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
This has been known for years... ;-)
It seems the core of the issue is that Apple doesn't allow apps to direct users outside of the App Store for subscriptions. Other music service apps get around this by having apps that only provide content if you have created an account to do so.
Spotify is challenging Apple's App Store rule prohibiting apps from directing users to outside sites for subscriptions within apps. Apple seems to justify this rule by giving app users the option of advertising subscriptions outside of the app and App Store or they can provide Apple a cut via IAP subscriptions.
It will be interesting to see how this goes down in court as Spotify wants to be able to use the visibility being on the App Store provides but wants to avoid paying Apple their subscription IAP cut and keep it for themselves.
I suspect Apple will prevail as they'll argue they're offering a form of subscription based upon App Store visibility (a form of placement advertising) which Spotify can decline by simply using their own resources to acquire subscribers outside of the App Store.
iOS, iOS devices, and the user/developer agreements surrounding them certainly are different than traditional you buy it you own it, you can do with it what you want arrangements.
Beyond simply wanting a cut of paid app transactions, the App Store policies are clearly a strategy to have a consistent user experience even with apps from thousands of different developers and companies at an international level. Having users and App Store developers agree to these terms is how Apple seeks to maintain this consistent user experience. They can argue that both users and developers know and agree to all of this up front and don't have to buy Apple products if they don't like the price or terms.
If the courts should determine that Apple has different rules for its music service app versus those for other music service apps, then they'd be in trouble.
Android has a much bigger market share than Apple so it's a bit hard to see how Apple can be using monopoly power to stop people using Spotify especially since people can use it if they buy the service elsewhere.
I use the Amazon Kindle app on my iphone/iPad but I can't buy books in the app. I have to go to Amazons web site and buy them there not exactly a huge problem. Oddly enough having signed up to Kindle unlimited I can download the "unlimited" books within the app.
Agreed, and Apple Music on Android follows the Google Play terms & conditions like the rest of the responsible developers on the platform.
More like Spotify wants a free ride. Spotify was a kind of monopoly and now they want a free ride because they have competition from Apple and other streaming companies. Spotify can cry all it wants but it can take its business elsewhere if Apple's App Store rules are not for them. Anyway, just another first world problem.
I think there is a difference between proprietary and monopoly. Apple could certainly be rightly seen as anticompetitive as they develop their own system of proprietary hardware and software, as well as rules for being able to use the system.
They can also be seen as being pro competition since anybody can participate in their system so long as they abide by Apple's rules for system participation or a business can develop an alternative system of hardware, software, and rules for their use as Google has done with Android (a significant difference being that Android is distributed on hardware created by multiple manufacturers).
If Android should have a set of rules that Spotify find more favorable and want Apple to change their rules to match, it doesn't mean Apple is obligated to do so nor does it mean they're engaging in monopolistic practices or are anticompetitive if they fail to do so. (I have no idea how Spotify subscriptions work on Android).
A big disadvantage of a closed proprietary system versus an open one is that developers and users have limited access to the inner workings of the system and the owners of the system are not obligated to address the concerns of their users before making changes or additions to their system. Presumably losing user confidence guides the decision making process of the proprietor.
In the specific case of iOS music creation, it is such a relatively small proportion of their revenue that Apple will give it less attention than more significant revenue sources. This may account for why there is no music creation category in the App Store, how IAA came about, the difficulty of sync, the poor implementation and documentation of AU, why it took so long for them to come out with a camera connection kit that provides both USB data connection and power.
In contrast, Apple may have a lot more invested in protecting their subscription IAP model as they see providing a place to sell your app as a distinct and separate service from being able to sell subscriptions to your service on the App Store. Losing such a distinction will also mean having less control over their proprietary system which they base their business on.
On the MacOS side of things their App Store has similar rules but people can install apps without having to use the App Store and many developers have chosen to distribute their apps independently. I think Apple will have a much tougher time if they ever decide to limit MacOS software distribution to the App Store as people are used to being able to install their software without it versus on iOS, the App Store has been the only way since it's inception.
Since Google and Amazon have opted to go the route of creating their own subscription system independent of the App Store, perhaps developers could go a similar route too?
Developing a group of small developers and the users who support them could be a way to reduce the development costs, increase the quality, functionality, and reliability of their apps, and minimize app maintenance/update costs, as well as increase the consistency/reliability of multi app setups.
This consortium of developers would provide the infrastructure to supplement and augment the developer support provided by Apple. They would also have a forum with sub forums for consortium developers and their apps where there can be open dialogue between users and developers. Part of the consortium's role would be to provide users with technical and update support without the developers having to do it all themselves.
Who would pay for all of this?
One method could be to have a subscription on the site which allows you to get updates and provide feedback input on the consortium's app regarding consortium projects. It'd be a way to directly support consortium developers by contributing funds to be used for developing app development infrastructure and support so that developers with limited time and resources could focus on creating apps rather than independently reinventing the wheel.
Too true @InfoCheck. It bugs me that Amazon won't release a prime Apple TV app.
...but I understand the competitiveness nature