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
Perhaps. But that’s the way it is. Actually, while you were replying I edited the post to omit the part about leaving the discussion, and to take yet another dig at you. I’m actually not leaving the discussion, just declining to engage further with you. You may have the last word if you wish.
For others, sorry for potentially derailing this thread with a side argument. I hope it doesn’t trigger a slew of argumentative posts. Nothing to see here ... move on.
I think that I have a few hundred apps, imagine paying a varying monthly subscription for each of those
before that happens I can see Apple charging a subscription to the App store/ITunes and ICloud combined
The same way Apple controls the music distribution the could control the apps as well.
I have certainly spent a few thousand dollars in apps store purchases over the years.
In any case I would probably buy hardware, a few keyboards and a nice drum machine.
A good piece of hardware can last a few decades, with proper care.
Right but, unlike hundreds on a piece of gear that is not all you hoped, $10 is easier to swallow.
And the fact that apps exist enhance many hardware usage standards and scenarios
You have a great point though.
From practical standpoint, to me there’s absolutely no difference between a credit card bill, or any bill really, and a subscription. I try to keep the nr of bills down as more bills means more work, more stuff to keep track of, every single month.
Subscriptions left and right wouldn’t work for me.
Steve Jobs once said that they don’t allow private APIs as that would mean broken apps, every time Apple released a new iOS. Yet things/apps gets broken by Apple every year anyway. They are pushing ahead way too fast with the development of iOS (as recent restructuring within the company kinda shows). Developers constantly have to “fix” their apps. Apple needs to get a grip over themselves and change this ongoing cycle of breaking shit.
That’s just one of so, so many things Apple could and should do to remove unnecessary work for developers.
The actual AppStore is horrrible as well. How are developers supposed to get any kind of visibility in the mess that is the AppStore?
30% cut is ludicrous. So hey, let’s add a subscription model, that way we, Apple, can buy Mars. The whole planet. Even that robot that’s up there taking selfies.
Etc. etc. etc. etc.
Apple is costing devs money, lots of it. They need to change.
Well informed and wise post.
You are so right.
The biggest issues faced by most apps AND THEREFORE DEVELOPERS is what Apple does.
My fear is this.
The greed that brought BEATS and what resulted in iOS devices(no headphone) .......take that logic and apply it to Apple's relationship with Roli.
I have a worst case scenario where Apple WRECKS ALL OF OUR MUSIC APP COMMUNITY BY ELIMINATING ANY JACKS ON DEVICES.
At that time I would be forced to move back to PC.
I have a couple Bluetooth controllers, but the hardware midi stuff will never work for me with "all bluetooth".
I think the thoughts of the future may be a cause for discussion and see what insider information we can flush out together.
Your post is great.
The only sort of app subscription I would be interested in would be like kindle unlimited. Fixed monthly payment for unlimited access to a large range of apps with maybe a limit on how many I could be using at a time. (On KU you can ‘borrow’ up to 10books at any given time)
This is an interesting thought. I might consider a lump subscription to a bundle of apps from developers I love like @brambos, apesoft, kymatica, etc. But my tolerance would be pretty low (like no more than five or so subscriptions total).
To support iPhone X, we probably spent over a week (8-10 days) on the currently released version and an upcoming one (since they're different architectures) with little sleep, and broken up into 2 periods. Pre-iPhone X release and pre-major update release. So we're probably talking over 120 hours spent per person, for 2 people.
For major OS updates, we've generally spent between 2 to 5 days testing to make sure everything works, or make changes to our app (such as supporting the new Ratings system released in iOS 10.3, that all developers are required to support). For source compatibility, when it comes to Swift (so we can continue to update our app), we usually spend about a week or two in the past. For iOS 11, it was around 3-5 days I believe (though likely more, since we supported the beta in our testing and the beta changed Swift a few times before iOS was released).
There are other instances where Apple made a change to Swift that it didn't document and we'd accidentally release a major bug when we only changed a single line to fix a much smaller bug (yeah, that happened a few months ago for us...).
It gets better for devs actually if they support subscriptions. If a subscriber subscribes for over a year, Apple's cut goes from 30% to 15% for that particular subscriber.
You obviously have no clue what it implies to develop apps for iOS - or any other platform for that matter.
You come here throwing around comparisons between 1-5 people teams and Adobe, one of the biggest players that ever existed.
Just after, you implicitly compare iOS developers to bedroom DJs, again belittling their work and effort - again - with no apparent clue of any of the sweat involved.
You completely pull these opinions out of your behind - ignoring pretty much all comments from people on this forum who actually do have a clue - asking them to prove something to you. Why on earth should they?
And then you don't get that noone wants to talk to you?
So you would like to have someone randomly add a few days of work to your schedule every now and then?
High priority work on top of that - which - if not done, will cost your job.
