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
Subscription fees hurt the poor…
…and also the devs!
What would be left to entice them off their private islands with a constant stream of cash flowing in?
....yeah.....I unfortunately hate the subscription model. Adobe has tried that as well, to no avail. :-(
Simple: if the devs don't deliver, subscriptions are going to end. Nothing can keep users from cancelling.
And lets face it: devs are putting out in-app purchases in the hope of users wanting to buy them. If users like them, all is fine.
There's no difference to subscriptions: if users don't like the new content and features delivered month by month then they just cancel their subscription...
Maybe basic functionality would be keep working, but the new and shiny stuff (that users don't want) would be disabled.
The only difference it really makes is that it's more predictable for developers. Planning becomes easier, monetization becomes less of a pain.
"ran Ubuntu as my main OS for 5 years" there's yer problem right there... holy goodness, I'd shoot myself. I can TOTALLY understand where you would feel like you've made 20 years of progress after using Unbutu for 5 years. I feel like a mad scientist when I'm able to figure out how to get Unbutu to print something. Comparatively the iPad is probably god-like. ;-)
http://features.cgsociety.org/newgallerycrits/g34/304034/304034_1269613868_submedium.jpg
@Julieno said "I think audiobus price tag is ridiculously low compared to what it enables its users to do."
Absolutely right. I paid more for my lunch yesterday than I have paid in total for Audiobus. I would gladly give up a month of lunches to have Audiobus. I feel like I'm holding out a fist full of dollars and screaming "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY", but it's me just being honest. It was nothing short of revolutionary when it was released. It changed music making for me. That's not lost on me and I bet I'm not alone. Neither an IAP or a new app would run me off.
I love this community and what it represents. I have a huge amount of respect for ALL of the developers I've heard from on here. As Rhism said in another post, perhaps the community is an equal or greater achievement than Audiobus itself. I've certainly never experienced anything like it anywhere else. I feel like I'm a part of something special here (a tiny little insignificant part, but a part nonetheless).
I'm completely happy with this new User and Dev software model and I don't think it matters who
Is in control User Dev or hardware manufacture as long as we all benefit.
I've been using computers for creating audio for a long time and I have bought music software for the many hardware platforms I have used and each time I have had to save up cash sometimes for a year or more only to find there are bugs that haven't been fixed.
The best thing about this new model is it seriously reduces the threat of piracy no-longer do we have to pay hundreds of pounds/dollars for software with bugs that haven't been fixed.
@Sebastian said "Apps aren't ever finished, at least from a users point of view"
I think an App can be finished if it performers the task it was designed to do,without any errors been generated during usage. When a Dev adds a new feature to an App it is up to him/her to decide if they should charge for it and I think they should base their decision on how much extra functionality it provides.
@Sebastian I totally would love to pay you monthly but you would have to give me a monthly Audiobus update with some good new features and then I wouldn't want to pay every other App Dev on a monthly basis because I would be skint in a month.
"I want to believe.
" / Sebastian
Well stop. Won't happen. Or well, unless you want a really small user base, and a much higher pressure to constantly deliver. Subscription models are never, ever going to work. What is needed is a fundamental change to how the iTunes/AppStore ecosystem works. Easy peasy!
@ChrisG: Interesting. Exactly what fundamental change is needed to "how the iTunes/AppStore ecosystem works" and how easy peasy would it be to implement?
@Washboy Well, one thing could be that developers would be able to release a new app, have an upgrade price path for existing customers on this new app, and the regular price for new users. I'm sure if you ask a dev that there are a million changes they'd like to see that'll allow them more freedom when it comes to price structures, cross-app/upgrade paths and so on.
I have a natural revulsion to the idea of app subscriptions.
Speaking for myself, I am a hobbyist musician. For me, buying an audio app is somewhat of an impulse decision because the prices are currently reasonable. Some apps I buy because they look like they may be useful, even though I may not use them right away. A subscription model would put an end to that pretty quickly... I simply can't justify the perpetual money drain.
