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
@akamarko iFretless is a great app for sure. One of @Rhism main goals is to destroy the learning curve on this app.. Everyone should be able to play right away regardless of ability. It will more then likely never be as complicated as ifretless is. :-) @Rhism is deffinitely working on the virtual midi though.
For pricing.. I always felt turned off by IAP's.. It's one of the first things I look for when purchasing an app and a lot of cases if there were IAP's, I just moved on. I always felt comfortable with under $10. Audiobus changed that for me some what. The apps have a "collect them all" feel that is hard to resist.
EDIT: @Rhism beat me to it again. lol
Re: IAP's. when I first bought SampleTank I was so impressed that I bought all the sound packs at a combined discount. It made it easy for me but to be truthful, I still use less than a third of those extras.
I too get turned off by some apps IAP's and prefer the 'lite' vs 'pro' model. For guitarism it could mean lite version at $.99 in it's current form and $5-10 for pro which includes more guitars and virtual midi.
@AkaMarko Yeah I think IAP bundling seems to be something that people like. It tempers the sting of IAP with the scent of a good deal. The problem with lite vs pro is the developer has no incentive to add significant new features. I have a hundred and one things I want to add to guitarism, and it only makes sense for me to do so as IAPs or do guitarism 2, guitarism 3 etc.
People dislike IAP because it feels manipulative, like the dev gave you a half-complete app and now wants you to pay again for the rest. And a lot of them are exactly like that. Which is why I want to settle guitarism on a good price for what it's currently worth, before I throw in a bunch of big IAPs into the mix.
It's really a shame about IAPs. Some devs simply did a crappy job with rolling them out and as a consequence people look at them with disdain.
Other than a few shiesters, I more blame apple. They upended the software revenue model without a lot of guidance for devs entering the market.
Releasing separate apps and IAPs is an cool idea. Terrible for your working life (and git repo) but I imagine it would have the effect of negating some of the IAP feelings being discussed here. Possible bonus: people looking for sitar or ukulele apps may never be turned on by guitarism.
I think the discussion of perceived value is an interesting one. Obviously it depends on you and how useful a given app is to you. But I think there is at least three stages. How you feel the moment you first open the app - including the next 10 minutes. You just traded cash for access to it and first impressions count.
Then there's the perceived value after you settle into actually using the app. Does it do what you hoped beyond the initial play around? Is it solving some problem for you?
Third phase really depends on the second one. If it did solve problems for you (or simply brings you joy or whatever) the long term perception of value would be greater. If it didn't, it's just taking up space and it's value drops to near zero.
Asking what a forum full of people who made it to stage three and are happy with the app is what's going on here and I think that might lead to unintentionally deceptive answers.
I have no idea what I'm talking about. I blame the Internet. Thanks, Internet.
Very true.
You bring up an excellent point.
@syrupcore You bet
I automatically apply a "happy users" filter on everything I take in from this forum. Still, it helps to set an upper limit.
Somewhat off-topic but I just bought Geo Synth and am blown away by @rrr00bb 's ingenuity and attention to detail. The auto-octave shifting, the way pitch moves fretless or fretted depending on your movement speed, the guy clearly thought this through. Respect.
@Rhism Rob also released the source code for Cantor. He's given us all permission to remake it. It's epically complicated though IMO. What he did to make the midi work the way it does.. my god~!~ :-)
@Ryan I know, I spent a few mins looking at the git repo this morning
I think half the battle with IAPs is to be clear about it upfront, then people don't feel they have been misled. Make it clear what is in the core app and what are paid extras, and have an "everything" bundle at a discount to buying individually.
I agree that $5 seems like a good main price for Guitarism, but you should always give yourself margin for special sales - people like a bargain!
And yes, Geo is a great instrument and midi controller too!
@PhilW Yeah I hate it when apps promise stuff that ends up being an IAP...
BTW, question for you guys:
iPad support is nearing completion. The guitar layout is fairly different from the iPhone version. Strumming is mostly the same but there are now two tilt 'buttons', and the chord boxes are repositioned such that all 18 chords can be selected and switched with one stationary hand. Personally I'm finding it a ton more usable than the iPhone layout, which I totally didn't expect.
So the question is - do you guys prefer to get this via guitarism going universal, or as a separate iPad version? Universal means you don't need to pay for it again, but it also means that you will no longer be able to use the 2x layout you've been using so far on iPad (but iPhone layout will stay unchanged). Separate version means ... the opposite
Note that I have a bunch of other factors to think through in order to make this decision so not promising to follow the consensus here, but I do want to consider your opinions as one of those factors. And no need to adjust your responses based on the earlier revenue discussion - I want to know what you prefer for yourselves.
