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 quoted Paper by 53 because they're the only app I know that tried pure, no features, please give us donations model. And they pivoted to offer simple features as part of a pro subscription. I have many opinions on what they're currently doing now, but back when they originally introduced subscriptions, it was donations only (no extra features). So, if Paper by 53 couldn't make donations work when they have over 15M downloads (they reported 13M in a USPTO filing for trademarking "Paper" about 2 years ago), who can?
I should mention, videos on YouTube don't only rely on Patreon. They have YouTube ads, merchandize, and sponsored videos - and every time they release a new video, they replenish their revenue stream (unlike app devs that push out free updates). Ultimately, Patreon doesn't have to be their main revenue stream. When it comes to productivity apps, there aren't that many avenues to go down for revenue.
I may have been a bit harsh. However, looking at your site, it doesn't look like you published an app to the App Store, with no brand recognition around the app and was able to get it a decent download figure (say, 100,000), and got the app to generate the majority of its downloads via search. I'm also not sure what you mean by Apple makes some of the above easy. They've made them easier, but it's still a fair bit of work.
For example, we support 10 languages, and the minimum number of devices screen sizes for a universal app is 3. Say 5 screenshots per language per device (the maximum is now 10), with all screenshots localized (not just titles and messaging in the screenshot, but the app screen is also localized), and you're talking 150 images for a set of 5, and 300 for a set of 10 screenshots. At one point we generated nearly 400 screenshots for the App Store (when the minimum was 6 device screens + Apple Watch) and when we supported 11 languages. If you're also OCD like I am, you'd want the shots within the languages to look consistent, meaning consistent titling sizes, kerning, positioning, etc. So we wrote a script that took advantage of Sketch, and allowed us to "quickly" export those images.
There is also a fair bit of metadata work involved to get the most out of it. Videos Previews are a whole different issue and can drive you mad if you want to do a good job (I'm actually not happy with ours and has lasted for far too long and can't wait to swap it out). But again, different screens (3 in this case), and you usually don't have to worry about localization here (though, now you can have localized videos - but uploading this is an absolute pain). Sure some apps don't have video previews, but it's another great marketing opportunity that I believe is necessary for certain apps (particularly paid music-making apps).
We'll also have to agree to disagree as to what goes under development and what goes under "other".
2016 is when Apple made subscriptions open to all apps and released massive changes to it. So it hasn't really been 2 full years since iOS 10, and Apple and app devs are navigating this field, since existing models weren't sustainable for most apps. Our case is a bit different, since our IAPs are successful, but there are plenty of motivations for moving towards subscriptions that I haven't disclosed (since I'm trying to defend why subscriptions won't mean the end of the ecosystem).
I think we have to again agree to disagree here. But I'm not talking about many small insignificant features sold as IAPs. I'm talking about small content packages, priced around $2-$5 each, where an app has 20, 30, possibly more of them. As a normal user (I don't think any of us qualify as a normal user), if you want to make a purchase, you'll get option fatigue, get confused over what you want, and more often than not, decide not to purchase. As a developer, you'd lose a huge portion of emotional and snap purchasing decisions. Offering less options for more money is often a far more effective tactic that putting everything out there. But there is a balance to be played.
Thanks
Me Kühl subscribe? NEIN, never gonna happen.
I’ll be glad to pee on my iPad if that universe takes hold.
I must pay my bills regularly, & I have a tape recorder stashed somewhere
Charging for an app or IAP is also a "bum direction for users". Increasing prices (to even match inflation), or rolling out a new IAP that isn't part of an old IAP is also a "bum direction for users". Releasing a major version that costs the same for all users is also a "bum direction for users". Call me out of touch, but I don't understand why my statement is "gross", but is in fact reality. But to clarify, I've never called users dumb, but generally, users are adverse to change.
I still remember the days when Facebook would announce a new UI change and users would be up in arms against it. Then they'd get use to it.
The move towards subscriptions by apps, as we see more apps move in this direction, is playing out in the same way when paid apps included IAPs, and when free apps included IAPs. Not sure if you remember, but when IAPs were introduced, they were for paid apps only. A 'free app is free' - Steve Jobs declared when he announced IAPs.
