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
Actually I do, given that they've done obscenely well in the past and sitting on mountains of cash which they're not reinvesting.
I tend to think this is the recipe for a company to begin to decline. and I start to get worried about Apple, LOL. But I'm sure they are reinvesting, just not always in the direction we wish they would. tv... car... watch... meh, we want music!
Interesting point (the last item there) and worthy of discussion. Does a major OS change that breaks an app imply a paid-for upgrade - and that we should be happy to pay for that? (I'm saying that in the context of proposing and agreeing that developer-sourced major app updates should be something we can pay for as added value - unlike presently)
There may or may not be added value by a change in iOS forcing an update. So, do we, the consumer then have to pay for something that's of no added value to us? (I'm not saying that against developers, just thinking things through with all the cards on the table).
That might be mitigated somewhat if one could choose (more readily) which iOS version to run. Like I stick with Windoze 7 on the desktop in my studio, and have only just migrated from Mountain Lion to Yosemite not El C.
That way, the push to upgrade an app just to keep up with iOS isn't quite so forced. Of course that leaves the poor app developer having to make an update anyway to keep up with those who do update, and somehow pitching that for an update payment to the consumer as a valid extra payment.
They're investing ridiculously little of their cash. But Google and other large companies have the same 'problem'.
Welcome to my life.
Hypothetically speaking it does have added value: it allows you to update to the latest system (with all its benefits and advantages) AND still keep using software that was made for an older generation OS.
I know from experience that Apple are ruthless towards the developer community; they keep changing things around and often it requires substantial effort from the end of the developers (in terms time spent changing code and educating ourselves) to keep everything working for the end-users.
Assuming that paying for software is a way of compensating developers for the time/money they've invested in creating apps for you, you are actually paying for the extra time they are investing in keeping software working.
Since I am both user and developer I can clearly see both sides of the argument, however. It's not an easy discussion, nor a fun one ;-)
Not that apple will or anything…
…and not that I’m any kind of Steve fanboy…
but…
steve jobs on why xerox failed (only 2m52 long, v. interesting)
I fully understand @Sebastian - would be quite happy to see it change for the better for all developers (just not via subscriptions!!!
).
However, OS changes forcing updates on developers isn't an issue just with iOS. The difference in the desktop world is that the margins are higher to better carry developement and include updates.
A developer who wants to stay in the game has to update their app to work on the latest OS. For free. That's the nature of the beast. OTOH, if they want to get out of the market, they're not forced to fix anything they didn't break.
Desktop and iOS are different worlds and different markets
You can't compare these.
iOS apps are about 10$ and sell tons
Vst cost about 100 or 200$ and sell hm 2000 copies?
This is a different market with different customers.
Apple is a publicly traded company with a board beholden to protect the investment of shareholders. Trying to predict a bottom line can certainly be a difficult figure to predict but definitely the key one for corporations as those who don't fail or have their profits reduced and their decision makers fired.
Sitting on mountains of cash is perhaps an indication that there is no clear path for investment that Apple wants to follow and reflects the overall instability of the world economy. In such environments, it's not too surprising if companies are reluctant to invest in the creation of products where consumers are reluctant to buy whereas in a more bull market this will be significantly less risky.
Even if the executives at Apple believe there are appropriate areas for investment of their profits, the board beholden to shareholders may disagree and reflect the concerns of the wider society.
Apple could very well be waiting out the economic storm and when it clears they'll have a competitive advantage over other companies who invest during economic instability with less certain capital investment outcomes. Other companies feel the pressure to invest due to a need to remain viable because they don't have the mountains of cash to wait out the storm while their current revenue sources are going down. By sitting on their mountain range of cash, Apple may indeed be leveraging it for an even bigger bottom line payout down the line.
While Apple may be able to lower their prices during bad economic times due to the mountains of cash they already have, they risk consumers expecting lower prices in the future too should the economy pickup and costs start to increase. One could argue that helping consumers out during bad times might earn them consumer good will and loyalty, but perhaps the consensus at Apple is that it is out weighed by lower pricing which will negatively impact their perception as a premium brand. After all, if you can still buy a premium product during a downturn, things can't be too bad for you as you can still afford the finer things in life.
