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
_
It could also cause a complete stop to sales. Many people like me would rather pay upto 50$ for an app rather than pay 1$ per month for a 1$ app. Even though technically the sub is cheaper since even 2 years is just 25$. It would still make me not buy it.
this
I feel the same way.
If the app is 30€ Or 50€ ok fine.
I will pay that gladly,
But don't come monthly to my door and beg me to please donate some $ or you will break my thumbs.
I don't want to have all these fixed continued payments.
This would be mighty unpleasant for all parties involved.
that
these
Buy more audiobus t-shirts ladys and gentlemen...
http://shop.spreadshirt.com/audiobus
I want an version 3 special edition that says:
audiobus- we fixed midi
Came a long way from the form the midi chat room Sebastian created to here and now.
Thx for the trip. @Michael @Sebastian
I feel exactly the same though I'm pretty sure the sales will greatly slow down if priced hiked 10 fold.
There
I was trying to convince you that there's already some paid upgrade system in place which is related to subscriptions. I see your concern though and I agree with it. A subscription model would definitely only work for very few apps, not all productivity apps, including most if not all music apps.
Where did Apple ever imply they were going to force developers into the subscription model? It’s an option.
The App Store economy is being put a little more into the hands of developers. They’re not going to try to kill their own market. Within Apple's system, they’ll adjust to what sells their product.
Apple aren't going to kill their cash cow, most of the app store success comes from the capitalist addiction of buying and owning something. You certainly don't get that same feeling with renting, I've never heard of a renting spree. Renting sales etc. they aren't going to force everyone to do it.
I think it's just more options opening for different types of service Apps. We'll see new apps built around this model. It's not for niche software.
I think it's Sonar who have a model that might work
You can buy it for $100 (base version) which includes a year of updated features or you can get a one year subscription for $10 a month but at the end of the year you own it. In either event if you want any further updates you will need a new subscription but if you don't you still can use it.
Of course you're right. This is why I've dug myself in with my air 2 8.4 and I'm not even connecting it to the Internet anymore. Owning something is for me mostly psychological safety thing but danger of Apple or/and developers screwing stuff with updates is so very real.
None of us wants a situation where a development company goes bust and they take all of their apps with them.
So after a major rethink I'm definitely against the sub model. However I'm pro adequate pricing if that's what's needed for the continuous development. I would have easily paid £30 for sunrizer, impaktor. Probably more for Samplr.
Yeah.
I doubt that it'll be the doomsday situation that some of us are imagining.. but hopefully Samplr & FLUX:FX will update sooner rather than later so that I can disconnect from the internet and never go back
That model sounds alright on paper but omg if a mobile user is going to understand it presented to them on a tiny iPhone screen as the first thing they see after opening the app or as an app store description. I don't think that would fly for casual users at all.
We hear you and me having this conversation here is one way for us to find out what our loyal users are going to be okay with and what not. The last thing we want to do is to drive anyone away from Audiobus. Especially because 3.0 is going to be super cool
Yeah I'm certainly not against choice. I think the iPad pro needs some ways to entice bigger more in depth software. I wouldn't mind the choice of renting or buying an app. As long as I can choose to own it that's ok.
But the reason why there are so many great and esoteric indie apps on the ipad are exactly because they aren't mainstream and wouldn't be possible if everything had to be subscription only.
I'm still wondering how good PR it would be if the AudioBus team was invited to hold a presentation at WWDC during the State of the Union Keynote... Who knows maybe Moog gets to showcase Model 15 since it could be used to high-light that key technologies such as Metal can be used beyond gaming and design...
Slowly I begin to see why link was so clever to do in many ways for ableton.
^Yes Link was a masterstroke by Ableton. Next I hope they release Link for Android. This will break the game wide open and will be great for inter device music making.
Link + Live + iConnectAudio4+
=
God
In clarification, what I think must happen to the app store economy is a subscription model. However, I didn’t realise people would attach this notion to a specific temporal interval of “timed payments” — that’s simply unacceptable. If I hadn’t used an app for six months, and I was threatened with continually paying for it, I’d stop the payments immediately and never use it again. What is meant by subscription must be to subscribe to maintenance — i.e., pay for an upgrade, or a new feature, or an improvement, or fix, and if you don’t pay you don’t progress forward. What is meant by subscription must be to pay for progression of the app, and if you don’t pay you stay still using the app as it stands.
To pay any amount for an app and then a few months later pay an amount again with no visible reward for that is unacceptable for any sane consumer (unless you’re somehow earning money from the very use of the app itself, which is an exceptional situation and one I’ve never encountered myself). To pay continually for improvements is acceptable, I’m sure anyone would agree, and this will typically not adhere to a fixed time interval of course, but as and when. In this case, it becomes an alternative to IAPs, is optional, and effectively ‘freezes’ the app at the point money stopped being paid out for the maintenance, whilst still being able to be used as it was.
