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’m not paying for any subscriptions. I’ll find another way.
Yeah, you people knew I was coming to say the same ol' shit about subscription apps I've been saying for over a year or two.
Right, so there are times when a subscription makes sense. When you rent a storage locker to put your junk into, you pay a monthly rental fee. Cloud storage like Creative Cloud, iCloud, Dropbox, etc are virtual storage lockers if you will.
The other type of subscription that makes sense is the "regular new content" type of subscription. These are the subscriptions that can be likened to the magazine subscriptions of old, that instead of paying a subscription for the same old twaddle month after month, you get a steady stream of new content.
Now I'll be blunt. If a subscription-only app doesn't offer some form of cloud storage or a library of updated content, then the developer(s) of said app can go f-ck themselves. If an app DOES offer a one-time payment version but locks features like "unlimited time" behind a subscription paywall (looking at Wotja X and its 8-hour time limit on the paid version vs unlimited on the subscription version), then the developer(s) can go f-ck themselves. Wanna know why I drop mad dollars on Korg stuff even when I don't need some of the things? They don't do subscription-based garbage. Now you know.
This is why, when I told the developer of a certain bird equaliser AU that I'd sooner purchase Pro-Q2 at $29.99 all over again just to have it in AU format than subscribe to his EQ over a year ago, I nutted up, put off Starbucks lattes for a week, and put my money where my mouth is...
I'd rather pay more expensive prices for professional kit than buy into a subscription that doesn't have perks that make sense. Some apps that do subscriptions correctly that I subscribe to...
-Spotify (Research)
-Youtube Premium (formerly Youtube Red) which includes Youtube Music and Google Play (Tutorials)
-Netflix (because screw Hulu)
-Auxy (consistently-updated sample library, plus my mate Tony Emerson has his Black Octopus samples up in there, so yeah, no-brainer)
-Dropbox/iCloud
You get the idea now.
I'd been using an old version of Photoshop on Windows for years, paid LOTS for numerous upgrades before that, so when I got a Mac, my only real option at the time was to buy an expensive license for the latest PS. I was reluctant, but then the subscription model came out offering PS and Lightroom. It solved my problem, as I didn't have to lay out a big amount of cash. I've now been renting it for several years, and so far I've paid way less than the old full price, not to mention the upgrades that would not have been cheap.
Subscription works for some apps for many businesses and people. Not every product is geared for everyone. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand when it comes to software, or why people act like a developer is some kind of criminal because their approach isn't for them.
At the risk of getting a lot of hate, I think I should present my perspective as a developer that’s been on the App Store since 2012. It seems posts about why subscriptions are bad keep popping up, and as a developer, I do find a fair bit of misconceptions of what actually occurs on the developer side, and how the app ecosystem has evolved.
Let’s first take a look at software before the App Store. Those were relatively well-featured apps, that typically cost a hundred dollars. I remember buying iLife and iWorks for $99 each, along with other third party apps that were similarly priced. Even when you don’t adjust for inflation, the cost of apps today is an order of magnitude less than before. When the App Store first launched, apps were simple, 1 function tasks, maybe 2. They were free or 99 cents - and that was fair game. But today’s modern apps are as feature rich as the ones from early 2000s, but cost insanely less.
This isn’t sustainable for developers, and why developers have been jumping ship or going subscription. So what’s an alternative solution?
I’ve seen some here mention about how developers should release a V2 or V3 as an alternative to subscriptions. But that model is out of date. From an outreach perspective, before the App Store, you’d update your website’s content, place an alert in the app and send an email blast. Now, with most transactions occurring via App Store pages and App Store search, releasing a new version of an app means starting from point zero. You’d have a new marketing page, new rankings in search, etc. etc. and there is no good way of redirecting users from a prior version App Store page to the new one. And remember, apps still cost less than pre App Store days, and you have to make up the difference in volume, volume you can only get via the App Store.
