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
I think that movement is still in it’s infancy. I work with fairly tech savvy people and scattered among them are musicians/composer types. When I mention using an ipad for music they still raise their eyebrows and smile politely ‘oh yah I have Spotify on my phone’.
Something else just occurred to me, many of us are among the first wave of appaholics, with a large collection of synths, samplers, daw apps etc.
There are probably some great apps in my purchase history that I don't even remember buying and have hardly touched.
I'm finding lately that it takes something really unique or spectacular sounding for me to hit the purchase button. These small purchases really add up over time and I'm reminded of me 10 years ago with every (cracked) vst under the sun and overwhelmed by choices.
Or maybe a flat monthly fee for access to all apps in the store, more in line with the Netflix model. There are Netflix subscribers that never watch the blockbuster movies, but only select small indie films and world cinema stuff. This could be comparable to App store game blockbusters vs niche creative apps; the former bring in most cash, but the (fair) model should also distribute money to the niche products, which make the store more attractive in terms of diversity. Imagine how many users could be willing to pay $10 every month for such a service - I'm not convinced this would total less than what the store generates today. But you would need that fair model of distributing (somehow) to all developers. Maybe if music app developers could get 0.00001% of Angry Birds sales every month, then this would be win-win? Perhaps ...
Now that you mention this, I have noticed 'serious' musicians are heaping praise and lusting over the new Waldorf Quantum which is not much more than an expanded version of Nave with integrated hardware. It is a great looking synth but €4,000 is a serious amount of money!
Those of us with decent midi controller setups have been able to enjoy a similar experience for about 20% of that price for quite a while now.
For many noodlers like myself, mucking about with this stuff for the sheer joy of it, there's only so much money in the biscuit tin. If prices go up, or subscriptions become more common we'll just buy less apps, or abandon the platform completely.
I don't open 90% of the apps I've bought over the years, some I've spent less than half an hour with. But all those developers have benefitted from my custom, which also helps iOS music move forward as a whole.
Small beans for some, but better than no beans at all.
I think buying less apps is probably the answer. Prices should go up and we should be more selective.
Dude just charge more if it's not working out for you atm. Gotta be worth to test and see how the 'cheap + more sales' vs 'more expensive + less sales' balances out? Maybe you'd be surprised? Shouldn't be a problem for genuinely great apps.
Like someone said in a post further up the thread - 'want' vs 'need'..... If people need it they'll be fine to pay more. Things are worth exactly how much people will pay for them. It's black and white. If no one buys apps at higher prices, then collectively they have made the decision that ios apps aren't that valuable. Alternatively if it sells for higher price then that's what it's worth. Just 'saying' that something is worth more by comparing it to the price of something else sadly doesn't make it so
Just raise your prices and risk it 
I'd have paid at least double for rozeta. Groundbreaking and unique. And I'd be down for IAP for new additions to it that I wanted to use. But not down for subscription as I want to choose if I want what I'm paying for.
There's a clear separation in apps. Cobbled together 2nd hand code for a quick buck vs something considered and labourer over. You're on the right side of the tracks
Keep on keeping on!
Yah this is a big part of the iOS nut for me. Over the years i have spent a lot in simply 'figuring it out' and well over 90% of my purchases will never be used. Things I thought were the answer turned out to be duds and things i didn't expect/think were even possible turned out to be indespensible. Of course I want individual devs to be rewarded but when I look at what I spent overall if all the app prices were doubled so that Big Mac prices became Footlong prices I would have been on the hook for four grand and not two. In the end it was a cluttered ambiguous space with lots of dead ends.
Thank God I am done exploring.
Thats probably a big part of the problem on ios. People buying what they don't need. Just out of curiosity or boredom. It's easy done at throwaway prices.
Serious fulltime devs should separate themselves from the throwaway apps crowd asap and just make it clear that refunds will be given within 7 days. Or if possible give app for free with a 7 day time lock that kills it if the unlock IAP isn't used after that. So people can check an app out and see if it's worth its 'higher than average' price to them.
If something sounds mind blowing or is useful in unique ways then people won't decide to do without it just because it's more expensive.
My expectation is for app prices to increase gradually to more pro level prices, to pay one-time IAPs for new features, to buy the app again for major number upgrades, and in the case of multi-platform DAWs, to subscribe for cloud syncing, cloud storage, an evolving content library, and other services of the like.
I would’ve been glad to pay an IAP for the Euclidean sequencing in Ruismaker and Ruismaker FM. Every new MIDI sequencer that goes into Rozeta should also be an IAP. Then again, these are just my opinions.
Refunds can always be requested from Apple support and will be given in the first 14 days. Developers cannot give refunds because Apple does not tell them who their customers are.
Why don’t developers all start Patreon accounts so we can all give them more money without mucking about with prices/subscriptions? Maybe some developers already have a way to donate set up?
Patreon is a subscription too, but at least that’d be an optional one.
That was exactly the point. Rolling in dough and feeling generous anyone?
Making it more expensive for everyone would suck for many of us.
For me they were not purchases made out of boredom, but certainly curiosity. Wondering if X app works the way I imagine. Particularly in the old IAA days this was a problem. With AU / AU Midi life is much better now.
I do like the 7 day trial idea but I know that my favorite, 'life saving' app certainly would not have passed that test given the stunning amount of crashes it had haha. It required months of updates to reach a point where that would have worked.
Actually, that makes sense.
