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
Lol same here!
Dude, I just got a Zenbook and have been raving about my love of it in several threads. it makes iOS awesome for me (finally). i am piping thumbjam, patterning and fugue machine into it via studiomux and it has been mana from heaven. There are so many neat ways to make the ipad and lappy play together. Yah, your ipad just needs a friend, hook em up!
It's not about what gear you own, It comes down to the person making the music. That is what gets lost in this entertainment side of music.
.
This has been the stages of piracy. We have had limewire and all of those p2p sharing programs. People got greedy and they began to steal software i.e.(FL studios) This led to people now using proxies and a PVN with torrents.
Now we have Pro Tools becoming the music industry standard. Avid must have sucked the highest up of dicks in order to do this, because it has quite the learning curve. I love it now that I am trained to work with PT, but to a beginner it would be a nightmare first DAW. We now have thumb drives to give you permission to run your DAW, and liscenses you must register. We have all of these restrictions and loops to jump through all because people got to greedy on both sides of the fence.
Thankfully this all resulted in the iOS community bringing high quality programs with dynamic workflows. Audiobus, AUM, Audioshare, multitrack studio are three of the most used programs for me. I use any synth I feel fits the mood. Real live instruments are what intrigue me the most and that is including hardware synths
We'll see. Still a lot of choices/guesses to be made on where any app sits on the sales parabola curve...as an aside, I still wish they'd add the possibility of a donate button...but beyond worthwhile charity I'm pleased to see at least some flexibility. I think. My problem is that I buy a lot of apps. A year later there are some that feel like family members; most I walked out of the bar on after the first drink, never looked back....
Well I better be able to unsubscribe to all the shit apps I no longer use (ims20 and iSpark I am looking at you!)
Edit: although it might force me to trim the iOS fat even more than I already have! And that sounds like a good thing to me!
Doubt the subscription model will affect apps that are already purchased - since as long as the license agreement at time of purchase grants you a perpetual license, and they all do, you should be fine. On the other hand, when Apple update the App Store, the license agreement of the store itself will surely be updated as well so you'll have to agree that your license changes when you update an App that becomes sold in the new subscription mode, so beware when updating your apps: be sure to know if the developer of the app is going the subscription route and, if it is, do not update (unless you consider the value of the updates is worth you losing your perpetual license).
But yes, since developers cannot charge for updates, and they should be able to, perhaps it's a change for better after all. Let's all remember though how the subscription model ended up hurting some companies which adopted it, such as Adobe (which can carry on because it has kind of a monopoly) and Avid (Pro Tools lost market share big time because of it).
P.S.: iMS20 is great, you should try to use it more.
I don't like the subscription model at all for music apps. For games, where you play the game to completion, I can understand. Subscribe for 3 months, and you have enough time to finish the game. Pro apps are not things you ever actually finish with. I'd rather pay for a version, and keep it as long as I want, and then pay again for the updated version. I hope developers of music apps don't go this route!!!
Next big thing: an automix app, just feed it wav files and it uses AI and science to mash it together into a sellar commercial mix ala mastering with Landr
I hate to break it to you but that's the faux subscription/paid upgrades model that we've had to run since forever. Audiobus 2's multi-routing In-App-Purchase? You bet that was a way to get people to for the development and maintenance we put constantly put into Audiobus year over year.
Audiobus Remote? Yep, same thing.
And other developers making effects apps? You bet their apps act as a subscription/paid upgrades model. A new effect that does something nice which is released a few months after the last one? It's a subscription model hidden behind new apps released in relatively constant time intervals.
The only difference to a real subscription model is that users don't automatically get charged. They decide if they want to buy the next issue but we're trying to make it compelling for them to buy it. It's the closest we could get to paid upgrades that we really need (and still didn't get from Apple).
We're already on this "faux paid upgrades" route. We've had to, because otherwise none of the dozens of great apps would be around anymore or maintained.
I'll use my own apps as an example:
You like SoundPrism Pro? You've paid for its maintenance with SoundPrism Electro. Like SoundPrism Electro? You paid for its and SoundPrism Pro's iOS 9 fixes by buying SoundPrism Link Edition. I could go on with almost every great music app out there.
Some apps are maintained because the developers just don't want to disappoint users even though it makes absolutely no sense financially.
It's a terrible, terrible model for app developers because we're constantly forced to make new apps or bundle features in odd ways in in-app-purchases (which are very hard to monetise properly) instead of improving and enhancing an existing app so that it becomes better over years instead of just being maintained.
That's not the only thing you want. You want it to be maintainted while you're using it. Over iOS updates. And you want features added to it that have become available on the platform over time. If you're happy to only use an app as is at the time you buy it, yes, that's what your initial purchase gets you. Fixing bugs, maintaining it over time, adding features without any mayor version upgrades - that's also what you get, but developers have to guess how much that will cost them over time and sort of put that into the price of the app in advance - which is impossible to do.
Let me say it again:
You're already paying for the many music apps you love with some sort of subscription model that has been shoehorned into in-app-purchases or new app releases.
