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.
Universal vs separate apps
Hi all,
Thank you so much for being such a nice community!
I'm planning to make an iPhone version of my iPad app Navichord (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/navichord-intuitive-chord/id916452748?mt=8). I have a dilemma whether to release it as a separate iPhone app or make the iPad app universal.
If I go universal existing users get a nice bonus, new iPad users get a nice bonus, but it would be too expensive for new iPhone users as they would not be able to have the same experience due to smaller screen. Besides I would lose in publicity (there is bigger market for iPhone).
Now the iPad version costs $7.99, I'm planning to release the iPhone app for $1.99.
Do you think this pricing is fair? Would you buy a separate Navichord iPhone app for $1.99? Should I go universal? Please share your thoughts!
Comments
I think you've really answered your own question. Having separate apps makes more sense from a sales prospective at the price you've decided on.
As an iPad user, I believe we gain if you do. By that, I mean if you make more money and publicity by having a separate iPhone app, you are more likely to continue development and have funds to keep the iPad app working with future iOS versions.
Hope that all makes sense. It's late and I should go to bed lol. Good luck with whatever you choose
From my perspective, making separate version, in this particular case, makes more sense.
First, the new (iphone) version will be cheaper, so people could try the app (yes, there's a Lite iPad version), and could buy the iPad version later. If you want, you could even offer the jump to the iPad through a bundle (I don't know if that's possible with iphone/ipad versions of a single app).
The price looks to me me fair, even cheap. Good luck.
I want it either way.
What they said.
Hi, Denis. I am a Navichord user, but I don't own an iPhone and don't intend to buy one.
If I did, $1.99 is a good price to me.
Another idea: If you decide to have separate apps, create a bundle so those who already own Navichord can have both apps at a discounted price (or the iPhone app for "free," if you're feeling generous).
Separate app, 1.99 is a steal for this on iphone.
Make it separate. some people are iPhone only, there's a few on the forum for example, for them it would be better to go separate (cheaper).
Edit: on the other hand there is no easy/perfect solution for example: what if I just install the iPhone version on my iPad and on my iPhone so I have my own "universal navichord app" for just 1.99?, if the features are the same I probably won't care that the app doesn't cover 100% of my screen (and there is 2x zoom)
Another example: obviously there are more iPhone than iPad sold but I don't think the iPhone music app market it's as big as the number of iPhone sold, it's probably smaller than the iPad music app market. Most people know music apps through the iPad and as they also have an iPhone ended up using it as well, others started with an iPad and for some reason ended up solding it and remain only with an iPhone to use, might be wrong but I think that when it comes to music apps the iPad it's the bigger market and where more apps are discovered and bought.
Haven't met a single iOS musician that started and discover serious music apps on their iPhone only. In this case it would be better to just go universal as probably only serious musicians anyway will download the app and will understand the price (even an iPhone only guy that as I said will probably already know about the iPad app or about iOS music capabilities).
Another: if you want to profit from existing customers. Then separate versions it's the obvious choice.
There may be more than we realize. I got started with an iPod. You haven't lived until you've used Beatmaker 2 on a 3.5" screen.
Then there's Dave Murray of Iron Maiden...if you believe it...
https://forum.audiob.us/discussion/15668/does-iron-maiden-guitarist-dave-murray-use-an-iphone-almost-exclusively/p1
Maybe make the ipad app universal so that older users get a thank you while also releasing
an iphone only version cheaper ? it seems to have worked for Infinite Looper/Aleph looper.
this way people that want it only for the iphone buy the cheaper version while people that
own both buy the universal version.
As the resident torch bearer for iOS universalists, I must say emphatically universal!
In my opinion the right proper way is to have one app that supports all screen sizes being sold as new. That being currently the 5, 6/7, 6/7 Plus, iPad mini, iPad, and iPad Pro. With a commensurate price of course. If I'm going to spend money on an app, then I want it on all my screens, full stop.
However I don't want to dismiss your pricing strategy out of hand, as I understand that can make sense for some users of some apps. From a user perspective, I think there are two main ways to do it properly.
The second option can be combined with the first to give iPhone users an upgrade path. Would also allow users that really want two instances of the app at the same time on iPad to get the iPhone version thrown in as well (though I'll have to go on a side rant here and say that any audio app needing multiple instances should probably be an AU, why limit it to just two?).
The only caveat to building a universal app from a coding perspective is that you may run into some issues that require restructuring your code to be able to support multiple layouts in one codebase. In this situation you may be tempted to fork the code and modify it for the other screen. However now you'll be stuck maintaining two codebases moving forward. So if you plan to keep updating, refactoring as needed to get the layout code in one codebase is the right investment. If you've got a universal codebase, releasing a separate iPhone only version (for pricing strategies) is just a matter of packaging.