This is where you are wrong: you imply that programming for iOS is a part time affair. It is not - most of the devs i know actually do it full time. They pay each and every bill with the money they earn. And every day that gets added to your schedule is a day that you miss for other important tasks.
Doing PR, doing other important fixes, adding new content - you get the drift.
That actually is true for any kind of self employment..
... iPhone X was merely an example. We had to do a fair bit of work to support iPad Pro 12.9", iPad Pro 10.5". We also have to test against all other devices when we make a change to the UI, and if we support multiple OSs, we have to test against that too.
And if we want to take advantage of new features, that can range from a few days to weeks or months. Everything is relative and on a case-by-case basis. Think about a bank app and Touch/Face ID - if they didn't have support for it, you'd think it's out of date. Sure, devs could have spent a few days making their app just compatible on release, but there are certain features and expectations a developer needs to support within the first few months of a major update.
Continued compatibility doesn't stop when an OS is released. And let's not forget, we're a full time team of 2 developers (and 2 creative professionals).
That’s interesting information. It’ll be interesting to see if it gets adopted by more developers and if it’s successful. I would have thought that very unlikely to be successful, but that’s just based on my purely outsider perspective.
It’s a problem in my case because of the perceived difficulty in expense management. Bills add up. Call it poor expense management if you like, but for me it’s far easier to keep up with a decision once a month or so to decide whether to spend a lump sum on an app then to keep track of dozens of monthly expenses piling up. The “should I or shouldn’t I?” thought process is unpleasant for any app purchase, but it’s over and done with once you pull the trigger with a one-time purchase. The last thing I want to do is to have to reconsider whether I should continue with dozens of subscriptions over and over and over.
As for the expectation of infinite updates and support. That is something I find disturbing about this App Store economy. I don’t think people should. I know enough about development and about earning a living to understand that every update costs developers time and livelihood. It bothers me a lot when people write off apps based on how frequently or recently they’ve been updated. Maybe it means the app is great and doesn’t need further work and doesn’t break all the time! Maybe it means the app isn’t generating enough income to allow the developer to keep working on it. The App Store has brought about this mentality of lifetime upgrades that I don’t agree with at all. Bug fixes are a different matter. If the app is broken due to a developer mistakes I would hope that developers would feel obligated to make it right. If Apple breaks it ... ugh I don’t know what to say about that one except to say that for a 30% commission, they shouldn’t bloody well break things!
As a side note, I do find it interesting that Image-Line (FL Studio), Ableton, and Reaper all have different models regarding updates to their desktop DAW software and all seem to be successful leveraging their own strategies. I know comparisons between desktop and iOS markets are irellevant, but still interesting. I tend to think that if a DAW in that same league were to go subscription it could be successful too. For a big ticket purchase like a PC DAW, I’d actually rather pay a relatively low monthly rate than put out a bunch of cash up front if I’m convinced that it’s the right tool for me.
Yes exactly. You said they don't compare - which is a comparison in my book.
Maybe you should have also googled how many products they sell.. and compare them to sales figures of iOS (music) apps. Then maybe it'd make more sense that a subscription service looks like a decent possibility to some devs.
It is - but you don't seem to understand how belittling that part is. iOS is not 'easy mode' for coding. iOS pretty much takes exactly the same amount of work - or more in many cases - to do the same. People on this thread tried to tell you - but you had already made up your mind.
No, but it is exceptionally bad with Apple.. that's all i wanted to express.
You know... I'd truly love for you to code, release, market and support an app for a few years, get it to be downloaded a million times, and then come back to this forum and tell us why we're being 'whinny' about it. You seem to have an impression of software development, and in particular iOS development, is easy. When in reality, app developers tend to have extremely limited resources, while having to do a complex "job" (many of us don't see it as jobs - otherwise we would have quit). It's also why we have WWDC where not only do we get help from Apple, but make them aware of particular bugs in their SDK.
So go on - if it's so easy, a few days here and there, go for it. I'd love to see what you can build!
That's currently the case, with or without subscriptions. Users don't go out and purchase every single IAP in every single app. They pick and choose and they pick and choose with their wallet.
From my experience, and the data I've seen, most customers and amateur music-makers don't have 50-100 music-making apps. They'll typically have around 100-150 apps from all categories and genres (games, social, services, etc.), and they only really use a handful at any onetime.
This is already the case and has been for years. The App Store business is brutal, and I've got the scar tissue to prove it. IMO, every app's eventual goal should be to go subscription. As a consumer - it does suck, but as it becomes more normalized, we'll see more apps do it, and less complaints. There is also the impression that subscriptions would cost around $5/mo - but as we've seen with Paper by 53, they could be around $15/year. For smaller app devs, they can price between $1-10/year. Developers have a lot of flexibility when it comes to subscriptions (including setting prices per region - something you can't do with IAPs).
