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
+1. Auxy's no Logic Pro, it's not even a match for KRFT. Add into the mix the fact that it's not a new app, and people have already paid for some stuff that's now been taken away, I can't see how it's failure (if that happens) could be blamed on anything other than their own business strategies.
I loved it when it came out. I bought all the IAP's. I would have bought more IAP's and kept supporting it if they hadn't trashed it. It's not even on my iPad now.
Maybe Sebastian is referring to a chart that only developers have access to, but looking at iTunes own rankings, and sites like this one: https://www.appannie.com/en/apps/ios/top/united-states/music/ipad/ Auxy doesn't even make the list at the moment.
You're only looking at the top 50 iPad apps. iPad (and this forum consisting mostly of iPad musicians) is not the main market for Auxy.
@Zen210507 said:
Just because one app has potentially found an elegant way to fund its continued development and maintenance doesn't mean all apps have to follow the same route. Nor can they. Apps that don't offer new content on a recurring basis (like synths and effect apps) cannot work with a subscription model.
The main problem was (and is) that tools and DAWs that require a lot of ongoing support aren't allowed to charge for updates without having to move all of their existing users to a completely new app. It's a faulty model and Apple probably won't fix it.
This exactly is what i want to show.
(by the way: is this a correct english language sentence - or a bit strange?)
This.
And if my paracetamol-addled brain is correct, Auxy can afford to lose 90% of their existing userbase and still come out on top financially. One person subscribing for a year equals quite a few one-time-paying customers.
And these will be active, engaged users who are choosing to stick with the app and not just buying it as a snack-priced diversion for a bored Sunday night (possibly even requesting a refund come Monday morning). Engaged users are the kind that become promoters for your brand (read up on the Net Promoter model for a good explanation of why these users matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Promoter).
If this model works for Auxy, it will at least open the door for other DAW/all-in-one/groovebox apps to become more viable. Make no mistake, this may even be the trigger that makes the "big ones", like Ableton and Propellerheads take another look at the platform.
Like Sebastian, I'm curious how this will pan out for Auxy.
Why not?
First thought: Every music production app can use a subsription model. The price is paid as a "rent" - for just using the app. Why not? If the App is very useful for the users then they may would pay on monthly basis. Maintenance, support and further development are costly - this is not depending on "new content" offerings at all.
Second thought: When this subscription model (we take 9 Dollar as minimum price here, Auxy is not that capable) is correct for ONE app like Auxy, why not for all other apps?
It would be a completely new app economy, of course. The average user could afford to have 3 or 5 apps at all. Not more.
Sebastian, do you really think this would work out in a good way for the developers? Think a bit further: Maybe some day Apple decides, that subscription is the only (!!) model for apps.
(just a think model)
What would be the turnout of this move? More money for the developers? Better app economy?
Third thought: The subscription model tries to trick out the customers. They should not think about costs, they should think "oh, i can afford these 9 Dollar for this month" - without thinking that on a 5-year-basis (this would be more than 500 Dollar, which they will never spend). There are regional differences. Lots of US customers are - sorry - kind of idiots with costs which are on monthly basis. It's a bit of a credit card economy for these type of customer, a strange way of: "i don't think about costs as long as my credit card is working". In Europe it would not work - most Europeans hate subscriptions, especially for software usage. As a result the move of Auxy will result in limiting their access to customer. Maybe it would work for one or even three music production software - but not for the whole market. They reduce their user basis. This is OK, in case of a strong user basis (which Auxy is having now) but not a good future for the Auxy developers in the long run.
Fourth thought: Beatmaker 3 / Intua has done the quite opposite: To get a broader user basis the made their app free for some days.
If you ask me, this is a very risky move. But maybe they can achieve (after the 3 free days) in the long run, that mouth propaganda etc. will result in even better sales.
Fifth thought: All in all the app economy is working (and additionally it is a bit fucked up for the longtail and for special interests markets). It grows from year to year, even in the music production segment of the market. Lots of people are willing to pay (small sums) for iOS apps - the would never pay for a (Mac or Windows) computer. There is a lot of room to improve the app economy, like improving the app store (it is a bad joke from Apple, better app descriptions, better search options, better fraud protection for users etc. is needed), improving the iAPs, improving the user rating system (another bad joke from Apple), offering pricing options for apps for "2 years updates" - that means i think we need a separate update price, or a price to get updates for apps (i would limit it to 20 percent per year on the basis of the average app price) - and so on - and so on.
Last thought: The user base of Auxy mainly is not driven by professionals who earn money with the usage of the Auxy app. To do music with an iPad (i am sorry to say this) is quite special and for most users "only" a hobby. This limits the economic chances for the developers: These users are not willing to pay lots of money for apps.
Even Gadget, Nave, Cubase, Model 15 or Auria Pro don't have the user base and feature power to get a big percentage of their user base into a 9-Dollar-per-month-subcription model.
No way.
