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.
MIDI in Auria will be an IAP...
Interesting... I don't mind too much if it's not too expensive:
Comments
They need to bring in revenue somehow. No cash = no development, simple as that. And since Apple doesn't allow any upgrade paths/pricing for developers yet, IAP or a completely new app is the only option a developer have.
It's funny because that post is buried in a thread about porting Auria to iPhone that I was locked in a debate with some people over. The argument was that porting Auria to iPhone was a useless waste of the developers time. I argued that it would be much more useful to me than the midi editor that was on its way and I worried that this work could actually make Auria unstable. This is when Rim chimed in with that thread that's screensnapped there by Synapsa. I'm happy it's an IAP. I think that's good for the users and for the dev.
http://auriaapp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=11008&start=15
@boone51 Funny! I love the back story! :-)
@boone51 I don't know why All people put the Y of my name before
lol
Ha!, sorry about that, @Sinapsya. The lesson here is that copy & paste should not be shunned for my failing memory.
@boone51
Exactly.
Interesting to see how perception changes. When we did the exact same thing in SoundPrism Pro roughly 2.5 years ago everybody (including App Review) was up in arms about it.
The current model is unsustainable and only serves to promote abandoned apps. I'm surprised anyone got into it as a business, frankly, and I constantly expect the bubble to burst and for everyone to go out of business. Meanwhile, I'm very grateful it hasn't happened yet...
@PaulB totally agree. I'm in the software business and if we sold our stuff for pennies and then gave a lifetime of free updates...well, I wouldn't be in the software business much longer. That being said, I'll still complain about an app's price if I feel like its unfairly expensive - when I'm fully aware that whatever the cost of said app is its a fraction of what I used to pay before I had my iPad. Anyway, I'm all for paying for quality content. And I definitely want Seb and co. to be successful at their business - since their business is the source of so much of my enjoyment these days.
I think the best way is the Alchemy way: make much more beautiful Presets pack for guaranty app development.....
I'm in favor of the IAP model but when it comes to Auria using it for its Midi upgrade I get a bit nervous. My reason is I really like Auria after I've prepared all my midi synced and free style loops in loopy HD I used to copy and past them all into Auria for arranging and adding the finishing touches and that was great for my needs then Auria got midi sync and I got excited but it couldn't
Sync with loopy and if it don't sync with loopy it's broke as far as I'm concerned but that was IOS 6
Now I'm on IOS 7 without Audiocopy so that means I can only share audio through the bus or IAA
Or wait for Audiocopy 2 or AudioShare to be integrated into all my apps,so with this current state
Of IOS music do I really want to purchase midi for Auria,after it's recent attempt at midi clock and
Then I'snt IAA capable of transmitting midi and is Auria going to implement midi via IAA as well
As standard midi if so will other devs integrate it and how will it all work ? all these questions and
More make me nervous about paying for somthing that I really need but know it's just not going to work for now.
@Multitouch you might want to throw a few periods into that middle part there... I was out of breath just reading that
lol @busker
@busker my writing sucks always has done and always will do,if I didn't have a spell checker
You wouldn't be able to read it Lol.
Whereas I have no issues with someone charging an IAP for an extremely useful feature, and in this case it will be like having a new fully fleshed out second program added to Auria… and I also have no problem with with devs ending updates to a prior version and publishing a Nanostudio 2, for example…
… I can't help disliking the entitlement syndrome some developers of music apps have, acting as though every one of them should be able to make their entire living by making music apps, and that the musicians that use their software are somehow evil for having different expectations and priorities than the dev's personal bottom line…
… it's as if these devs haven't a clue that their target audience is musicians! And that musicians have a pitifully worse chance of making even a subsistence living compared to devs. That devs seem to believe their work is far more significant than the work the musician/artist makes, and somehow deserving far more of a reward really strikes me as the bile filled opinion beneath the scorn.
The attempts to "educate" these "foolish" artists simply reads like pure ignorance of the fact that their audience is in a far worse proposition commercially.
