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 'next' game changing iOS development

123578

Comments

  • AudiojunkieAudiojunkie

    @Sebastian said:

    @Samu said:
    I'd say ok to paid updates, but to pay a monthly fee for apps that are seldom or never updated is mehhhh....

    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.

    @mschenkel.it said:
    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 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.

    A yearly "subscription" would be fine as long as existing functionality doesn't end with the subscription. For example, with a subscription to a magazine, you get to keep the magazines you already paid for prior to ending the subscription.

    Another thing that needs to be considered, however, is how to get a person back on to a subscription again without having to pay the full price again. A way to catch up on the subscription without having to buy the app again in entirety.

  • AudiojunkieAudiojunkie

    @Sebastian said:

    @Samu said:
    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...

    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?

    The Overcast Patron features are basically the same thing as IAPs. You have locked features that are only available if you are a patron. In fact, it's even worse, because the features become disabled when the subscription ends. It's basically a subscription.

  • MusicInclusiveMusicInclusive

    @Audiojunkie said:

    @mschenkel.it said:

    @Sebastian said:
    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:

    @Audiojunkie said:
    I'd rather pay for a version, and keep it as long as I want, and then pay again for the updated version.

    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

    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?

    Right on @Audiojunkie :+1: And let's say that you are a pro musician who is making money from making music with those apps to pay those medical bills.

    Right to own as I said in my novel above :wink: , else it becomes servitude for the users.

  • SebastianSebastian

    @Audiojunkie said:

    @Sebastian said:

    @Samu said:
    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...

    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?

    The Overcast Patron features are basically the same thing as IAPs. You have locked features that are only available if you are a patron. In fact, it's even worse, because the features become disabled when the subscription ends. It's basically a subscription.

    They might have been like that in the old version but the new one only offers a dark ui option and file uploads as a benefit to patrons - nothing like the previous freemium IAP.

  • AudiojunkieAudiojunkie

    @Hmtx said:
    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?

    Exactly! ANNNND how will you as a user feel when you miss a payment and everything turns off? Subscriptions for continued development, while still keeping the app itself from expiring, is nothing more than an upgrade--it's just going by a different name.

    The only way a subscription would work is if the app functionality doesn't end along with the subscription.

  • AudiojunkieAudiojunkie

    @MusicInclusive said:
    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 :smile:

    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! :smile: ). 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: :smile: . 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 :smile: ). 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...! :disappointed:

    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... :smiley:

    Well said!!!

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]

    Personally I've hit those financially bad times people talk about. No problem as far as iOS music making goes at this time, as I have more than enough music making apps to keep me occupied for however long my iPad physically lasts in a usable state.

    I've spent well over a grand in iOS apps over the last year and now the buying has to end - my response will be to be more wary of updating anything, app or iOS. As for paying more, it's not possible, so I'm no longer the market for app devs :p

    So would I buy using a pay scheme of any kind? No, I would just go back to using hardware and my current iPad until it was no longer possible to use them.

  • AudiojunkieAudiojunkie

    @Sebastian said:

    @Audiojunkie said:

    @Sebastian said:

    @Samu said:
    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...

    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?

    The Overcast Patron features are basically the same thing as IAPs. You have locked features that are only available if you are a patron. In fact, it's even worse, because the features become disabled when the subscription ends. It's basically a subscription.

    They might have been like that in the old version but the new one only offers a dark ui option and file uploads as a benefit to patrons - nothing like the previous freemium IAP.

    And do those features become locked again when your patron subscription ends? If so, then those features may be considered "rented", and the subscription makes it even worse than purchase-once IAPs, which doesn't work for me. Upgrades are the way to go.

  • SebastianSebastian

    @Audiojunkie said:

    @Sebastian said:

    @Audiojunkie said:

    @Sebastian said:

    @Samu said:
    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...

    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?

    The Overcast Patron features are basically the same thing as IAPs. You have locked features that are only available if you are a patron. In fact, it's even worse, because the features become disabled when the subscription ends. It's basically a subscription.

    They might have been like that in the old version but the new one only offers a dark ui option and file uploads as a benefit to patrons - nothing like the previous freemium IAP.

    And do those features become locked again when your patron subscription ends? If so, then those features may be considered "rented", and the subscription makes it even worse than purchase-once IAPs, which doesn't work for me. Upgrades are the way to go.

    No the features don't go away. The whole app works fully without any restrictions if you buy it or not, right out of the box.

  • wimwim

    It would all be so much simpler (for customers) if paid upgrades were allowed. Customers could decide if the added features are worth it, and upgrade if/when it pleases them.