As much as I hate when devs have two apps out instead of a universal app, I would almost rather have an iPad specific app in this case
@Rhism since I've just recently purchased Guitarism, I wouldn't want to have to repurchase at full cost. The iPhone version would become useless if I purchase ipad specific version since I use ipad only.
I'm going to say something unpopular here:
Make two different versions. Otherwise you're most likely not going to make up your development costs on the iPad version.
Your existing users would love a universal version it but there's going to be hardly any sales spike. I think adding a (separate) iPad version is justified because guitarism itself is a great app and worth a lot more than you're currently selling the iPhone version for either.
I always prefer an app to be universal.. But if they are universal they should be nearly identical in functionality on all devices. If the iPhone version and iPad versions are very different then separate apps makes more sense. I know I love how the 2x version works and in a native or universal iPad version of this all I would want to see is it go full screen without any other changes. I'd hate to lose the way it works now.
This is really a hard decision, but I'll go with Sebastian. Rhism gets more money, Rhism would work harder, and Guitarism would be better. I like this idea.
Animoog has seperate versions...is still popular.
Go for 2 Adil,but yes,don't mess with the strings..and if poss,midi out as standard
please.
I use it on an iPhone and iPad, so I'm a bit concerned about the change to the iPhone if it went universal. It would also be interesting to have two different versions on the iPad to see how they compare. I'm more inclined to lean towards making them separate even if it means more cost, although it would be interesting if current owners could get a price break....if that's possible.
I prefer universal apps personally. Perhaps you should give us the option to choose how many chords we want to display on-screen. I wouldn't mind a separate app though.
Price breaks for existing users aren't possible. Apple doesn't give developers a way to implement that, sadly. Probably every developer would do it...
You are considering a combination that really turns me off... IAP in addition to separate iPhone/iPad versions. This means that you need to buy both the apps AND the IAP's twice if you want to unlock functionality/sounds for both devices, at which point I simply stop considering a purchase at all.
It's unfortunate that Apple has no mechanism for combining IAP's, but that's the way it is for now. I would say focus on either multiple versions with full functionality, or a universal version with IAP. Personally, I would prefer the latter. As a developer, I personally always try to avoid imposing schemes that I myself wouldn't buy into.
@busker said:
Not that I think you were making any kind of accusation, I'd just think it's fair to mention that Rhism has been spending great energy finding ways to implement his updates in a way that's fair to us as customers/users and also fair to him as a developer.
@Rhism regardless of what you choose, I know you put a lot of thought into trying to find the BEST way. That's what counts to me. Things will never be ideal.
I would prefer universal, and tend to think it's a better long-term decision, despite the downside that Sebastian mentioned (no sales spike). But are spikes what you're looking for? (maybe so.) Either way, I doubt you're gonna lose many fans over having an iPad version & iPhone version.
Everyone suggesting going universal should ask themselves the following questions:
If you like guitarism: is it worth another few bucks? You've paid for it once and maybe even just a dollar. Do you think an indy developer can make a living from that?
Good points on both sides. Of course, I stated I would prefer universal, but I wouldn't be mad if I had to repurchase, and this is mainly because of the effort that I've witnessed from Rhism on this forum. There's been more interaction with fans than I've seen elsewhere. Also I have to respect the fact that we were asked our opinion @Rhism If a separate app is your chose, I'll support it.
Make the app universal and make money off in-app purchases. In a universal app we wouldn't have to buy the in-app purchases twice. I'd be more than willing to pay what you reasonably ask for with in-app purchases. I'd love for midi out to be added. Also a slide function would be awesome! Please don't use the accelerometer ;-). Slide should be a horizontal swipe across the strings. Those are my suggestions for the day.
As far as good music related apps go, Guitarism is priced low in comparison. it wouldn"t be a deal breaker for me to pay for a seperate iPad version if there's enough improvements built into the iPad version.
As it stands now, I just play the iPhone version when I'm out and about and want to quickly figure out chord progressions for music ideas in my head. But I find playability limited when it comes to single notes and arpegiated phrases, fingers fumble around too much on the small screen. If I'm doing anything even partway serious with guitarism I turn to the iPad. I just need an easy way now for the iPad to access more chords along with some of the other proposed features.
