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
I think the next few months will be a shit-storm on the app store as developers, whose app is not suited to a subscription model, jump at the chance to potentially earn a few extra $$$.
Yes, exactly this, no pay no play ! It is a danger
With users like you threatening to leave the platform (and definitely abandoning apps that go that route) you can bet that iOS audio app developers are really afraid to go this way. Scared even. Even talking freely about all of this I get comments by other app developers about how open I am about this - the subtext being 'Whoah, you sure you want be this candid with users? They might get scared!'.
I think if we don't talk about this and find a solution together - developers and users (Apple is not willing to talk about this so they're not part of the equation), there's not going to be a solution. One also cannot expect anything from Google/Android. They're incapable of creating a feasible market for high quality pro apps and the Android user base isn't interested in it either to an extent that would make them feasible.
You are wrong.
Understood. Nobody is doing anything to the contrary. And if anyone ever tries a model that is contrary to your interests - don't buy into it and thus don't encourage it. As it is nobody is willing to make the first step with this anyway.
IAPs are sort of okay-ish for content, they're not ideal for selling added functionality and they're absolutely terrible for funding ongoing maintenance.
Exactly. It was the least-worst solution that I was able to come up with after a thinking about it for months, if not years. And I still don't like it. Users and developers need something else.
This might very well happen...
I hope for the love of all our apps that all current apps are not automagically converted to subscription based apps and thus start draining our accounts from day one...
I've got ~300 apps on my iPad and it would be a total nightmare if that would translate to $1 per app every month...
I see zero chance for this happening. For exactly that reason - apps that aren't suited for this will be abandoned by their users and developers shamed for being greedy.
I can certainly see different kinds of music apps being developed around the subscription model aimed at a more mainstream market. But existing ones you've already bought changing to subscription now just wouldn't be right, so can't see that happening. I don't have anything against donation methods though. Artists need these too just as much as developers
Exactly, this is why I raised by concerns, apologies for the bullish fashion, but I was a bit taken aback, and should have probably waited a couple of hours before piping up.
My instant reaction was that everyone would immediately adopt the subscription model and that would be it for me, I had my other main hobby/passion destroyed by the main player introducing a subscription model which meant I gave that up after investing a lot in hardware, that was online sim motor racing. The costs went from £30 outright purchase to £10 per month for the software. I should not have let that experience cloud my thoughts on this.
Good
This is my main fear, and thanks for the re-assurance on this.
@Sebastion thanks for taking the time to respond to me even though I was not as friendly about it as I should have been. I really appreciate your insight into these issues and your as ever calm attitude.
Consider my toys all picked up and placed very firmly back in the pram
Yay
Im ready for audiobus 3 and funky inapp purchases ...
who knows what more changes there will in the App Store and its model.
something is happening already ...
For all the good changes they announced to the AppStore (All of them good in my opinion) the subscription model doesn't work for pro apps, almost any kind of pro app not only music apps, it only works on some of them and usually those already offer subscription models so this doesn't change things at all for those maybe games are the ones really benefiting from this.
I think a donation button in apps is a brilliant idea myself. I have one on my site for my blog and production articles, and it's been a nice little stream of income for many years. Nothing I need to do to make it work other than just keep doing what I'm doing too.
I think a lot of people would take advantage of a "donate $1" button if they're in the middle of a session. Tied to your apple account via credit card, it's a stupidly simple way to let people show their gratitude.
Yeah. As if we needed more games on the App Store...
I could see this working if you can do 1 yr subscriptions for $5 to $15. App download is free (with trial period before requiring subscription). That would give time to decide if I want to use the app for the next year.
I would almost certainly not do monthly subscriptions, even at $1 per app, just feels like a headache to keep track of. We all hate paying monthly bills. Why would a dev want their app to get put into that category in my mind?
I'd pay subscription fees for Panning...
"Achievement -based" donate buttons would actually be kind of fun.
= donate $10
Not a pop up window, of course. Something unobtrusive, like a notification you can check under settings.