So with all that in mind. As a tech savvy user, I see a universal release as another signal of a living app that will be updated, which price represents more of an investment in the future. Separate releases, even with a bundle, are a signal of a take it or leave it price, IMHO.
I'm an iPhone only user, with many great apps, I'd buy it in a heartbeat at 1.99, but I'd also pay more for it as well, as Navichord is well regarded and I do love the harmony controller apps. Whatever you do, don't completely neuter it for iPhone. Obviously changes will have to be made, but for example if you were to just release it with no midi out as a sort of sound module toy type thing, I would not buy it.
Thank you all for your thoughts. Great useful comments, as usually.
Let me share my latest findings.
I had a quick look on download estimates for some apps (Animoog for iPhone vs Animoog, Infinite looper vs Aleph looper) and compared it with ChordPolyPad universal app.
A separate iPhone app generates 100% downloads of the iPad version, while universal iPhone CPP brings around 20%. Confirming suggestions above about the separate app.
iPhone + iPad
Bundling is a nice idea. I haven't used bundles before, very glad to discover this option.
I digged a bit deep on how bundles work, it is not very straightforward. If you get the iPhone app on sale, then the upgrade price may be higher than purchasing an iPad version separately. Yes, 'complete my bundle' is not always the best deal. If I set bundle price = iPad price, not everyone will get the iPhone version for free, only the ones who paid full price before. Good to know.
iPhone + universal
This may be confusing for iPhone users as they will see 2 apps with same functionality, but different price. Maybe descriptive naming could resolve the issue, ie "Navichord for iPhone" and "Navichord Universal".
Do you know if the universal iPhone app can leverage good rating and reviews from the iPad app? That would be an extra pro towards this option.
Both options looks good, would bring what I want to achieve - cheaper app for iPhone + new downloads (hoping for 2x) and free or cheaper upgrade option for existing iPad users.
@srcer Fully agree, branching for iPhone is not a good idea. I'm using the same code for both platforms, just different targets.
Thanks, very good strategy when combined with bundling.
@telecharge
If 1.99 is cheap, how much do you think in should cost? This would be a full version only restricted by screen size.
Is you the only can judge this, how much work have you invested...
But, you know, people tend more to buy an "expensive" app when on sale and they tend to to the opposite when the price increases. So you must consider release it not to much cheap. Just a customer opinion.
I think this is not a fair behaviour, but it's human nature.
@Navichord
I may be wrong, but I can see the £1.99 phone app price opening your app up to some who would normally not bother and would definitely not bother if the app was higher in price..
Saying that, how do you market anything on such a crap App Store when trying to engage with new markets? Looking at the music sections in the App Store, very little evidence of the great breadth and depth of music making apps available - shame.
I disagree, pricing should reflect value and not effort, otherwise people would not buy.
How valuable would it be for you?
I know my effort and want to learn about value
Exactly, having a cheaper app would (hopefully) bring more downloads.
For marketing I rely on communities - Audiobus forum, iPad FB groups, Reddit, Youtube. Perhaps I could try new AppStore ads, but don't really know what to expect from it.
Normally I'm all about universal, because when I want to buy a new app, I prefer going all in.
However, as an existing user who's already sold on the app, I'd happily pay an extra 1,99€ or 2,99€ for an iPhone version.
Personally I'd happily pay up to 4.99 for an iPhone version. But i suspect I'm in the minority as a music app user, being iPhone only and also informed by this forum and other resources. It's likely similar folks would represent a pretty small target so perhaps cheaper is better. Elsewhere on the Internet, I get the impression that most people are generally unaware of the vast array of music making apps available, even on the phone, frequently you see recommendations for GarageBand, capable but hardly the best, or recommendations for Figure, again fine, but giving the impression there's not much and what there is is more toy like. But I could be wrong who knows.
I'd say it is a great price to open the app up to people who don't have it and want to check it out. $2.99 or $3.99 would not be unreasonable at all IMO. Heck even $5.99. Though, as one user said, if the app goes at too high a price a lot of people will just wait for a sale anyway.
But, value? Well, "value" as concept involves costs, and your work is one of them. You have to sell your app above the costs for no losing money. Or you can make as another devs that offer their apps as free (TweakyBeat, Figure), earning money through another apps or probably because they already have amortized their apps.
To make the things more difficult, "value" won't be considerered in the same way for people who could use the app in their (pro) workflow or just for fun (like me).
Saying that and bla, bla, bla, and beeing sure that at the end we are talking about the same, I'm agreed with other members and I'll consider $4,99 as (minimum) starting price.
Just writing my thoughts. I'm 100% sure your more experienced in this business Good luck.
Thank you all for sharing your views, I appreciate it!
@fjcblanco By "value" I meant value for the end user, not my business value, sorry for not being clear. I see what you mean, fully agree on that.
@Navichord Cool let us know when its out, I'll buy it!
Thanks!