With Apple's subscription model changing to an 85/15 cut after one year of 70/30 there is a very strong incentive for users, developers (and Apple) to make that more common.
In the end you, the user, will get better features, better support, better apps that are maintained constantly with that because it's predictable and doesn't require anyone to buy and migrate to new apps instead of improving and maintaining existing ones.
I hope this was convincing.
Addendum:
After a a conversation with Mike about this we both agree that paid upgrades should still be the way to do fund continued development and maintenance on apps. It's the right way to make sure that users get what they want, specifically:
It's unclear if Apple's changes to what's allowed for subscriptions will be useful for that. We think it (sadly) probably isn't. But let's see.
A subscription model associated with yearly subscription and yearly major update and maintenance sounds a lot like paid upgrade. And could also enable some try-before-buy mechanic.
As a user I enjoy how apps are doing otherwise I won't be able to have such amazing tools which, no matter what, keep getting updated for nothing.
Apple on its side should make the platform more stable and consistent through their updates, both HW and SW
I'd say ok to paid updates, but to pay a monthly fee for apps that are seldom or never updated is mehhhh....
In app purchases work because the consumer decides if and when to purchase them. The consumer has control. Subscription models work for apps which constantly feed new services and isn't right for music apps, It's a real creativity killer. There's only a certain amount of money people can spend on apps, I'd rather see a price increase for software not subscription models. I think it will inevitably fuel more piracy. I would definitely spend less money on iOS if subscriptions are the norm.
Yeah it has to be done in a sensible way for things that are actually used on a monthly basis. It's also unclear what apps are supposed to behave like if the subscription ends. In Netflix you can't do anything. Spotify offers free streaming.
I don't think we get to provide a try before you buy mechanism still and pass App Review. And a yearly subscription is sort of like a paid upgrade but I think what disincentives users from subscribing is the fact that they want to feel like they own the apps they purchase. It's understandable and I also feel that way, but I also want to find a way to make development of our apps and the stuff that I do behind the scenes (talking to fellow developers and getting them to make their apps play nicely with other developers' apps) stay feasible long term.
The try before buy I was thinking of was more like this: once you subscribe for a packet of n months you get the first for free so if it isn't your cup of tea you can recede your subscription plan.
Yepp, We'll have to wait until WWDC'16 to see how well thought-out the process is.
As a picky consumer I'd say that bug-fixes should be included for free while new features and functions should be possible to charge for.(Ie. paid updates).
I do subscribe to a few streaming services (Netflix & Spotify) but I'm more hesitant to magazine subscriptions since there is no way to 'preview' the next number prior to purchase.
For music and movies there are plenty of previews and reviews so it's easier to know what to expect thus making it easier to pay for.
For magazines I buy single paper-issues every now and then even though it's more expensive than a subscription if I was to get every single issue which I don't..(I scan the magazine at the store and if it catches my interest I buy it).
For Apps it's different because you never know in advance how well an app works or behaves.
So In order to make a app-subscription model work it needs a trial period.
(An app doesn't change as much as the content in a magazine that is for the most part re-written for every issue).
As for the functionality of the app once subscription ends no more updates are pushed to the user.
It should always be possible to re-subscribe or buy and update to get an up-to-date version.
And I would still love to have a way to 'donate' to developers inside their respective apps.
As I've understood It's not allowed to use IAPs for donations but it's ok to sell in-app currency which is kinda insane...
Seline had Redux Coins for sale, which were effectively a donation. It did entitle you to get your name mentioned somewhere as a supporter....
Marco Arment did it with his Overcast Podcasting app. It's a very interesting model because it allowed him to move away from In-App-Purchases. Very risky though because he relies on only the good will of his users - and their continued good will to re-donate after a year or so.
Would you be okay with something like this in Audiobus?
AudioBus is one of the reasons I suggested it but leaving credit-card info 'out in the wild' is not something I'm willing to do. I'm nowadays using only gift-cards at the AppStore so every now and then I would feel ok to donate some.
Sometimes I feel like I'm 'stealing from the developers' because their apps have a low price and deliver so much more especially apps that get used a lot...
One 'idea' that is cooking in my head is to have multiple options to pay for apps.
One is to have a 'base price' with an option to add a 'donation'.
The 'donation' could be bought multiple times after purchase.
When a developer has a proven track-record donating will will most likely become second nature
You mean a file system? Don't hold your breath...
It would not be done via Paypal but instead over the regular App Store payment system. It would be like an in-app-purchase. A non-recurring one. But you wouldn't get anything for it other than maybe a little badge and a really good warm fuzzy feeling that you did something great to support the people making apps you love using.
Aww. It's not stealing but all iOS audio developers I know are trying to find a way out of the dilemma of not being able to sell software like other developers outside of the App Store.
I wonder how many users feel the same way. Would you still accept there being a donation button inside of an app that you paid for a long time ago?
Don't get me wrong, I understand that developers need to be paid, and I am more than willing to pay well up front for something that I will use regularly and get a benefit from, this argument has come up many times before.. I will not use however use software that I have to pay a subscription for.