I've collected and redacted a series of comments I've made in the iPad Musician FB group here on this subscription thing. I apologize for the length of what follows, but I feel very strongly about it. So, here goes
I also will not buy subscription apps EVER - or desktop applications come to that. I'll gladly pay for upgrades. So, please, developers, don't do this.
I don't with Pro-Tools. I don't with desktop FX, (Slate, EastWest) etc. etc. I simply won't do it. Either I have it and "own" it (no, I know, not own, but have a perpetual license) or I won't buy it. Period.
Here's my bottom line. If an app is sold on a subscription-only basis, it's a lost sale (to me).
Developers (I am one too!) we love you. We want to support you. We'd love to see more revenue go your way. We're not saying we're "cheap" (we've spent $100's on your apps after all!
). We want to find a way to see your income increase. But not subscriptions (only)!
Now IF there's an option to buy a perpetual license too, then that's a different matter. I do that currently. And a paid annual update subscription. Or pay outright for upgrades (as in the case of Presonus with Studio One for example). No problem with that model.
If it's not imposed, if there's an option, and if there's a better way to recompense developers for major updates, that's all good. Of course!
The bottom line in my reasoning isn't that offering a subscription or rental service alongside a perpetual license is bad per se, but if it's the only way of having access to something... No! Having the option to purchase outright is the issue.
So, again, if an iPad music app only offers a subscription in the new model, it would be a non-"purchase" for me.
I'm not saying there's not a place for any kind of subscription model, as I say I pay an update fee for Pro Tools and Waves. BUT, my applications don't stop working or get withdrawn or the like when those subscriptions run out because I already have a perpetual license for them. If I'd wanted to I could have continued using PT 8 until now. But, I paid for an update to PT 10/11 and got 12 along with it and have paid for updates for another year.
However, if I don't care to pay that fee after another year, I can carry on using it for as long as I can maintain a working system on which to run it with which it's compatible. That's the rub here. It doesn't go away... I "bought" it. It's "mine" (yes, yes, I bought a perpetual license not the actual IP or code, sure, but that feels no different. If I never open my doors again to anyone or switch the Internet on ever again, I can carry on using it).
If apps provide both models, then, fine. If it's subscription only that means an effective renting or it stops somehow, then no. Never.
My life in my hands here:
. I say this with some trepidation because I know it's controversial, and I'm only here, by saying this, putting forth a viewpoint. But, here goes. The principle of subscriptions ultimately gets to the issue of the right of ownership of private property, and, yes, fundamentally freedom from some form of servanthood (having to toe the line with strings attached in some way where you are not in control in what is otherwise a "free" situation).
Consider the tangle of those strings if you have subscriptions to not only 75 iPad apps, but also, 15 different desktop products.
It also begs the question "What constitutes a product?" (vs. a service - we pay for lots of services by "rental" / subscription - electricity, phones - different animal). These apps are more like products than they are services. One can imagine paying for an online service - such as, e.g. an online CRM tool. You neither host it nor own it - it's remote. Not yours. But the app is "in your possession" . Of course licensing in general may beg that question too.
What about your ebooks? You don't own those either. You may think you do, but various vendors - Amazon, B&N to name but two - have removed books from access by ereaders because of "licensing" issues, when readers thought they had purchased them. What's the difference? Electronics. You don't license a paperback... (or subscribe to it - or a guitar, or a piano...)
You can't will apps to your family. You can't will ebooks to your family. Same with any electronic music libraries you "own".
The principle of the right of ownership of private property was in the minds of the founding fathers of the US (and I say this as not a US citizen or taking sides here, but as a student of history
). The contrary concept - of there being no right of private property that one owns - could in some circumstances be therefore considered un-American - let alone any other basis of what might be considered fundamental "rights". (I'm not trying to take sides or be partisan to the US here, just pointing something out).
Subscription models could be considered in some sense a slippery slope into some aspect of a further erosion of that right.