    There is one problem with that ... maintenance of old versions. The developer is now put in the position of having to decide whether to expend resources fixing newly introduced incompatibilities or newly discovered bugs in older versions. A reasonable solution to that is a published life-cycle (end of support / end of life) policy. No one should expect developers to support products forever.

    Subscriptions? Bah. The only way I would do that is if it seems less costly on the surface. For instance Office 365 is somewhat tempting because its a few bucks a month vs. a big up-front hit. iCloud 50gb storage at $0.99 / month, sure. But with iOS apps? Spread that $5.99 over a couple of years at $0.25 a month? Have the app stop working if your credit card # changes or something? Not gonna happen.

    Alternatively I would absolutely use an IAP donate button.

    In fact, I suggest a donation subscription.
    Maybe it would just turn on a little :+1: icon somewhere on the screen. B)

    Maybe Apple wouldn't mind ... as long as they get their cut.

  • wimwim

    Or ... maybe another model would work. The option to subscribe to software maintenance (which includes bug fixes and upgrades), or to pay for upgrades. The overall cost for the subscription would be significantly lower than the cumulative upgrade costs for the same period.

    Of course this is completely impossible with the current app-store structure, but everyone would win with this one.

  • JohnnyGoodyearJohnnyGoodyear

    Agree with much, disagree with some, but good discussion. And yes, t-shirts also.

  • mister_rzmister_rz

    A model I think that works well on desktop is plugin alliances bundles, you get a discount for the bundle, then extra if you already own some of the plugins, then pay it off monthly, so each month you basically get a licence for the month, if you miss a month or two you can't use the software, but then you can pick it up from where you left off, after you've finished your payment term, software is unlocked.

    @JohnnyGoodyear I'll take one in extra large, anything smaller would be a bit snug.

  • AudiojunkieAudiojunkie

    @mister_rz said:
    A model I think that works well on desktop is plugin alliances bundles, you get a discount for the bundle, then extra if you already own some of the plugins, then pay it off monthly, so each month you basically get a licence for the month, if you miss a month or two you can't use the software, but then you can pick it up from where you left off, after you've finished your payment term, software is unlocked.

    @JohnnyGoodyear I'll take one in extra large, anything smaller would be a bit snug.

    Your example, which states that missing a subscription payment causes the software not to work, is precisely what many of us DON'T like about the Subscription model. :smile:

  • 1P181P18

    @1P18 said:
    I don't know if it will be next, but I think Apple will eventually drop Logic iOS onto the scene...

    Whoops, guess this thread was more about under the hood stuff than actual apps. Still, Logic iOS could a driving force that leads to other things, as it would be a demonstration of Apple's commitment to iOS.

  • mister_rzmister_rz

    @Audiojunkie said:

    @mister_rz said:
    A model I think that works well on desktop is plugin alliances bundles, you get a discount for the bundle, then extra if you already own some of the plugins, then pay it off monthly, so each month you basically get a licence for the month, if you miss a month or two you can't use the software, but then you can pick it up from where you left off, after you've finished your payment term, software is unlocked.

    @JohnnyGoodyear I'll take one in extra large, anything smaller would be a bit snug.

    Your example, which states that missing a subscription payment causes the software not to work, is precisely what many of us DON'T like about the Subscription model. :smile:

    At the moment on ios I agree with the doubts you and others raise about the subscription model, think what struck me about plugin alliances model, is it doesn't need credit checks and you eventually own the software, but yeah if your using the plugs and a massive money sink comes out the blue like medical costs (although it's not such an issue here in the uk) or car repairs, then having downtime with your tools is a pita.

  • TGiGTGiG

    I have a feeling that Figure will go with the subscription route. Let's hope Gadget doesn't!

    I like the Sound Prisim model. Minor updates and ALL bug fixes in the app but just package it as a whole new app for major updates

  • buskerbusker

    @OscarSouth said:
    The 'next' game changing iOS development

    Allihoopa

  • lovadamusiclovadamusic

    Subscriptions may get bigger devs to offer more pro apps. Good for some, but I didn't buy my iPad with the intention that it would be a pro music studio, so widespread subscriptions would change the product I bought. I would likely stick to non-subscription apps unless highly motivated otherwise.

    Is there a good argument for not allowing developers to charge for upgrades? What is the rationale? I'm 100% in favor of it. The developer gets paid for their work if an upgrade is worth buying. If not, I continue to use what I paid for as long as it works. Seems so simple to me. Too simple?