Its all a scam, no demos means lower prices from developers otherwise people cant test to see if the app is needed, refunds within 14 days are regularly being refused by Apple, the consumer loses because they end up with 90% of their purchases being unused, app developers lose because they cant raise prices because consumers wont pay good money just in case they add to their 90% pile, only people winning here is Apple.
1 week, 1 time demo per release will allow higher prices and longer lasting quality developers.
Because App Review guideline 3.1.1 would forbid advertising for that inside of the app. And few developers have access to their userbase in a way that would make it feasible to steer enough of it to a Patreon page to make a difference.
Whole discussion seems unnecessarily complicated...
Patreon? <-- For people selling products you paid for? Really?
Subscriptions? <-- No.
Devs should just charge what they think an app is worth and everyone can forget about the whole debate and it would become evident soon enough which apps are worth the extra and which aren't. If people really need what a dev is selling they'll buy it. If people decide they don't need it then the dev was pretty lucky to make any money at all to begin with...
Sadly that doesn't work because charging for an app once and then having to provide free updates forever makes developers abandon their apps eventually. Even Apple understands that subscriptions would make more sense but sadly users don't accept them as readily as necessary for a healthy market.
Where are all these apps that have been providing significant free updates forever?
They can’t put the info on their website for their apps, or on their YouTube page with product demo videos either? Are they forbidden from coming here and informing people as well? I am not a dev, so I am asking this because I am not familiar with Apple’s rule book.
Mobile devices are throw away products in terms of expected lifespan, Apple only expects an iphone ipad or iwatch to last 3 years...
http://www.redmondpie.com/apple-reveals-typical-lifespan-of-iphone-ipad-mac-and-its-other-products/
Why would we invest large sums on software for a device that may or may not be viable in 3 years time.....
This is what is primarily keeping app prices down....and why really successful apps make their money from micro transactions...it is throw away money spent on apps for a throw away device.
I think it’s silly but there’s always lots of “This app hasn’t been updated for almost a year, it looks like it has been abandoned! Buyer beware!” In iOS discussions
Best of luck finding that magic 10% of essential apps for your toolbox, without wading through the bug-ridden, incompatible, soon-to-be-abandoned, misleadingly labelled and otherwise chaff-ridden remaining 90%. And of course those apps brushed aside for completely new versions, or superseded a couple of weeks later by better alternatives.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, if only there was an app for that.
@brambos Why don't you sell AU/VST versions of your apps, like Klevgrand does? I'm sure you have your reasons, but I'm curious.
You could charge much more for the same instruments if they were VSTs. People would pay $100+ for Rozeta. And the iOS apps would provide publicity for the VSTs.
I've purchased Syntronik for my computer and for my iPad. Different things.
If it's technically difficult to do this, or you want to focus on your iOS pursuits, perhaps you could team up with an AU/VST developer.
Ahem (IMPC)
Sure, that would be possible, but in my experience that only reaches a very minor fraction of the actual user base. A series of media breaks like that (app->youtube->patreon) is just too clunky to be the basis of a valid business model.
@Sebastian It seems like word of mouth works pretty good around here, but eh, what do I know?
I think the iOS music creation market isn’t a single market because there are a variety of users/developers.
Disposable Apps where users enjoy playing with apps and have no problem buying apps with the anticipation that they have a limited life span based upon their interest in the app or have been using iOS long enough that they know apps frequently will drop out due to iOS incompatibility updates or the developer decides it’s not economically sustainable.
Professional Apps where users basically want to achieve performance and reliability on par with desktop/laptop systems.
Mass Media apps which can create music but are designed and marketed to the general public to benefit from the low price/high volume sales which iOS was based upon.
Niche apps which will always have a limited user base and are either ported over from apps developed on another OS so their iOS sales are supplemental rather than a primary source of income or the developer created the app for their own use and offering it on the AppStore was a secondary consideration.
Hardware driven apps created by manufacturers to try and increase hardware sales.
Place holder apps, companies create apps so users will develop some brand loyalty in the hopes that at some point the iOS market will be significantly more viable or to cover their bases should non-mobile platform sales plummet.
Open Source developers who largely develop apps on a variety of platforms and so have ported them to iOS as well.
To facilitate all of these developers, I believe Apple should put more effort into their iOS including documenting, developing, and responding to user/developer feedback about their software as well as how they run the AppStore. Until there is significant improvement in this area, iOS will never be on par with desktop/laptop systems. These improvements will help hobby and small independent developers as well.
The inconsistent implementation of IAA, AU preset issues, and the buggy iOS 11 File App are all basic infrastructure that bottleneck the rate of progress on iOS.
If it’s true that there’s a limited market for music creation apps within the context of alternatives to them and if the mobile market is becoming saturated, it would seem Apple would want to maintain if not increase its competitive advantage over other mobile platforms simply to maintain or increase their market share in an environment where consumers will increasingly ask themselves why they should buy expensive proprietary Apple products if the experience on other devices is basically the same or if new products don’t offer anything significantly new?
One way to differentiate themselves is to offer more support to developers so they’re more likely to develop for Apple and so their apps are superior to those on other platforms. Their iOS bungles undermine these aspirations as it seems they’re too short sighted to be willing to invest enough in developing an iOS environment which will be superior rather than simply better than their competition— in a word, they’re coasting on their profits.
While any given niche (not just musicians) market isn’t significant, it is a case of birds of a feather flocking together. Niche users rely upon each other for accurate information so if a particular platform has apps which in the consensus of the niche users best meets their needs, then word will get around. The cumulative effect could be significant for a company reliant upon customer loyalty rather than competitive pricing.