(And then there's privacy too... Ongoing having to give account of ones "use" or not of an app in some sense).
A subscription model, where the model includes updates, implies several things that do not fit into a known value proposition unless there is a contract between the consumer - us - and the developer and against which we can take action if the money is, effectively, taken without fulfillment of that promise.
1.) Paying for something on a promise when you have no idea when it will get updated unless Apple force the issue and stipulates what the update would comprise - in general terms of course, but some measure of known value.
2.) Paying for a promised update without any idea whether the value of what you are paying for on that promise will be worth anything to you.
3.) Paying for continuous use of something as though it is a service when it is not.
Ultimately, it amounts to a form of servitude of the buyer to the seller, who, err, isn't really selling, but holding you under a gun.
To assume that Apple will be able to hold the large number of developers in check is a very large assumption - and not the issue in any case.
The better value proposition is for the seller to produce a quality product to start with, and then offer the update at a known price (which the app store does not currently support doing properly - and should as the means forward IMO). If the update is of value, the consumer will purchase it. That's the incentive for the developer - i.e. to determinedly make something of value to the customer that they are confident the customer will spend more money on, not put the customer under ongoing servitude to them. It's the cart before the horse and could be said to be trading on a number of wrong premises.
Other means exist for developers to get funding for new projects: outside investment in them, other product lines, other work. Presonus take this approach, and in general it has been exceedingly well received by their loyal customer base who stump up for the upgrades because they can see the value put before them, choose to pay for the upgrade, and do so!
In my mind it would be disastrous if any of the big players did this. If Korg introduced it for example, and it even hinted at retro-affecting any of their apps, that would be a bad move and cause me to remove them which would be one of the worst things imaginable for my use of iOS as a music platform (not sure how it would or could, but it might - we'll have to wait and see), but certainly any new apps from Korg that were subscription would be a non-starter. That would be a crying shame...!
Same if Arturia did it. Or Moog. Or Cakewalk. Or Virsyn. Or....
It would greatly, greatly diminish my use of an iPad as a creative tool and might even mean an effective end to it being functional.
It would, I think, only serve to encourage the smaller developers to do the same.
Now, I'm hoping that it won't be retroactive. But, even if only for new apps, it'd mean no more cash going to those manufacturers moving forward for any apps that were subscription only. Not a dime. Would effectively kill ongoing iOS music making potential as far as new app purchases is concerned for me.
And, I'll add this... I've been writing software for 36 years. So, not coming at this from a lack of perspective about software development!
OK. I'm ducking now...
Love it.
IAPs:
Bag of "beeps" $1.99
Box of "beeps" $4.99
Truckload of "beeps" $9.99
Warehouse of "beeps" $19.99
Bag of "bloops" $2.99
Box of "bloops" $7.98
..........
Who ultimately controls the decision about subscription based apps, is it something that may be forced onto Dev's
What would be interesting would be some form of arbitration warehouse or escrow service whereby instead of keeping track of a hundred apps to chip in money each period if one remembers, lets say (and this is just a for example ) audio bus themselves set up (somehow) some kind of way of accepting one bundle of money from the user and split it out to all the manufacturers concerned, for the user.
(Yes, bank of audio bus).
To people that's buying the FUD, I'll quote myself"
Nobody is losing anything even if subscriptions become common practice. And then again, if it does, after the way it eroded market share for the likes of Avid, I doubt anyone will go for a subscriptions-only model. The perpetual license will be aways there for the ones who can afford it (afford is an important word here, since I do believe prices for perpetual licenses will go up, to encourage the casual user to subscribe rather than buy).
My preference would be to use subscriptions to fund/leverage app development tools as a way to establish better communication/feedback between developers and users at all stages/levels of development.
With iOS changing so frequently and major changes to the audio infrastructure in particular, the expectation that developers should update their apps without additional compensation is not sustainable.
If there were a way to fund a developer technical support system whereby developers created apps and there was a service that did updates to deal with iOS changes rather than add any new functionality to the apps, that might be a more viable approach.