The main deterrent for me would be the feeling that "I'm paying for these apps so I should really use them to do something serious", which would totally suck the feeling of joy and freedom I currently get from iOS music creation. Right now I don't put too much creative pressure on myself and I can enjoy just tinkering around; I use it as a means to relax and have fun. Psychologically, feeling like that experience was being continually monetized would pretty much ruin the whole thing for me, and I'd probably just stick with playing my guitar to unwind.
@busker: Those are probably the strongest arguments against a subscription model.
I'm with @busker on this. I'm just a hobbyist. I spend a lot of money on it, but I don't want to lose what I have already, when money is scarce--which is what subscriptions do--they cancel what you have if you don't pay. :-( Now, I'm more than willing to pay for IAPs or even upgrade to new versions of the app if needed. :-)
@busker, get out of my head. That was perfect.
Agreed with Busker. I think we all have a vested interest in the continued success of Audiobus, and I certainly want Sebastian et. Al. To be able to monetize this great app. They deserve to do so, and they have a fantastic product that is very useful.
But, subscriptions are a bad idea. Witness the amount of public loathing directed towards Adobe Creative Cloud. We professionals, semi-professionals, and amateurs (I am a bit of each) like to have our software available to use in perpetuity, and not have to worry about it being suddenly inoperable or not feature-complete.
Also, consider the fact that even those of us who make money from music often do not have a steady stream of income; one month I might not have the $ to keep up my Audiobus subscription, but I could absolutely afford a new IAP or separate app the following month, adding features when I am able.
So, my preference for new features would be through in-app purchasing, or a separate app that adds new features. As much as I absolutely adore Audiobus (I check this forum compulsively), the idea of a subscription fee turns me off. I'd rather pay $20 for the relevant features (wireless audio, MIDI support, scene saving, and IAA compatibility at $5 each) and be done with it.
I'm curious, is it possible to create an IAP where the buyer decides the price? I asking because certain app developers have "paid their dues" and earned a level of user trust and loyalty that often generates little money for them. If Audiobus created an IAP for $2 (or whatever) for a "support your developer" purchase (no actual app improvement just send money) I think an app like Audiobus would get some decent cash coming in. Most of us here want to support and preserve such a game changing app, and a dollar here and there from a bunch of fans might make us all feel like we're on the team.
I'm serious!
@NoiseHorse:
One thing that's always interesting is to create stuff like Indiegogo or Kickstarter campaigns to figure out if there's enough users who would be willing to pay for a certain feature. The problem with that is that it's not easy (but possible) to enable it for them once it's implemented as an IAP later on.
Some features just take months to complete and might require hiring additional developers to get them done. If there was a way to make sure there's enough demand for it then ... well... more cool stuff could be made.
Apart from that: if you're taking part in these discussions and allow us to figure out what our most loyal users think, you are part of the team.
I see where you're going NoiseHorse, but that wouldn't be an IAP. It would be more like sponsorship. I don't think that would, or should replace IAP's. It would work as an investment in the community, but not the app.
I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that Apple don't allow IAPs to be used for donations. It might have changed.. In any case, better to use PayPal or similar for a direct donations, or else Apple takes 30% of it. (Which is why Apple don't allow PayPal links inside apps either, if I understand correctly)
Very good discussion going on here. In short, I don't like subscription service, but would pay for additional IAP features, new app, or upgrade version (if that were allowed). Definitely better to add a donation link on the site than in app
@NoiseHorse Punch Quest in particular has a 'donate a buck' IAP - someone around here (@syrupcore?) tipped me off to that one. Not sure how well it's doing, but it's cool.
As a dev, a monthly subscription model would drive me insane. The constant pressure to release something cool every single month... no ability to take a vacation (or in my case, parental leave) - no way.
As a consumer, I only like subscriptions that give me access to a pretty comprehensive set of things, e.g. Netflix, Spotify etc. So I might subscribe to "all apps" but I wouldn't subscribe to a single app. At least that's my gut reaction.
