......I want all 3 LOL