Fuck subscriptions! This is why I never "upgraded" to Pro tools 12. If any of my applications try to get me to subscribe, and my hold my license hostage until I pay them monthly I will gladly never update. I still have alchemy and it works fine on every device thankfully. I only want one thing, get rid of the damn RED UPDATE NOTICE. I purchased IAP for all the synths and developers that I use and appreciate, not because I was dying for new sounds and loops, but it was my way of showing support and appreciation for the work they have done. For example the Blocs app has IAP. I purchased all of them at the beginning to support them for it to grow into what it is now. I'm sure many have done the same. Having the slicing feature was huge! I hope that we get to use midi, panning, and pitch soon.
A bottom line can mean many things. If Apple liquidated all of their assets this year their bottom line would be stellar. It'd be zero next year however.
I got my iconnectaudio 4+ today. Ohmaigawd.
Apple sells luxury items, really. Why would so many people buy them if they're overpriced?
I'm not going to say that Apple is without fault, but software is not dangerous, and bugs are part of most every software product near as complex as an OS. If Apple was putting out stuff that actually didn't work to reasonable expectations, we'd move to something that did.
Economically, yes, but, it doesn't matter to me as a consumer and producer of music in terms of how I use either
I buy a guitar, I've bought a guitar. I use it for making music. I don't have to pay a subscription to continue using it. I can update it, perhaps by buying different pickups or nut or tuners from the same or a different manufacturer. But it's my guitar. I own it. It's a product not a service.
I buy a desktop music application. I've "bought" the application (a perpetual license). I use it for making music. I don't have to pay a subscription to continue using it. It's a product, not a service. I can update it - or not - as I choose, usually by buying an update from the same manufacturer, or augment it by adding patches or updates from the same or a different supplier.
I buy an iPad app. I've "bought" the app (a perpetual license - at least unless it gets withdrawn from the app store as some have been, but, then, I've still got the ipa file). Currently I don't have to pay a subscription to continue using it to make music. It's a product not a service. I can't currently pay the developer for an upgrade however - easily - unless they put out a completely new version. I can currently pay them via IAPs for additional functionality.
While the economic models may be different, the use cases are not. Each is a product. Each is used for making music. I don't rent guitars, applications or apps. I might, possibly, rent an expensive synth for a particular one-off use, but that would be a very specialized use case. Same as I might rent a sledgehammer to knock down a wall...
I suspect the same discussions must’ve occurred elsewhere, only comparing software with cameras, where someone says they don’t rent their camera, someone else says they’ve rented a Hasselblad lens, someone else is shocked that the other doesn’t own a Arca-Swiss, Cambo or Toyo view camera, and the discussion goes in the opposite direction and everyone starts discussing their cheap rangefinder addiction. Again.
So in that spirit, if I have to keep paying for apps, I’ll stick to SunVox.
There are two sides to a transaction. To some devs, there's a huge difference between desktop and iOS worlds. If they're going to produce for iOS, they need more options. For them, an iOS app is nothing like a guitar. Selling a service rather than a product may be their best option. We consumers may get new options that improve iOS music-making. Of course, we all get to choose, but buying and selling a service is a legitimate way of doing business. My bet is that we'll still have choices, that many apps will not be subscription. The ones that are, I'll choose to buy or pass on a case-by-case basis.
Having Apple reimburse developers for the cost of updates due to iOS changes would be a very nice gesture. I would be very surprised if that ever happened as Apple seems to consistently operate within a, "Field of Dreams" perspective, "If we build it they will come."
You would think Apple would be more accommodating with developers to keep them coming but since they're more focused on selling stadiums and they expect developers to adapt to them is my perception which may not be accurate. Perhaps their focus is on fans of major league sports and their fans whereas music creation and their activities fall fairly low on their priority list. I defer to developers to share their experiences of how well Apple is communicating with them and addressing their concerns for a more accurate assessment of how Apple operates in this area.
It does seem Apple is more interested in protecting buying an app with free updates for life for iOS devices because there is a big difference between the cost of buying laptops, their software, and upgrades which is attractive to a significant proportion of the iOS device buying public. Too the extent there is no shortage of developers willing to produce apps or people who buy them for iOS, it limits Apple's incentive to make changes. From the get go, Apple has designed iOS and iOS devices to operate such the user's must agree to terms resulting in only being able to legally purchase apps from the App Store versus OSX where developers have a variety of options for selling their apps.
Their iOS update mechanism where you can only go forward and not back is another example of how iOS is significantly different than other platforms. Part of the reasoning behind Apple doing this is too minimize support for multiple versions of iOS both for themselves and for developers.