The model of releasing new versions is also broken since major OS updates don’t happen every 2-4 years like before, but every single year. And every year, something breaks and has to be fixed. It doesn’t take long to pollute the App Store with incompatible broken versions of an app, while trying to promote a new version without having much of the App Store assets you’ve built up over the years. This is a terrible experience for both users and developers, and why Apple hasn’t implemented upgrade pricing for apps. You may not see this as a subscription, but it effectively is. “Pay for the latest version to get access to your work, since the old app is out of date and won’t run”.
That said, there are currently many different models available for developers. And developers can pick and choose which one makes sense for them. Apps that require minimal updates and don’t include new features or content, or don’t include a service, shouldn’t be subscription. However, ones that offer the above should, as they’re being paid for their work, otherwise, developers have no incentive to keep investing their time and money into the app. It really is, developers want to be paid for the work that they do. The same way journalists, movie makers and musicians want to be paid. That’s why, apps that offer an affordable one-time, unlimited “all-access” fee ($10-$25) stop getting updates.
The next argument I keep reading is, if all apps go subscription, then one couldn’t subscribe to all apps. At the risk of sounding out of touch, I have to ask, why is this a problem? Why is there an expectation that you should be able to freely use every app a developer releases? Or use an app for a small fee, while expecting infinite updates and support (if the fee for unlimited updates is under $100 or even $150, the fee is too small IMO). In the same way I don’t think there is anything wrong with using multiple apps to complete a task, I don’t think it’s a problem to get people to vote with their wallets.
A side concern is, small developers will have issues competing with subscription based apps. But the reality is, small developers always have hurdles, and if they can’t solve a problem that people want and current incumbents don’t have (and have no intent to have), they’ll fail. Small developers can still utilize IAPs and some cool stuff Apple will be releasing soon.
If you’ve gotten this far, I want to mention, subscriptions isn’t all bad for consumers. It allows for simpler choices, better content to be released, as you can mix and match packs, and even a lower introductory price (say $5 to try everything instead of $X to try N things).
Subscriptions will continue to evolve, as I have no doubt more and more apps will be adopting this model.
That wraps up my developer thoughts!
Good post, and I get it from a developer perspective. I also like it for relatively expensive apps where there aren’t that many of them. But as iOS musicians and hopeless appaholics, some of us have 50 to 100 or more apps. If any sizeable portion of those goes subscription, it’s simply more than I am willing to keep track of. That’s why I’ve made up my mind firmly not to go down that road. I’m not saying it’s a bad road, just one that I’m not interested in.
The only reason I bother to communicate that is to offer a bit of “market data” to any developers mulling over the matter. I’m all for it if it helps well deserving developers make a living ... they’ll just be doing it without me and other like minded consumers.
I’m in the ‘hundreds of apps’ crowd, so I can’t afford to buy them all over again, subscription or otherwise. So I won’t, I’ll back them up, ‘freeze’ an iPad and carry on using them for a few more years, while drifting back more towards desktop.
If the subscription thing becomes more prevalent, and ‘new v2/AU’ carries on apace. Maybe it won’t.
I realise devs need to keep the pennies rolling in, but do that by offering new stuff as IAP’s, or updates that will attract new customers.
As for bug fixes - there’s a growing number of apps in my collection that haven’t been updated for years now and they still work. But I’m sure they could make a bunch of new sales by adding AU support, for example.
That's pretty much all of them. I think most users overestimate the size of the market. I can't speak for all devs, but I'm not selling thousands of any of my apps.
So when you don’t like an app anymore you will still need to buy subscription fee each month just to being able to open your projects if you need to work on them again? LOL, nice for devs not so for users.
I really prefer to buy a good quality and reliable app 100 to 200 € or even more if it’s pro grade. This is what desktop world offers since forever, better way for both devs and users IMO. This is why they should create a Pro AppStore for pro apps, and keep normal Appstore for indies.