This is what I’ve been saying in regards to Auxy. People here know that I’m normally the most outspoken opponent of the subscription model, especially for “stationary” apps (such as synths, effects, Clip Studio Paint which has no evolving content nor cloud storage perks). If something is BS, I call it out as such. Admittedly, Auxy made a jerk move by hiding the default free sounds behind the subscription paywall, and I think THIS is what’s angered the long-standing Auxy users more than anything else (with “removal of features” coming in second).
However, I used Auxy far more since the update than I had ever before. Something just feels right about having their entire content library in the palm of my hand without all of it needing to be sucking up my iPhone’s storage space. Something feels right about being able to instantly open up my projects on my iPad to polish the stems in Auria.
In fact, Apple’d probably find some other way to make things worse rather than better.
Introducing subscriptions in lieu of paid updates was that first step.
No I'm not, I checked the rankings for iPad and iPhone music apps, for US and UK sales.
If Auxy is targeted at a wider market than forum users, then I'd expect it to appear above apps such as Loopy and DM1, which are both in the top 50 and aimed at more musically savvy users. Even looking at your own screengrab, it shows a sharp fall at the end of January, followed by a recovery to where it was originally, a week later. Not exactly a roaring success by anyone's standards.
If that's the case, why are they only rated '#98 in Music' via the Apple Store's own metrics? In comparison the non-subscription iMaschine 2 is in #26th place (and number 32 in the Paid listings). Seems to me that not doing what Apple suggest is a better way to go at the moment.
It's pushing the boundaries of probability that 10% of 'engaged users' will fill the brand promotional void of the 90% you think they can afford to lose. Particularly when a large percentage of the 'lost' users/customers will be posting negative reviews and complaining on forums. Even some of the recent 5 star App Store reviews are showing concerns from existing users:
"the money you used to buy all of the sound packs forever, is less than the money to buy a yearly subscription. I just have two questions. First, can you make it to where we can buy the sound packs forever for the original price? Will my old sound packs be kept forever, or will I get $5 stolen next month? If you could, please answer my questions."
Well, that will be the interesting thing. After something is changed that negatively affects a subset of the userbase, backlash and uproar is to be expected (remember the outrage when Apple took away the headphone jack?). But when the initial dust has settled - when people see that things aren't going to change back to how they were before - the complaining and negative reviews will get less and it may or may not end up positively for them.
Cynically speaking, they're taking one for the team and have to sit through the beating now. And as Sebastian also mentioned, this may work for DAW/all-in-one type apps, but not likely for individual synth/effect plugins.
People still complain about the missing headphone socket - the smell from that hasn't gone away.
I think it would have made more sense to bring out a separate version, based on a subscription that offers regular new content and features, rather than mucking up an existing - and at one stage - very popular app. At least then they could track more accurately how popular it is (or not). If it's a massive success then they can concentrate their efforts on that one, without alienating their existing customers.
The majority of the concern at the moment seems to reflect their constantly changing pricing structure, and subscribers worried that in a few months time it'll be all-change again, or that they'll lose what they've paid for - as has been demonstrated in the past.
All very well building brand awareness, but you're not going to do much for sales if all these new potential customers don't have failth in your product.
I think that's right. No-one's going to pay a subscription for a single reverb plugin or synth (though I'd make an exception for Aparillo). Personally I'm completely put-off by the subscription pricing model. However, looking at how much I've paid for Gadget over the years - if it'd been released as free, with regular individual Gadgets and FX added over time, it would probably work out just as cost-effective for me to have been paying a subscription. Similarly if Auria came with Fab Filters, I'd happily go for that, or developer collections such as Sugar Bytes.
At the end of the day it's all down to the individuals perception of value for money, and what customers can (and will) pay. But personally I don't think many users will pay $60 (?) per-year for Auxy. There's not enough meat on its bones.
Not sure about that.....i wouldn‘t pay more than a dollar per month for an app like Auxy on subscription and i spend 1000‘s on music tools.
Maybe it might work out at the end for some DAW‘s but yeah, it‘s not close to a pro music app and will cost more than Logic after some time.....crazy.
I begin to think that iOS is just not at all a good market for pro music apps.
Apple gives a shit....they just want their 30% cut from more of course.
A pro app store sounds still the best to me.
No subscription ever for me so far. Maybe i would try it with a tool like NanoStudio 2.....until Logic iOS comes one day and kill the market here completly.
Maybe some developers who wants to make money should not expect to do it on iOS with a side project.
Off topic
We have totally different views of who deserves support.
>
This infers that you would consider taking the same route.
FWIW, I have bought almost all of your apps. I love to play with them, admire their ingenuity, but have not made much actual music with them. This is purely because the type of music your apps were geared toward, is not the music that I - and fellow RTM - are engaged in making.
The exception could well be Rozetta, which is of course much more versatile.
It is my intention to keep buying your apps. If that means paying more, to enable continued development, then so be it. Obviously, like anyone, there are limits to disposable income. But within my means I am on your side, and the side of other developers, small and large, who are pioneering this platform.
However, the day any apps I am using on IOS go subscription, I will not be coming along for that ride.
>
So are you saying that Brambos apps, Refraktions, AUM, AudioBus, Fugue Machine, etc, etc, are not, in your view, worthy of support?