People first thought, "I don't want to pay more for an app I already paid for" - that's actually valid and I don't think it succeed much (I could be wrong). Then Apple reversed that decision a year or so later, and free apps got IAPs too. And the community was up in arms. It's deceptive. It's bad. A free app is no longer free! As the dust settled, we've seen new business models and apps come out and a user base that embraces free apps with IAPs. We've also seen great executions of free with IAPs, that I don't believe we've seen much with subscriptions.
Medly doesn't offer subscriptions - IAPs have been fairly successful thus far for us, though limiting in their design. A simple Apple limiting example is we can't localize the price, to bring it down to better match the cost of living in a region (we can with subscriptions). Another failure of IAPs is, as we build our content library, it makes zero financial sense for us to spend time adding new loops and content for our legacy packs, unless we offer update pricing, which makes everything either more expensive and/or more confusing. We also can't mix packs to create better sample songs for users since we can't assume they own X pack.
My replies to this post wasn't because "Medly is moving towards subscriptions, please like us" - I've refrained from using our app name and being specific about it. I got involved because there are serious misconceptions being spread around that I felt needed to be addressed - especially from a very opinionated developer...
@baldajan though I’ve personally decided I will simply not go down the subscription road ever as a consumer, I want to thank you for your reasoned and articulate posts. I learned some things for sure. And if you do go that model, I hope it works out for you. Most people recognize that app developers are just trying to find a workable way forward to maintain their livelihood. Thanks for sticking around through the abuse [edit] spirited disagreement
and for keeping a level head.
I was suggesting donation model feature by Apple on paid/all apps. Paid apps would get paid plus donations as additional revenue; free apps would get donations.
Agree I forgot to mention. YT channels have AdSense, sponsorships, collaborations, affiliate marketing, etc. I also hinted every time an app releases an update, it shows dev's dedication and would reinforce patrons to continue donating and encourage newer patrons to join so there is no diminishing value.
No, I haven't published any mobile apps yet. I'm primarily a client/server developer, secondarily a web developer and mobile development is a hobby. However, I have worked on several major updates and transformations and marketing and sales are not new to me and not clueless what it takes to market and sell something. I have run sales campaigns outsourced to South America, Philippines and radio campaigns on SiriusXM (very expensive - a 2-minute Live Read spot on Howard Stern cost 12-14K for each spot and a highly optimized campaign across multiple channels - Stern, Fox, CNN, Comedy, etc. with ad buying power and some free bonus spots from SXM still cost over 250K per month). Just as content is king in articles/videos, I know if an app is great, it sells itself. If the app is mediocre, it becomes hard, expensive and a risky business. My favorite quote is from Mark Cuban, "Do the work!" and don't expect some investor to come and do your work.
How about taking your app on Shark Tank for PR and capital?
@Dawdles has been warned about his behaviour on this thread, which I consider to be unacceptable. Please continue to flag inappropriate content, it's very helpful.
Some thoughts, considering how many members view this forum regularly and the few who have (loudly and repeatedly) stated here that they wouldn't go subscription, it is very obvious that most people don't really care as long as the pricing is fair and they get their value for money.
The one IOS developer i can look at that went subscription, DJPP, says that he is now in a much better financial position and able to update at will rather than to a specific timeline around other paying duties.
I personally had no issue with five years of DJPP for $50 or whatever it cost, Traktor cost me more than that to buy in to on the desktop and DJPP is a better piece of software (Lower latency/Much more stable) and gets much more regular updates.
(This is a good comparison because it is one of the only cases where an app store app for IOS can actually be compared 1:1 with its desktop competition)
It is also very funny that people seem to think that when they "Purchase" outright in the app store, that they are in fact buying something, they are not, they are being granted a licence in perpetuity to use an app, they have no rights in terms of support or updates beyond the version they "Purchased" working as advertised, the wording of the app store licence is very careful in never giving any ownership at all, otherwise they have to change the store entirely and allow you to sell what you "Purchased" that is the law in Europe, so yes, like it or not, when you "Purchase" you are actually renting, and that would be another word for subscription, it is just obfuscated from you that you have subscribed (in perpetuity) to a single version with no rights to updates or support.
The app store is not the desktop, you do not buy anything in the app store, comparing to the desktop is complete nonsense, when you buy desktop software, you buy it, it can be resold, when was the last time you saw an app store app on Ebay ?