I think subscription has its place....for content where that content is released regularly. It should also be possible to start and stop the subscription easily, and for you to be able to keep the content you got during the subscription. Subscription for this should not be forced and it should be possible to get that content via one off purchase too.
I do not agree with subscription for functionality
I think in our particular market niche, subscription is neither nice for devs, nor for users. It's simply not the right model - at least not until the market for paid music apps grows at least 10-20 times its current size.
What model you think should be better? You’re inside the matrix so you’re opinion on this is interesting!
I'd rather buy hardware than pay for a subscription to a software app.
And if I went to buy, say, a volca fm, I get what I pay for... Korg isn't charging me to keep using it monthly lol... And if they did, at least they made the hardware as well.. the fact that iOS updates happen and apps need improved over time to continue to work on the latest versions, isn't the end users fault or the developers fault... But it is gonna happen, there is one hardware and many softwares, we have no choice but to move at apples pace if we want to use iOS for using or creating apps... If you made an app, and charged 30$ then imo it's kinda the obligation of the dev to keep it working... If I buy an app a week before an iOS update that forced the app to need updated, then that's not my fault, it's not the devs fault.. It's just the nature of the beast... It comes with the territory...So it should imo be updated without complaint... If you're in the market to create iOS apps it's part of the game... The guys who update and keep their apps working over time have a great reputation and we know we can count on them so we get all their apps and keep getting them as they are released...
If you don't want to keep your app working, maybe iOS isn't a good place to create your apps... Just my opinion...
I do wish that Apple would allow us to give donations thru the app store, or let the devs charge in the app for updates if they see fit... Showing support is our obligation as end users... Buy the app and if it's an essential app to us, then it shouldn't be a problem dropping a few bucks to help.. when we can.... But don't force me into a subscription lol, cuz I'm not trying to keep track of all that
Really agree on update thing, seems normal to me that an iOS apps dev keeps its apps working at least two years considering how iOS updates themselves works. This can be coupled with some interesting IAP features update.
Well. As stated earlier by others I'd rather spend much more on an app than pay subscription piecemeal. For now if there is a sub it's simply off my radar. Even if it's 2-3$ a Year. I literally purchased patterning 2 even though I own patterning 1 so I'm not opposed to paying again for major version numbers if that is what would help the devs.
The reality is, you don't know how much work goes into fixing bugs and updating an app to keep it relevant. We have a small team and work full time and long hours to do this quickly. Also, keep in mind, not all bugs are created equal. We tend to work on large bugs over a period of weeks, while smaller ones are released less frequently. So it may give the illusion that they don't require a lot of time, but they indeed do and in some cases, take a considerable amount of problem-solving.
I'm comparing software that's from early 2000, and in this case, yes they are as featured and rich. Re Adobe subscription, it's also $50/month US for a 1 year commitment. Subscription apps typically ask $5/mo for features and content, with a license that you can use their sounds for commercial works.
Then, down the road, what you'll have is a small set of apps that will either be abandoned or not be up to par to what you expect.
That sounds great in theory, but in practice works against the developer because of market dynamics. Take for example Audio Import, a feature we released recently as part of an IAP. If we decided to rewrite Audio Import, make it infinitely better - as a user, are you entitled to receive the new and improved audio import for free? Or since it's completely new, you should pay for the new Audio Import? This creates a dilemma for the developer, as now they have to decide between not receiving the proper compensation for the hard work they put in, or to support both versions of Audio Import and figure out which one to show.
As you can see for the example above, if that was the case, developers are more incentivized to release new features rather than improving old ones. And as a developer adds more and more IAPs, consumers tend to be confused as to what to purchase and not purchase anything at all. Because of that, there are many apps I believe should go subscription (and they might just).
Even though that currently exists as a majority opinion, you only really need a minority of users to make subscriptions work. That's how IAPs and paid apps work really. Also, because the life time value of a customer is significantly higher with subscriptions versus multiple IAP model, the volume lost is negligible. But again, this assumes a good reason for subscriptions to exist (updated content, features and/or service).