This is the reason. I have a tune that I make today using 5 different synths/sound modules that I currently own. The subscription model comes in, the developer adopts the subscription model, which they are more than welcome to do and why wouldn't they, I upgrade my synths to the new version on a subscription model to support the dev. I then decide that I don't use one particular synth anymore and stop the subscription.
What happens to my song ? Will I have to replace the synth I stopped subscribing to ? Meaning that if I want to revive that song I would have to change it because I don't want to pay for that synth anymore, when in fact I had a perpetual license when I used it.
I was considering an iPad upgrade from iMini 2 but now I'll be scrapping iPad and iOS and going back to a laptop with free lifetime updates from Image-Line.
It was near the top of the US and UK app stores after release (as in, the FULL app store, not just the music category), meaning that it will have earned way more than $5k. So that's bollocks.
I'd be fine with a donation button, and I have no problem with IAPs for major updates to an app. I'm less keen on the subscription idea for most music apps, but I'd describe Audiobus as almost being like a 'service' so that's one of the few exceptions where I think it would be OK. I wouldn't want to pay an annual subscription for... say... Moog Model 15, even though it's a brilliant app.
Yep, it's wrong.
We can see how much users pay for apps that are listed on the Audiobus compatible apps list and in this forum and according to our numbers Moog broke that mark easily just from the sales on the first day only through those channels.
There's very little chance that anyone is going to make a synth or audio generator which relies on a subscription model so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. There certainly doesn't exist one now and existing ones will not change their business model.
If you want to move to Windows/Mac OS don't do it because you'll save money in the long term - you won't.
It would not be to save money, I have been on PC before and for many years, so I know the associated costs and how much higher they are than currently on iOS, it is more about not having an ongoing cost, pay to use if you like.
Why wouldn't a dev change to the subscription model ? It would enable them to fund adopting new tech such as AUx and to fund support for bug fixes etc, maybe my example of a synth is not the best, but for persistence sake take a synth with MIDI Clock, IAA sync, AUx and Link (the sync options exist for LFO syncing etc...) all added after initial release and purchase, surely the subscription model has to be attractive to the dev.
I DO want to be wrong, I love iOS as a platform even with its frustrations, and some of the stuff you devs are producing is second to none.
I just need to have no ongoing monthly costs, I need to be assured that once I have paid for something I can use it, even if my bank balance is 0.
I wonder what this move will do to IAPs. I think the idea of a subscription is inevitable whether consumers like it or not, for creative production apps, as I’ve spoken out on in past times. However, IAPs are possibly going to be fewer or diminished now, as a lot of them seem to be ways around not getting paid any more once the app is released. What I’d suggest is that apps become a bit more modular, and IAPs are truly for features. If I want all five features of a certain app, I’ll pay for the IAPs and continue the subscription. If I don’t want one or two of the features, I won’t buy the IAP (for example, AUextnsns — they are of absolutely no use to me, as they don’t work on my iPad, so as far as I’m concerned, manufacturers needn’t waste any time working on including that feature in the app by default). I think this may mean the IAP system becomes “tidied up” and truly used for selecting functionality increases or improvements (as indeed it often is already).
I think we all saw that SoundPrism’s evolutionary descendants were exactly the ploy indicated (and this was accepted), but it would have been a lot more comfortable for all concerned (manufacturer and consumer) if it could also have been accompanied by a way of making it so that buying Electro makes the Pro disappear, supplanted by a new “Electro’d” Pro, rather than having several nearly similar apps cluttering the iPad. Obviously this elegance was not feasible given the App store mechanism as it was.
I think that it's good that developers are getting some proper consideration from Apple, but I am a little worried about this subscription thing.
In performance, I use in conjunction (spread over two iPads):
Audiobus
Audiobus Remote
AUM
Modstep
FLUX:FX
Crystaline
Thumbjam
Viking
Samplr
Patterning
SECTOR
RP-1
Zero Reverb
ReSampler
F-16 Filter
It doesn't function like different apps: It's packed away ready in a case, it's quick to set up and it's all loaded up in two hits with Audiobus State Saving and AUM's presets and once opened, it's a similar experience to working inside a piece of software like Ableton Live.
I've got concerts booked with this equipment as far as next winter and I'm actively booking, some are as my own group and some are working for other people who have specifically requested this performance equipment. Imagine if all or most apps suddenly started charging a pound or two (or it averaging out that way).
I earn my a living as a freelance musician (on a model of low income, low outgoing) and while paying for professional equipment is necessary, this kind of monthly expense split across so many different apps would be completely unsustainable (on desktop you only need 1-2 apps, on iOS you need 1-2 dosen) . Would I have to cancel the concerts? Take a day job? (resulting in being taxed more so after subscriptions and tax still earning less than I do today).
Hopefully developers don't get too carried away with this just because it's new, because while the developers definitely do need to be looked after I can see it being dangerous to the iOS music scene as a whole (not to mention my life!).