It has also been my observation that Apple promotes apps with IAP and their biggest seller are games where a free app with lots of consumable IAPs is the norm. Expanding apps with subscriptions is another way Apple is trying to attract more commitment from developers so the can distribute the cost of higher priced apps over time in much the same way that the high initial cost of iPhones is financed by most buyers in periodic payments too.
Until Apple believes there are economic consequences to their policies, I believe they'll stay the course. It's up to us to decide if we still want to watch their game or step on their field.
How are Apple connected with sports? (Maybe they are, I’ve no idea, I know and care zero about sports).
I think the watch may prove to be more surprising as time goes on (and I don’t have one, they’re expensive, and even if I had the money surplus, the knob is on the incorrect side — when I did wear a watch because of employment slavery, I wore it on my right hand, but set the time twice a year when I wasn’t wearing it). I suspect the watch is the gateway to VR, and I fully anticipate VR is where everything is going very soon now.
What is a moronic disappointment is the Apple TV. This should have been so much more, but isn’t and probably never will be.
Take it easy. I don't think this it's going to change much at all regarding music apps. most developers and consumers know that this model doesn't work for music apps
Here's the good thing about that @Lacm1993 - unlike other app markets, we are in fact, in a way that's really quite unique, a fairly close-knit community. Those of us who are serious about this are here and in iPad Musician and other places and so are the developers - at least - a good number of them. We can have this discussion and bat these ideas around and everyone participates and can speak and listen. That's just not true of many other app arenas. We are privileged by having developers among us.
**THANK YOU TO ALL DEVELOPERS WHO INTERACT HERE!
**
This would work.
This should also require some kind of 'road-map' from the developer as to what to expect as a customer during that year. Being a Renoise user it's quite nice to have an insight to the development of the app and being able to 'vote' for features that get included in the next update. I started with version 1.1 and have since then paid a few times. My current 'licence' is valid until 3.5 so about a year or two more as current version is 3.1.
But not having a clue what to expect makes paying in advance a bit of like 'buying a pig in a box'. If the 'bigger' companies/apps had a somewhat public road-map it would make more sense.
Back to donation. If the road-map was public and the 'boat' was going in the direction that a users like it would potentially be a good donation-carrot
I can understand businesses that see software as a service and the hardware as a commodity meaning everything is more or less rented/leased and replaced at certain interval depending on the tax-rules in respective countries but that doesn't really work like that for regular folks.
This is just me, but I agree on the side of the developers on this one. Unlike Windows' famous backwards compatibility that for years would allow programs all the way back to DOS to run on the latest system, Apple holds backwards compatibility a low priority. Since changes need to be made to an app almost each time a new major iOS version comes out, I wouldn't have a problem paying a small fee for an update that updates compatibility with the latest major iOS upgrade. I think it is a good way to make sure developers will continue supporting the app rather than letting it die after a year of use. Does anyone remember @Rhism and his wonderful Guitarism app? How about Samplr? There are several apps that I would love to encourage the developer to at the very least update the app to work with the current iOS version. If I were a developer, I know I would find it discouraging to constantly have things changed on me with every iOS update...
Agreed!!! Much appreciated!!!
A road-map of what to expect for the subscription payment would be a good idea too. However, there will be times when certain features won't be able to be mentioned (take for example new Apple iOS features where NDA requirements keep the feature from being mentioned)...
Also the iPod was some kind of failure back in early 2k but it was actually the first touch interface which would fit in your pocket But then it jus became the coolest MP3 player in the courtyard some years later.
Field of Dreams was a movie with a very convoluted plot about a corn farmer in Iowa who hears a voice in his head telling him to create a baseball field in the middle of Iowa so that the ghosts of a disgraced professional baseball team, the Chicago White Sox, will come to play there.
If one thinks of the humble origins of Apple relative to its current economic status, it's a similarly improbable series of events.
If we think of Apple as creating their products being analogous to the farmer building the baseball field, Apple has been guided by their inner voice rather than developing products the public was demanding.
To be more specific, Apple built the iOS devices, iOS, and the App Store assuming developers would create apps and that people would buy them.
Of course the analogy breaks down rather quickly as developers aren't disgraced ghosts even if they feel Apple treats them as such except when it comes to taking their 30% cut of app sales.
The movie also deals with a lot of fantasy focused on psychological father issues which perhaps is appropriate as people seem to be strongly effected at perhaps Freudian subconscious levels when access to iOS music apps is perceived to be threatened.