I’m very wary of any repeating payment. Now that there’s no money and no work, and things are only getting worse, it is very important to avoid (and have previously avoided committing to) repeated automatic payments. They’ll simply drive the bank account further into overdraft and soon all payments will bounce. I have taken care not to be committed to any such things, as I could see the times ahead in this recession were not going to improve financially for anyone, and total financial ruin looms for everyone as they too lose their jobs because all jobs have become intolerable through Digital Taylorism and the only sane option is to tell them where to stick it and figure out how to pay the rent after that. I’m sure we’re all in the same position, or soon will be.
Actually, I foresee two longer term effects of subscription models (whether regularly timed (which would be stupid) or per improvement (which is maintenance and therefore acceptable and optional)).
1: People will evaluate whether they were actually using an existing app and if not, not merely delete it, but forever disown it, and write it off as a brief financial mistake lest it cost more money later.
2: People will not just wait for sales to “invest” in an app in case it becomes useful later or gets improved later, they simply won’t dip their toes into such waters at all, unless it is planned and researched (i.e. no more drunken splurges when the sale comes around).
3: People will stop using apps and everyone will use Pure Data or Supercollider (somehow).
And by the way, what would then happen to the whole notion of a ‘sale’?
No, sometimes it isn’t their fault — i.e., Apple pulls the rug out with a new improvement in their OS, and everything else stops working. If you don’t upgrade the Apple OS, it still works and doesn’t require the fix.
OK I been thinking about all this overnight and have come to this conclusion.
Most if not all of us have said that we want to be able to fund further development of apps.
Most if not all of us are against 'timed' payments.
Most if not all of us have said that we would be prepared to even want to pay more for the apps that we use regularly.
What I am about to suggest may not be possible, I don't know the ins and outs of how the proposed subscription works, or what control the devs will have over it. But if the following could be done I would totally embrace it.
As pointed out by @u0421793 Subscription here does not mean regular timed payments.
Have different subscription levels for an app.
This would allow for lots of what both users and devs have been asking for
Yes, totally get that, and this does require trust between the users and the devs, which for the most part we have.
This is why 'Lifetime' would need careful definition.
Yep. I can see you don’t have any emotional maturity in this matter (where emotional maturity is used in its modern context of being so used to being shafted at every move by faceless sales-driven entities that you just bend over and accept the rogering at every juncture and change — a person with emotional maturity ‘accepts’ such change without complaining about the reaming).
If a developer offers an app (or features of an app) as a subscription, then they’re making a commitment to it. If they want continued revenue from subscribers, the product has to remain desirable. Apparently, there are many possibilities developers can exploit. Paid upgrades are apparently possible, and trial periods under subscription also. The way it is now, all people can do is whine about free upgrades, and a dev might not even be aware of it, or they can rightly ignore the whining. With subscriptions, customers have actual power, as they can cancel. A dev makes even more money with long time subscribers.
It seems to me that everyone is going to have a lot more options, so devs and their customers will be able to work out a more mutually beneficial relationship depending on the nature of the product. That’s what the App Store needs.
Well, clearly they didn't say:
'hey guys lets help out those sync-struggling folks on IOS since we have nothing better to do and Apple is going bust'
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy Apple devices, to develop apps for them nor to subscribe to or buy apps. With emerging technologies there are always changes with both positive and negative consequences and certainly not stasis in terms of performance or economic factors. If the cost of developing and maintaining an app is more than the profit received for selling an app, developers hoping to receive income will decide creating apps isn't something they can afford to do. This has already happened many times since the introduction of iOS.
Do we really expect developers to shoulder all of the burden of Apple changes?
Do we really expect Apple to make changes which lower their bottom line?
Does anybody know the impact changes will have and if not how can this be improved?
Perhaps developers and users can both continue to let Apple know what their needs are.
Ultimately we each get to decide if iOS is a viable platform to create music or tools with. For some, the decision to do so may be influenced by our perception of whether or not Apple or developers are conducting business in a manner consistent with our values.
The reality is that music creation is a relatively small proportion of the iOS market so if the needs of more significant market sectors conflicts with the needs of iOS music makers, then we'll take the hit. My understanding is that the introduction of IAA is just such a case as Apple had safety concerns about apps such as Audiobus having too direct an access to other apps. Perhaps better communication on Apple's part could have eased this impact?
Everybody benefits when there is better communication between Apple, the developers, and the people who buy their products. Clearly as a corporation Apple wants to protect their brand image of, "It just works." to maximize profits so alienating users goes against their best interest.
Ditto.