>
Agreed. I find it hard to believe that any company can afford to piss off and piss on 90% of their existing customers.
>
Your English is fine. I just cannot conceive of a situation whereby the majority, or even enough App Store customers/ IOS music makers, would pay out $100 a month every month. This is not the desktop world, where such payments are usually covered by companies.
That's not what I'm saying at all. One can observe something with interest without any concrete intentions to follow the same route. I'm not in the DAW business.
But at the same time, the current pricing model is a dead end. That much is clear. Whether consumers are willing to go the subscription route or not is pretty much a moot point when there are no more serious developers to provide the apps in the first place. A healthy market goes both ways.
Maybe but the „wrong“ customers can cost you money trough ongoing support etc. while they never want to give you a cent in the future.
Indeed, and I reckon that at least two-thirds of those "90% existing customers" have pretty much forgotten they bought Auxy at some point - or at least never use it anymore because it has been replaced by a newer shiny-shiny. So it's not quite as bad as it sounds.
Edit: but I don't see this as "pissing on their existing customers" at all. All they are saying is: at the current rate this app will cease to exist. So we're switching to a new model where we will be able to continue to provide it and we hope you find enough value in it to subscribe. Hardly "pissing on".
A healthy market goes both ways.
>
Sure, but aside from offering to help via paying more, customers can’t do much. Apple needs to step up and give you guys a bigger slice of the pie.
>
Had Auxy become a kind of Gadget rival / DAW lite, with great IAP content, I would’ve been giving them a lot more than a cent, and on a regular basis.
Instead, I’ve deleted the app and would find it very hard to trust them again.
I think rather than trying to squeeze more money out of the existing customer base via subscriptions, many developers would benefit by concentrating a bit more on the selling and marketing side of their products. Most seem happy to leave it up to Apple to promote their products, then complain when they don't, and leave it to third parties such as the Soundtestroom to show off their apps via social media. 'App finished, start a thread on a couple of forums, job done, where's my money?'
The iOS music making market would be substantially bigger with more individual promotion, and collaborative events to show off the platform as a whole. I'm constantly meeting musicians that have absolutely no idea what's available on the iOS platform, and many go off an buy an iPad after I've bigged it up.
I can't think of any other sector that does so little to market their wares.
I don‘t use it too. Played with it and forgot about it.
So i belong to the 90% of wrong customers here for this app.
I remember that some developers of famous desktop tools said that they don‘t go for a huge market because that would not so good in a long term.
Instead they try to please the fellow customers and catch a few new ones too without the cost and quality output would suffer due to unneeded support, super sales to just grow and whatever.
Every developer must find out what works best.
After some years i know who i trust and what i want and think where i get the best value in longer term.
^This too. I also see in other music forums that many people still not aware what they could do with some iOS apps. Even people which are into music since decades and own iPads.
Some might hate it but some might transform into new loyal customers.
The marketing part is really weak on iOS from many developers. Here is again of course the „side project which makes no money“ apologize to hear but without taking something really serious and taking a risk it won‘t do magic of it‘s own.
Unfortunately it's not how you expect it works. I've been experimenting for almost two years with pretty much every existing marketing strategy now, including different forms of paid advertising on social media, profile-targeted facebook ads, direct interactions with forums,etc. etc. etc. And I've been carefully monitoring the effectiveness of these strategies for my particular products in my target markets. This iOS market is completely counterintuitive. I'll let you in on a select few of my findings.
I could go on, but the main takeaway is: my sales are pretty much driven by the community. Diverting more resources and time to shotgun marketing is not the solution - at least not for me. There is very little untapped potential outside of the community that can be directly tapped into without some other catalyst.
Why would "left wing activists" be so petulantly outraged by someone giving away a consumer good? That is ridiculously contradictory to underlying ideology.
Sorry, but I am calling BULLSHIT on that.
To be honest none of that surprises me at all, it's all part and parcel of being in a niche market - traditional paid advertising simply isn't going to help because you're selling to a very specialised audience.
However one thing that many devs miss (not necessarily you) is that releasing a video just showing what an app can do and what it sounds like is a pretty essential step for people who might be curious but don't want to buy blind. It seems that a large number of devs simply don't bother, and so the Vloggers/forum members have to fill in.
Engaging with the community is definitely is good thing, and I think the benefits go both ways.
As @richardyot said above, I’m not surprised as your apps are probably more specialised than most, and I wouldn’t include you in the list of developers that ignore marketing (though you could do with growing your number of Twitter followers, every little helps).
I think as your current target market is on forums like this, your above and beyond the call of duty support and updates reflects well on your brand.
But as most of your apps work best alongside others, I think you’re let down by the lack of general promotion of the platform, and developers of some complimentary products. If that’s addressed, then the strategies you’ve mentioned will probably be more effective.
More sales of synths and AU hosts to new customers for example, would widen your own potential customer base.
I’m just saying you might have the loudest voice with some weird hate-on for Auxy, but you don’t speak for anyone but yourself.