But if I understand things correctly, an iPad user can simply not buy the dedicated iPad version if they don't want and continue to run an iPhone version x2 on their iPad.
Interesting responses - thanks for your input, all! My takeaways:
1) Most people here seem to be ok with having 2 apps despite the repurchase. However I'm not sure how generalizable that is, given that we've gotten to know each other a bit here
@uglykidmoe Appreciate the vote of confidence! Ultimately I'm looking for gut reactions rather than responses based on "... but I know Rhism is looking out for us" because only 1% of guitarism users know enough about me to be able to have the latter reaction. I think if I filter out the 'goodwill' effect I sense that 40% of "people like you guys" would be ok with a repurchase. If I further filter out @syrupcore's 'stage 3' effect I estimate maybe ~10-15% of guitarism users would feel ok with purchasing a separate iPad version (and others will be very mad and write 1-star reviews complaining that basically it's the same app being sold twice).
2) Some loss aversion from @JMSexton, @Ryan, @commonstookie, @funjunkie27. To clarify, the iPhone experience would be completely unchanged. On iPad, the strings would be mostly unchanged, the main changes are for chords and tilt. Loss aversion is fairly common, even if the 'new' thing is better, so if I go universal I'm fully expecting some 1-star reviews from people who 'miss' the old iPad layout. That said, only 10% of guitarism usage is on iPads right now.
3) Wrt opportunity for more revenue with 2 versions: @Sebastian You'd know better than me, but would I really get much of a spike on a new iPad version? The App Store no longer has "Sort By Release Date". I think the only sources of a spike would be (a) users who view Audiobus-compatible apps by date (hoping there's another way to do that), and (b) existing active guitarism users purchasing iPad version (not enough people for this to matter). I'm not too interested in 1-day or 1-week spikes (unless they're huge spikes! i.e. $100k+) - more on sustainable recurring revenue.
4) Wrt chances of losing revenue with 2 versions: This is a huge concern of mine. @commonstookie Animoog has a big brand name - better comparisons would be smaller, indie-developer apps with 2 versions (Loopy / Loopy HD is the only successful one I can think of). 100% agree with @busker's comment that IAP will be a problem with multiple apps
@AkaMarko If I do a universal app, all guitarism iPad users would be forced to use the new layout on iPad (layout on iPhone doesn't change) - they would not get the option to use the old layout on iPad anymore. That's the crux of the question.
Curious to hear @Sebastian's thoughts on sales spikes, since I wasn't really expecting much of a spike either way so maybe I'm missing something.
Sales spikes are actually pretty irrelevant in the long run, I might have used the wrong word there. Back in 2010 we've made SoundPrism universal from being an iPad-only app. There was almost no change in daily sales from that. Next to nothing.
Of course in your case it's iPhone -> iPad, which is significant because sales numbers are higher for iPad music apps, so you'd be (potentially) missing out on even more.
If you want my professional opinion: Make a separate iPad app. Price it slightly higher than the iPhone version. Maybe even lower the price of the iPhone version a bit at the same time. That seems to work with many good apps (not going to mention names here) and users of those apps are happy.
If you make guitarism universal, you're missing out on a perfectly reasonable chance to recuperate some of your investment that users cannot seriously be mad about.
It's a new app, it's going to be bigger, better and your existing users will know that they're paying someone who hasn't let them down in the past.
The alternative would be to just make it universal and hope for some weird effect that might increase your sales while at the same time not giving any of your existing (and happy) users a chance to pay you for your work. Sure, some might not buy the iPad version but they definitely won't be running around telling their friends about how much of a scumbag you are to charge money for your work by making another app.
Also, as some wise man once said: Being able to pay for food is nice.
PS: There are ways to sync IAPs over multiple apps. We're doing that with SoundPrism and SoundPrism Pro. If you need help with that, I can tell you how we do it - just email me.
I will say this for "universal app" route is that when I purchased Sampletank it was iphone only. i didn't have an iPhone at the time so the blown up graphics and functionality on iPad were tolerable. But when that app went universal I felt like it was Christmas morning. The user experience was brought to a new height. I also remember the app store reviews turning more favorable around this time as well.
Late coming in on this, but based on your stated "no need to adjust your responses based on the earlier revenue discussion - I want to know what you prefer for yourselves" I would personally prefer a universal version. I am assuming that the iPad layout will be better than the 2x iPhone screen (otherwise you wouldn't do it, right?!) . Also if there are to be IAPs then they could be used across both devices. That is my preference, but i'd still buy the iPad version if you decide to go separate.