That said, I would totally rent something like Thor/Nave for $1/month (non-auto-renewing) than buy it, because I really just want to check it out and satisfy my curiosity, I don't actually use apps like that. So perhaps a 'rental' model is an interesting thing to think about, rather than a 'subscription'...
Curious: Let's assume the AB team has an awesome AB2 ready for us, with lots of cool features (we all know what we want them to be). Would you prefer to buy it as a $10 IAP or a $10 new app? If you say either is fine, think again and state what you'd prefer, even if it's just a slight preference.
Disclaimer: I don't know what AB2 will have or how much it'll cost or whether it's a new app or IAP. Which makes this easier for me to ask as I have no stake in the game
Well, for me it seems obvious that one app is better than two. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed at all to a second app if;
a) It helped isolate the code base/feature set of each - AB still needs to support iOS6 and previous
b) it helped the AB team be more profitable.
@Rhism Does the present AB disappear in a new app scenario?
I've always expected AB2 to be a new purchase. I'm used to NanoStudio and Beatmaker 2 coming out with major revisions as a new app. If you do it all as an in app purchase, you start fragmenting your user base, which might bite you later down the road.
@mgmg4871 Not sure - why?
Maybe it would be possible to "thank" the folks who purchased the V1 by allowing to buy the V2 features through IAP at a preferential price tag (even though the price tag of the V1 was/is quite low).
I can't really see the difference between a IAP or new app for the V2, but as an existing user I might prefer the IAP over the more distant new app.
Concerning kickstarter I wanted to mention it either for it seems to fit the needs for funding new heavy features and provide a source of income out of the scope of the app store TOS.
I don't know if I am heading towards safe land with this other suggestion but if Audiobus becomes a standard for making music on IOS another source of funding could come from the compatible app makers through royalties (sounds old fashioned though).
Another thought : as a hobbyist I've often spent *loads of money buying guitars, keyboards, microphones, even PC software. The bang for the buck of Audiobus + half a dozen of music apps is awesome (I wanted to say that again). Building another small project DAW with a pc of example would cost at the very least several hundred dollars.
If you want to make music on the ipad ecosystem the hardware/software cost ratio is maybe 90/10 or 95/5. On a pc it would be closer to 50/50.
I mean I can't even go on a "shut up and take my money" rage over the app store and succeed in spending a tenth of what cubase 5 cost me a few years back (though I agree there were cheaper alternatives at that time).
@boone51 It'd still be one app even with a separate app - you'd just install AB2 and delete AB1. AB2 would include all AB1 functionality. It'd also continue to support old iOS versions (again, not speaking for the AB team, just constructing a hypothetical scenario where you choose between an IAP or a functionally-equivalent new app). As for profitability, the answers to this question may help determine which is more profitable
@AlleycatLA Interesting that you bring up fragmentation. Can you clarify? How does an IAP create more fragmentation than a separate app, and how does that fragmentation actually matter to anyone? As a developer I can see that I might hesitate to support a new AB2 feature if only a small set of users are adopting AB2, but that issue would be there regardless of IAP vs new app.
@mgmg4871 To clarify my question, the status of the present AB could go either way, and I'm curious to know why that matters to you if you have bought an AB2 that includes all AB1 functionality.
@Rhism I guess that was my question. If AB2 had AB1 functionality also. I got the answer. Thanks.
@mgmg4871 So then what's your answer?
I probably would prefer AB2 to eliminate restoring IAP purchases whenever I have to redownload. Other than that I don't see much of a difference.
Apple needs to modify the AppStore model to allow pricing based on a user's past purchases. That way, if a user had purchased V1, V2 could have an existing user upgrade price as well as a new user price. Similarly, apps such as Auria could allow free or discounted 'unlocking' of plug-in IAPs if the user had already purchased the stand-alone version. If the user had already purchased the plug-in IAP, then the stand-alone could be purchased at a discount, or free. The price applied would be set by the app's dev, as now.
Somehow though, I doubt that Apple would sanction what might be regarded as a potential loss in revenue, even if the current model could easily be modified.