This is where we have to agree to disagree. IMO, it correctly aligns the interests of a developer and the interests of the consumer.
I wouldn't make any assumptions on our finances. There are also elements of market strategy, and first movers advantage. It also relies on the understanding of who's the customer (in the case of iOS, Apple is a customer)
If all I ever bought was one, perhaps two, a maximum of five apps through my entire lifetime, and no further apps ever, then a subscription model might appeal (to some of those five apps at least).
My previous background is in magazines, and most magazines I’ve been on have had subscribers. Most sales are from newsstand sales in newsagents etc. but a small portion is from subscriptions. The subscribers typically (though increasingly not always or at all) got their issues slightly ahead of the on sale date on the shelf (over the years, the shelf date crept sooner and sooner, violating that advantage). Some mags might offer a special thing or freebie for subscribers only, which is an increasing trend. You’d think there has to be some advantage, but even if there is no advantage, most subscribers do it simply to ‘get it out of the way’ and forget about the hassle of having to go to the shops and look for the latest issue, instead awaiting it popping through the letterbox onto the front door mat instead.
What almost nobody realises outside of the magazine publishing world, although highly obvious is that if someone subscribes for a year’s worth of magazine issues, we’ve got all of that money up front – thanks.
Sometimes, by the way, a magazine will go bust (in fact, quite frequent, and almost always a sudden event, whereby a mag might be about to go to print and the staff are told there’s no next issue, you no longer have jobs). In such cases, the subscribers lose their subscription, too.
I can see where it would work for a service based app - regular content etc., but I think you’ll find most customers can’t justify multiple subscriptions for straightforward synths etc.
Bear in mind creative iOS musicians don’t just use a couple of apps - we use DAW’s that host a ton of IAA and AU fx, synths, samplers, sequencers, midi tools, mastering, drum apps etc.
I think your own app is aimed at a different target market to the majority of users on this forum, where we tend to roll our own. So while subscriptions for your app might attract a reasonable take-up, a lot of smaller devs - the creative - innovative ones, wouldn’t benefit.
You are quoting just one app that failed to attract donations. Maybe they failed to impress with newer features/content? Patreon works great for thousands of YouTube channels for a reason. I understand videos on YT are not the same as apps on AppStore but there are generous people who can donate money just for asking. There is nothing wrong with accepting donations until the competitive turmoil in iOS subsides and the system matures. I was suggesting Apple to automate donations through AppStore while purchasing, leaving a rating/review, through subsequent marketing reminders, etc.
Here is a 3-star review by one of the users of Paper (with a few more complaints about UX):
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/paper-by-fiftythree/id506003812
"A bigger problem is the subscription. Features that I would consider fairly simple (changing the size of pens, cutting and pasting across notes) are subscription (premium) only features. Several other apps - Notability, GoodNotes, MyScript - are all $10 or less for a one-time purchase and offer similar features. If drawing is your thing, Procreate, Concepts, Sketches, SketchBook, or one of the Adobe apps are all <$20 (or free) and, again, often offer improved features. I mention this for 2 reasons - for one, if I were going to spend money on an app, I would put my money into one of the above apps. With that said, Paper is an elegant app that would be worth $5-10 +/- because it is well designed and seems useful as a place to sketch and organize ideas."
I have over 3 decades of software development experience and do it for a living. Fortunately, I also have a considerable amount of experience in marketing, sales, campaigns, conversion optimization, SEO, SEM, web-mastery, etc - https://sites.google.com/site/powerobject/
Most of what you are listing is part of the development/business - support, marketing text, CTA, videos, screenshots, localizations... and Apple makes some of them easy but Apple is not going to create an app's videos or screenshots. A 30-second optional video does not take too long if you want to create one with Screen Recording and some post editing. Same goes for screenshots. A video is nice to have but if your app is great, you don't need a video! There are so many great apps without a video. If the video is great but the reviews/ratings suck, not many are going by buy it as users tend to go by reviews/ratings. Apple is facilitating and automating a lot through their AppStore (similar to Udemy). Selling an app by hosting on our own eCommerce website, doing our own marketing, SEO, Disaster Recovery, Business Continuity, etc. would be a nightmare that would take our focus away from what we are good at doing. Apple's 30% cut is a lot but 20-25% would have been a sweet spot.
Subscriptions are not new. IAPs are optimal (I can subscribe but I'm speaking on behalf of most users).
This one - "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)"
We are not confused at all with the available IAPs in existing apps. If the dev offers every little insignificant feature as an IAP, yes. IAPs should make sense, offer value and should not be trivial like the review I pasted above from Paper. Every time an app wins Apple's Design Award and receives some PR, they go atrocious about their pricing and think they are golden (Auxy, Paper, etc). They do not think about the missing features and features that other apps are offering for much less.
Anyways, I like Medley better than Auxy