Before i was a developer i hated subscription, i believed it was a rip off for all users, now i am a developer i look at subscription and wonder why any user would want it any other way if they actually value the software they use, and understand the extra value/savings they are making, which in the case of a few in this thread they obviously do not, answers such as "I will just go hardware" etc etc show this, but again the silent masses who do value their software are, well they are silent.
I simply can't even imagine the software that certain developers could come up with here if they had a constant liveable revenue stream.
Thanks. It's interesting to hear from an actual iOS developer. You've provided much information and some perspective we don't often see here. We know many users don't like the idea of subscriptions, especially on iOS, and see the idea as a dire threat.
I think the problem on this platform for smaller developers capable of providing significant products, who want decent pay for their work, is that this is just not a good enough market. The iOS music-making market basically has what it wants -- loads of super inexpensive apps, and with free updates, that continue to feed the desire for something new. At least up to now, enough devs are willing to work in this environment, many doing it just because they like making apps.
We hear lots of complaints -- Apple does this or doesn't do that, apps aren't stable and reliable enough, apps aren't as feature rich as desktop, and why is this great desktop app not offered on iOS? and apps get abandoned, etc..., but it's just talk. The iOS market doesn't want to support this level of product. It's why they scream bloody murder about even the idea of an app asking for a subscription. What if I can't buy or have every app I see? A developer daring to try the subscription model is the devil. Every bogus rationale is trotted out to 'splain why subscriptions are stupid or illegitimate.
Many in professional or higher end markets are willing to pay a subscription for something if they need/want it bad enough. Like we'll pay large amounts of money for a really great product. Low cost subscriptions should be attractive to some more casual users if the desire for the app is strong. So despite tremendous competition from developers providing inexpensive non-subscription apps, and even free ones, no reason other developers shouldn't strive for financial success. Make it and they will come. That's the basic engine that drives progress. iOS doesn't appear to be ready for that. It still wants tons of everything for cheap, and taken to an extreme, subscriptions would be a serious threat to that if it became the standard.
Good point about the „renting“ of software on os. To me, the main difference compared with subscriptions is: I know I have the money now, to pay the price of the App, but working freelance, and as an artist I honestly never know what it’ll look like in a years time. Cheep prices on ios give me opportunity to try things, including the risk of losing Apps completely afterwards (happened in a lot of instances, and I am prepared to live with it BECAUSE PRICES ARE LOW (I never tried this many variation of Apps on desktop, but I did pay the original price for Logic (5 back then), because it doesn’t leave much to be desired on top). Ios I think is still developing, I imagine the „throwaway“-mentality of iOS to evolve into something more mature (and sustainable) in the future, including more mature pricing, but I for one won‘t go with subscriptions (they do make sense for newspapers etc., but not for somehow finished Apps. I do accept a system of yearly new major installments as a „new“ App, though.
I don't see anyone here asking that anyone be forced to subscribe to anything. If an app doesn't cut it for you as is, or you don't trust the dev, steer clear.
Generally speaking, if I really liked an iOS app, I wouldn't be averse to paying a subscription, assuming it was a reasonable amount for my situation. I would pay because I like the app as is, not so much because of future plans. If the app doesn't continue to satisfy, I just save my work in a universal format and stop subscribing. I don't see it as a higher risk than buying outright.
The discussion here is about the subscription model in general, and I see no good reason to simply condemn it out of hand. If a dev creates a great app because the subscription model is attractive to them, it's good news for everyone willing to buy in.
There is no semantics, just facts, i pointed out that you simply don't want subscription called subscription, there is nothing wrong with that, it is not a very nice word.
Buy = Ownership = Ability to resell.
Subscription = Rent = Can not resell because you do not own.
App store licence = Licence in perpetuity = Can not resell because you do not own.
While you may wish to make yourself feel better in your purchases by calling this semantics, it actually isn't, and that is also the hilarious part of people saying "I will just go hardware" because they want the rights of "Ownership"
Which in the cold light of day, they don't have now with their app store "Purchases" anyway, but believe they do, why, because the word subscription was not used when they "Purchased" (Rented) a licence in perpetuity.