But, if the dev sees ios devices as toys and their music apps as simply casual entertainment in the same league as a video game, maybe that would somewhat explain their attitude.
However, projecting that attitude at anyone attempting to use the software for their own serious work is complete nonsense.
@AQ808
I think one factor to consider is the fact that the price of iOS apps is an order of magnitude less than traditional PC software... what was recently $200 - $300 is now $10 - 20$. Whether this is compensated for by less piracy and the App store reaching more people I'm not sure.
Seems like the much lower pricing of iOS apps is definitely more than made up by there being much less piracy on iOS and the enormous number of the iOS userbase who are known to actually spend money on apps compared to all other platforms, especially with typically low iOS app prices targeted for impulse buys.
@Sebastian: Soundprism wasn't 40 something EUR... I understand people's frustration.
It's a business though.
I Just want to through in a few arguments pro lower pricing:
1. more people will buy the app at a lower price
2. impulse buys out of curiosity are more likely
3. one major difference between iOS and Mac/PC apps: You can't resell anything you bought on iOS when you move on to something superior. So if you spent something like 100$ on a iOS DAW for example you could never exchange it for another one.
Some developers keep nickel-and-dimeing their users for every little extra sound or effect that you might want to add...that's something different, and can be quite annoying.
But I don't see anything wrong with paying for major functionality upgrades, I'd prefer to see development continuing with a paid add-on every now and then rather than seeing the app wither and die through lack of funding. Auria is a killer app, and if it can keep going and improving with optional add-ons like this so much the better.
Independent plugin makers are benefiting from IAPs through Auria, so why not the devs themselves?
Agreed.
I've heard a lot about this 'nickel-and-dimeing' in the past and to this day I've yet to see an example of it happening. Every in-app purchase in any music app that I know adds something significant to the app.
.
When we have buy Auria we pay for an Audio Professional Daw...now if you want a Midi+Audio you need to pay, if you don't need you can remain on your initial purchase.
I think it's right for a Pro App like Auria.
@AQ808 I suspect most folks who own an iPad and use Auria are actually hobbyist musicians and don't depend on their music as an income source. I have no clue what y'all's financial situation is but I'm sure there's a large variance (as with everything).
@Sebastian I've heard some folks complain that guitarism's 'Smart Strings' $1 IAP feels like a nickel-and-dime. They assert that it just widens the strings, which is something they expect to be a built-in feature. I explain to them that it doesn't just widen the strings but adjusts them dynamically which is unique among guitar apps (or any music apps for that matter) but ironically the better I make that feature the more invisible it gets and the more it does perceptually appear to be simply widening the strings. At some point the details become irrelevant to the user and they see an apparently simple feature as a paid IAP, and feel like they're being nickel-and-dimed. Which is important 'cos I'd want my users to feel that they're getting what they paid for. On the other hand, the Quadroplay $5 IAP (multi-channel MIDI out) has had no such complaints despite it being an "IAP for MIDI" which in the past has been a sensitive subject. One factor here is that 4P is highly configurable so the 4P 'screen' in guitarism is large with lots of buttons and UI, which perhaps gives people more confidence that it's worth paying for?
@Rhism Interesting details about your experiences. I wonder what the user reaction would be if you marketed two versions: Free and Pro. Free didn't have ANY of your available IAPs; Pro had them all and was priced accordingly. That way people could decide up front if the cumulative feature additions are worth paying for, and would never feel nickle-and-dimed. OTOH, you would then probably alienate/aggravate those who enjoy freedom of choice and don't need all the IAPs, just one (They want Smart Strings but not Quadroplay, and don't want to pay for the entire Pro version).
There's a lot of ways to slice it. I definitely don't think the Dev community is off the mark or acting greedy/snobbishly entitled when they charge for updates/IAPs. Good feature additions are worth money, either in up front app pricing or IAPs. The whole argument about musicians being impoverished more than devs and therefore deserving of everlastingly cheap apps is total and complete rubbish. Don't listen to that guy, devs - he makes the rest of us look bad.