You can’t have this 20 year old knowledge about how the software market were then, compared today...
99$ for a pretty light version for 20 years ago were OK then, but not today...
The effort Apple Inc. has made to the programming environment into iOS compared how it were back in the days when you developed an application, is that you can do more today with less effort as a developer...
And, the most important when comparing prices now and then, today we have billions of devices that is a presumed customer, with easy to buy technology - instant money transfer and every aspect around the administrations you had to go thru fir 20 years ago...
The music making department is a bit different, this market is still pretty small with a lot of demanding customer that demand more and more features... The sales figures is pretty low (as Bram Bos stated)...
But, to pay $99 again for low class replicates of big desktop version is not what we want in the future...
I don’t have any immerse solutions to the devs income problems, but, hope we together can come up with a solution that contribute to both us and the beloved developers out there!
@pauly I still waiting for an answer concering this “Gimp has 90% of the Adobe Photoshop functionality”... ;-)
I think you need to bear in mind adding extra features makes your product mode desirable to new customers, and generates new sales - so you're not doing extra work for nothing. It keeps your product up to date with features customers expect, and competitive in the music making marketplace - and audio import is a pretty important feature in a music app.
Personally I'm ok with IAP's for new features, but there's a limit to how hard you can keep hitting existing customers. This is no longer a 'new thing', iOS music makers have been around a while now and we've spent a lot of money on it.
I see a lot of assumptions being made in this thread about development, maintenance/bugfixing efforts, support and sales/revenue which are really far removed from reality.
Also, the constant comparisons with desktop software are getting really old. The economics are completely different, the use cases are really different, the technical constraints are really different. iOS != desktop, in any way, so the constant comparisons are meaningless.
The problem with comparing apps with Photoshop is Photoshop costs a considerable amount of money per year (since they're annual contracts, rather than month to month). There is also the problem that many apps offer content that have very generous licenses (you can use their content and sounds for commercial use). When you pair that together, but they're asking is completely reasonable, if not under priced.
Piracy is also an interesting concept, since it's being reduced more and more (though it does still exist, and does exist on iOS where the device is jailbroken). But one of the most effective ways to kill piracy, I've found is (1) offering convenience and (2) constantly updating content or features. Because of the OS cycle being put to every year for a major update, number 2 really shines, as pirates won't be able to keep torrents up to date, resulting in torrents that download buggy software and offer a less than ideal experience, which leads into 1.
Also, you bringing up BM3 reminds me of a solid point for subscriptions: faster, smaller updates. Imagine if you just had BeatMaker, and BM3's features were released slowly over the course of the years, rather than all at once. Not only are you getting features faster, but the developers get feedback from users and can make better product decisions.
>
You can most certainly do that, freeze your apps, but you won't receive all the great technologies that will come in the future. A developer may also decide to shut down their content server for older apps and simply say, you have to update.
As I've mentioned above, offering new IAPs isn't a solution, as at some point, you'll start to have diminishing returns. And once that point is reached, developers have less incentives to release something new. It also gets to the point of, with many new IAPs, your interests and the developers interests don't align. Who cares about updating a feature to make it better, or going back and updating legacy content. That's extra work with little return, it's far better for a developer to keep releasing new IAPs that generate sales before they hit diminishing returns.
I did indeed read your post. Which prompted my post. That model of releasing every year or two years a major version is an incredibly outdated model that doesn't work. Indeed, what you're suggesting in practicality is, a subscription. If you like the app, you can go ahead and buy it every new major release, if you don't, you won't.
I'm also not saying subscriptions is for all apps, but as an app gets bigger, adds more and more features and content, at some point, it should move in that direction to make sure the interests of the user and developer are aligned. The model of pay once and expect infinite updates isn't realistic, and releasing multiple apps under multiple versions is no longer a viable model. We're already starting to see the implications of a non-subscription ecosystem (abandoned apps, leading to less consumer confidence, which feeds the cycle).