Notice that the above is rarely used by developers in these discussions, why, because they don't want you knowing you already subscribe, rent, whatever you would like to call it.
Buying software is a much better marketable term.
I did not mention feeling entitlement, i simply pointed out that legally you have no rights to expect anything but a working version as advertised of what you "Purchased" a perpetual licence for, there is no bonus, not enough sales, not enough interest, no motivation, no updates.
You do realise that most of the developers that have been called greedy etc in this thread are working for free on those updates most of the time, not only because they want to use the software themselves, but actually because they have pride in their creation, if a developer has finished their creation to do what they want it to do, but you need that one super simple killer feature that would only take a day for the developer to implement, most of them wont, why, because you want them to go and create an entirely new product to sell instead, because the old one has no revenue stream to pay for their time and actually works exactly as they want it to, this is exactly what you are asking for, unless you bring IAP in to it, which then becomes more troublesome than it is worth and the app becomes more costly than subscription ever was, the money i have heard people spending on Gadget is quite literally a joke.
You do know the facts about software sales vs release right ?
There is a chart somewhere put together many years ago by Scott at FXpansion, it shows that sales of software are near next to nothing after about six weeks after release, and during that six weeks it is on a steep dive downwards, the upward blips for software updates are very very small to be near insignificant.
You have no rights to updates for OS compatibility for any amount of time unless stated as so in the information when you "Purchased" the perpetual licence.
You do however have the right to ask for updates to fix bugs that could be deemed to make the software unusable, however these are near non existent because if a software works but has a bug, it works, and you have no rights to ask for the bug to be removed unless it stops the software working, which it doesn't, because it works but with a bug, vicious cycle, but reality in terms of the rights you hold as a "Purchaser" of a perpetual licence for software in a correctly worded app store (both Apple and Google stores by the way)
What you think is valid is because we have been spoiled by generous developers working for free on free updates, which as a general humanity thing, yes you could expect, legally, no you cant expect it, with subscription you have way more legal standing to demand a lot more.
That's kind of like saying every app's goal is to be good enough to attract users willing to support it with their wallets. If a dev believes only the subscription model can accomplish that, then the opinion above follows. Why shouldn't they be free to believe that and pursue that model? The market will decide if that's the only viable model. Nobody is forced to do anything.
With the exception of the term “legal standing” this is a very good point. No one is going to get to the point of legal action in all practicality for something at this scale, and in an international market. I would say there’s more “justification” for demanding more. But then again, the whole point of the subscription model is the remedy for not meeting expectations is to stop subscribing. But yes, it does keep the pressure on the developers to continue to provide that perceived value.
I assumed nothing, i just stated facts, please don't say i assumed something and then not point out what i assumed, everything i typed was facts.
Why do you keep making an argument that everything will become subscription and you will not be able to afford it, that is complete nonsense, why would a plugin that is going to get no updates ever need to be subscription, and why should it then stop working, this is a total nonsense argument.
Only apps that need regular updates, that would be high end powerful apps like DAWs etc would ever be viable for subscription, because they would get regular feature updates, why would something like a delay or EQ that was fully complete and working upon release be subscription, that is just silly.
As for assumption, that is all you are doing "What updates have i got in return for all this" that is pure speculation that can not be quantified because you have no baseline to compare right now, unless we take DJPP, which of course is one of if not the most updated DJ app on IOS.
As like everybody else it seems in this thread, i have stated facts, you have ignored them, in return i am going to ignore you, you are extremely hard work to have any kind of factual conversation with because you ignore everything being typed and then invent situations based in the future that only exist in your head "Money literally flooding in" indeed !!!
Do not assume for one minute that this means that you have proved your point, it simply means you are just too hard work to converse with and all you have done is make everybody in this thread who rightly had genuine concerns about subscription models look silly if they agree with you, you should stop trying to make invented future scenarios up to further your point, it is nothing but histrionics.
Yo, check out the new jjos3 on mpc1000... it dropped in July and is a new os for the mpc1000. Totally brought new life to my old mpc...
App subscriptions - the Brexit of the iOS world.
One thing we can be sure of if it becomes a proper thing - it’s gonna be divisive.
10 PRINT "Down with this sort of thing"
20 GOTO 10
RUN