However, I will say that personally I prefer paying a lump sum up-front fee for the whole package. I typically do not buy IAPs unless they are something I can't live without, and usually I know that going in before buying the app (ex: Meteor's MIDI, virtual instruments and extra tracks - I consider those IAPs to be part and parcel of Meteor to get the full DAW experience so I conclude that Meteor is actually a $45 app, not a $20 app).
Still, I recognize that dev's have little incentive to add new, groundbreaking features to an app that is basically finished, when they have no means to be compensated for their hard work.
Most small PC/Mac software shops offer free upgrades of paid apps until the next full version release. For example, App XYZ costs $49 up front for version 3.00 and you get free updates for all 3.xx release (3.1, 3.5, 3.9, etc). But if/when 4.xx comes out, you have to re-buy, sometimes with the option of a discount. This seems to be what Beatmaker has done, with BM2 getting incremental bugfixes and feature additions in its 2.xx release, but the eventual/impending BM3 being a complete overhaul and new app purchase. Seems like a decent way to go for a big app like that.
Another approach is what people like Kymatica are doing with AUFX. Numerous micro apps, each with their own small price tag but relatively limited (focused) featureset. This is a good way to get compensated for all your work, and people tend to have an easier time pulling the trigger on a small, affordable app (impulse buy) like that anyway. The flip side is that a model like this requires users to rely on multiple app workflows much more, but between AB and IAA this is becoming a non-issue.
Just some ramblings...
@shortbus absolutely correct. I'm a guitarist and have my music making money invested in my guitars and amp. If it wasn't for the $1 - $5 apps, I'd never have begun making electronic music. If they were $20 or $40 or $300 I never would have done it at all. But since the price of entry was inexpensive after the initial purchase price of the iPad, I dropped a few dollars on apps. Right now I think I am in for $250 worth of apps. To be honest, though, I have 6 go-to apps like Loopy HD and Animoog. The rest, some of them somewhat expensive like Genome Sequencer, just sit unused and I knew right away that they sucked for me - but without any way of getting my money back, I figure it is just part of the investment in making music. Had i known, I'd be in for $50 instead of $250.
@Rhism I must have been sleep in that class. This is the first I heard that Smart Strings changes the strings dynamically. Within the app, the discription just says it widens and narrows the strings.
Wow, I hadn't expected so many reactions to my N&D-ing remark; It certainly was not aimed at any the great developers here! Sorry if I've offended anyone!
It's just that sometimes it feels irksome to see a whole list of relatively minor additions just after having purchased an app; I feel it's just much better to go that way for major additions such as the Auria MIDI editor we're discussing here, or for bundles of sounds and effects. Maybe it's just a matter of perception...
Fortunately, real N&D-ing is still very rare in the music category but I'd hate to see it go the way of the gaming industry...
Right now, small music devs are able to take advantage of the fact that the current pool of music apps is (relatively) small. If I want a reverb effect, a guitar simulator, or a granular synth, I have only a handful to choose from in each case.
I believe these devs are relying on a small but stable dedicated user base (eg. us here) to purchase their apps via word of mouth, rather than the more traditional model of heavy advertising intended to expand the user base and increase sales volume. If my guess is correct, then the only way for these particular devs to make money for continued app development (considering a somewhat fixed user base) is to a) charge for new features or b) make a new app.
Eventually, the music app market will become more crowded and there will be a need to go back to marketing fundamentals. We saw this happen on the gaming side of things, those first few megahits from unknown bedroom devs and then the subsequent deluge of games which are now mostly dominated by offerings from the larger companies. We have seen a few bigger name audio companies dipping their toes in the water, when iOS becomes fully embraced by these guys it may well end up pushing the smaller devs out of the picture. They can try and compete on price, but then they are back at the point where development costs aren't sustainable...