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    edited June 2016

    Subscriptions as a substitute for payed updates,
    That's an idea out of hell :s

    I don't want that and won't spend a single cent on it.
    Come again if you have something better to offer, lol.
    I would feel trolled as a loyal customer.
    And I would undoubtedly find other developers with business politics that fit my taste. :)
    Thing is if you f***ed this up once I may never come back again because you would have lost my trust. I have a brain like an elephant when it comes to people who stepped on my toes, I don't forget that.

    @Sebastian it's good to discuss things openly, most companies don't have the balls to do this. :)

  • gonekrazy3000gonekrazy3000

    Well. If subs become a thing I'm pretty much out. No sub app will get a dime from me. I don't even get postpaid bills on my cellphone and stick to prepaid. I sure as hell won't do the same for my iPad apps....

  • Kaikoo2Kaikoo2

    @gonekrazy3000 said:
    Well. If subs become a thing I'm pretty much out. No sub app will get a dime from me. I don't even get postpaid bills on my cellphone and stick to prepaid. I sure as hell won't do the same for my iPad apps....

    *1000, this time!

  • Kaikoo2Kaikoo2
    edited June 2016

    @Kaikoo2 said:

    @gonekrazy3000 said:
    Well. If subs become a thing I'm pretty much out. No sub app will get a dime from me. I don't even get postpaid bills on my cellphone and stick to prepaid. I sure as hell won't do the same for my iPad apps....

    *1000, this time!

    But I quite like what Scribd app is doing,

    so all Holderness apps or all Klevgrand apps for $1 monthly, that will do the tricks, if they want this model.

    If Audiobus paid for $1 monthly, I will say 'greedy'. Not going to subscribe! Trust me.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]

    I don't think we'll see many apps that won't function without a paid subscription. Not in this category. I believe these changes won't affect 99.99% of the existing apps

    Though, some developers and users may benefit from the subscription model. For example, apps with a lot of downloadable content like Launchpad can offer full access to all of it for a small monthly fee.

  • MusicInclusiveMusicInclusive
    edited June 2016

    I'll say it again, and summarize my previous, err, long-winded :wink: post by saying this in brief: any app that is subscription only and no option to purchase in perpetuity will be a non-purchase for me going forward. A lost sale to the developer.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]

    Music software is such a small market,
    Subscription is for a constant stream of content delivery not for tool makers.
    So I make music I buy my tools.
    How many of you would rent a piano? Even the idea to do so seams silly.
    I wonder how many customers avid lost with that shenanigans.

  • JohnnyGoodyearJohnnyGoodyear

    @lala said:
    Music software is such a small market,
    Subscription is for a constant stream of content delivery not for tool makers.
    So I make music I buy my tools.
    How many of you would rent a piano? Even the idea to do so seams silly.
    I wonder how many customers avid lost with that shenanigans.

    Actually, lots of people rent pianos, but I like your idea of tools etc.

  • lovadamusiclovadamusic

    If a developer makes their app a subscription purchase, they must believe it's to their benefit to do so. The market decides. I rent Photoshop every month. It's offered as a service, and I have a choice to buy or not. I decided I was in. I guess it works for Adobe because of the demand for their apps.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see iOS as a good market for music productivity subscription software. Why haven't enough customers already been willing to pay higher prices for existing apps? Wouldn't subscriptions drive away most recreational users, not to mention those who just on principle hate the whole idea? Are there enough potential customers left to make the subscription model profitable? FWIW, for most apps, I don't think so. Apps that are good enough to thrive on the subscription model - more power to 'em.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    edited June 2016

    @JohnnyGoodyear said:

    @lala said:
    Music software is such a small market,
    Subscription is for a constant stream of content delivery not for tool makers.
    So I make music I buy my tools.
    How many of you would rent a piano? Even the idea to do so seams silly.
    I wonder how many customers avid lost with that shenanigans.

    Actually, lots of people rent pianos, but I like your idea of tools etc.

    ^^
    I forgot to say for years.
    I see software as tools u need time to learn and practice them to get good with them.
    To me It makes absolutely no sense to rent indesign or something for 2 weeks, I would produce the biggest possible chaos :lol:
    It's a tool / instrument that needs to be practiced ...

  • supadomsupadom
    edited June 2016

    Maybe instead of fearing the end of the world we should rejoice at the thought that finally our talented developers will start getting paid so they can properly maintain their/our apps.

    Bring on subscription for Samplr, Impaktor... cash waiting.

    One possible side effect of this will probably be the raise of piracy on IOS.

    Edit:... and yes, of course I'd rather pay for my apps just once.

Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025