Subscriptions could be a way to develop open source tool kits which would be free to developers but ultimately funded via app subscription by users who will benefit from the apps created with these tools. Eventually there may be sufficiently powerful tool kits that even hobbyist developers could develop appealing apps. Creating a more modular and transparent approach to development and how it is funded could lead to a greater sense of community and a more efficient focused process for app development.
Rather than engaging in impulsive app addict purchases, musicians could support the development of tools, standards, and apps that meet their needs. Clearly all of this would be voluntary and musicians could vote with their subscription support rather than having to beg developers to add features or upgrades. Developers can choose to use these tools or do their own or use other tools.
With more awareness will come more respect for what developers do and a willingness to pay for the resources needed to create quality apps. There is the potential to significantly reduce us against them mistrust through support and accountability.
I also don't have a good feeling about subscriptions, guess it depends on how they're implemented, though.
Apps like Noatikl have to be bought anew, when a "bigger"update (like: changes for a new ios...) is out, this always seemed like a pretty good concept to me, it keeps money coming in for the developer and I can decide, if I really need the new version, any way I keep the old version to run it till I drop. This far I never minded paying again, cause I'm very happy with it.
I my house there are 3 subscriptions running at the mo, netflix, adobe cc and the slate & co bundle. My netflix one has just diminished as they crack down on vpn's, so I'm thinking of cancelling, adobe is fair, as the price of the software is very expensive. The slate one is the one I'm most happiest with, as the tool set keeps getting updated with great options.
I can see why the subscription model seems daunting to many especially in regards to the price of ios apps, but I have the feeling going forward as hardware and apps get more powerful and feature rich, maybe more possibilities regarding subscriptions could open up.
Like for example if fabfilter did a subscription bundle outside of auria, or if the music app devs banded together to do a netflix for newer releases, try them out for a month, see how they fit into your workflow. Subscription model might actually encourage devs like adobe to do more in depth apps for ios, could also be a feasible way to get a company like avid to offer protools with lots of air plugs included in a monthly package.
I'm very interested to see how this pans out and what ideas apple has for the service, but remain slightly sceptical, as the ios ecosystem trends towards very pleasing prices for consumers and pros alike, not so much devs, the fear of a years subscription costing far more than an upfront payment might be unfounded on my part, but still lerks in the back of my mind.
But I can see a company like ikmultimedia which offers a lot of apps and iap's maybe coming up with something enticing, I think though it's good seeing options being explored to try and keep everyone happy. Plus a months free subscription, could be used instead of demos on the appstore.
I don't want to be misunderstood. I am all for giving developers a better way to get money for their hard work. However (and please correct me if I'm wrong), my understanding is that you subscribe to an app, pay for the subscription, and when you stop paying, the app stops working. That is the part I don't agree with. If there is a way to buy an app, and then subscribe to feature development/support and not lose the app when you stop paying, I'm perfectly OK with that. I just don't like the idea of subscribing to an app and then losing the app when my subscription stops. Does that make sense?
Ideally, one would buy the app. Then, subscribe to update development with the ability to unsubscribe at any time and not lose the app. If I then decide to subscribe again in the future, I would need to pay a fee to catch up on the updates that I missed that subscribers already got, and then be back to the normal subscription plan.
It's the idea of losing of the app once the subscription ends that I don't like.
I'm in agreement with you--paid upgrades should be the way to do fund continued development and maintenance on apps.
I'm all for paid upgrades
Do you also like the part of the subscription model where, after you end your subscription the app no longer works?
Let's say you subscribe to an app for 2 years and get lots of updates and features. Everything is going fine. Then a medical accident in your family changes everything. Financially, you are unable to pay all of your subscription fees. The new month comes up, and suddenly, because you are no longer paying monthly for your apps, they are all rendered useless or inaccessible. It doesn't matter that you paid for 2 years, your subscription and usage rights are up and now you can't use any of your apps. Is that really what you want?
Agreed