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 Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

All these apps now run on Macs natively?

135

Comments

  • @brambos said:

    @skrat said:
    I will mix in to the "opt-in vs opt-out" debate. I understand it's annoying for developers. They need to either take some action and be the "party-poopers" or opt-in and then need to test and support other set of (quite different) devices.
    But from Apple's point of view it makes complete sense. Keep in mind, Apple's biggest success story is the introduction of App store and they are very well aware of this fact. App store for Mac never lived up to the expectations and this is the big chance to change it. Also, they need to have some extra selling point for new ARM Macs and having access to the biggest App store is definitely a strong one.
    Obviously, making it opt-out means much much more apps to be available from launch. Maybe not working 100% fine, but they'll be available. Maybe they'll need to refund a lot of apps, but still it's not comparable to the risk of launching App store with iOS apps and only a few dozens of developers would decide to opt-in. There is a huge difference in telling "we have tens (hundreds) of thousands new apps available for you" than telling "we have some few apps ported from iOS".
    Of course, this opens completely new set of problems. It's a bold move, but I believe if they communicate it well ("don't expect everything working flawlessly from day 1") and if they'll be generous in refunding problematic app purchases and dealing with developer's issues, it could be another big success for Apple.

    Let's see what the future holds...

    The big issue here is that whenever Apple introduce a problem they rarely have to deal with it themselves. That burden tends to be on their app maker community.

    I’ve taken some for the team in the past. This time others can do it, and when I see them all happy and cheering I’ll likely get on board too.

    That's of course completely reasonable approach and I would likely do the same if I were an iOS developer ;)

  • @brambos said:

    @skrat said:
    I will mix in to the "opt-in vs opt-out" debate. I understand it's annoying for developers. They need to either take some action and be the "party-poopers" or opt-in and then need to test and support other set of (quite different) devices.
    But from Apple's point of view it makes complete sense. Keep in mind, Apple's biggest success story is the introduction of App store and they are very well aware of this fact. App store for Mac never lived up to the expectations and this is the big chance to change it. Also, they need to have some extra selling point for new ARM Macs and having access to the biggest App store is definitely a strong one.
    Obviously, making it opt-out means much much more apps to be available from launch. Maybe not working 100% fine, but they'll be available. Maybe they'll need to refund a lot of apps, but still it's not comparable to the risk of launching App store with iOS apps and only a few dozens of developers would decide to opt-in. There is a huge difference in telling "we have tens (hundreds) of thousands new apps available for you" than telling "we have some few apps ported from iOS".
    Of course, this opens completely new set of problems. It's a bold move, but I believe if they communicate it well ("don't expect everything working flawlessly from day 1") and if they'll be generous in refunding problematic app purchases and dealing with developer's issues, it could be another big success for Apple.

    Let's see what the future holds...

    The big issue here is that whenever Apple introduce a problem they rarely have to deal with it themselves. That burden tends to be on their app maker community.

    I’ve taken some for the team in the past. This time others can do it, and when I see them all happy and cheering I’ll likely get on board too.

    iOS 13. Then iOS 14.
    I wonder what kind of mess is next.

  • DJBDJB
    edited November 2020

    Here's an hypothesis.... Currently iOS apps are reasonably cheap as they can only run on mobile devices. As soon as those same iOS apps can also run on your Mac, devs could argue that you'd have to pay the amount equivalent to at least the macOS license, or even the sum of an iOS and macOS license. In any case, prices for iOS apps could potentially go up if they run on macOS as well. Just a thought. I could be wrong - we'll see how things evolve!

    So far our experiences with AUv3 on Mac are far from smooth; auv3 can be made to work in Logic but auv3 support in Logic seems buggy as hell.

  • Yeah I hope that most developers eventually get on board with this, as it’s a big incentive to get one of these Macs and this is what Apple are hoping too. It’ll be great for cross platform workflow.

  • @DJB said:
    Here's an hypothesis.... Currently iOS apps are reasonably cheap as they can only run on mobile devices. As soon as those same iOS apps can also run on your Mac, devs could argue that you'd have to pay the amount equivalent to at least the macOS license, or even the sum of an iOS and macOS license. In any case, prices for iOS apps could potentially go up if they run on macOS as well. Just a thought. I could be wrong - we'll see how things evolve!

    So far our experiences with AUv3 on Mac are far from smooth; auv3 can be made to work in Logic but auv3 support in Logic seems buggy as hell.

    Especially if there is a way around App Store. That may encourage more desktop devs to bring their stuff over.

  • edited November 2020

    @DJB said:
    Here's an hypothesis.... Currently iOS apps are reasonably cheap as they can only run on mobile devices. As soon as those same iOS apps can also run on your Mac, devs could argue that you'd have to pay the amount equivalent to at least the macOS license, or even the sum of an iOS and macOS license. In any case, prices for iOS apps could potentially go up if they run on macOS as well. Just a thought. I could be wrong - we'll see how things evolve!

    So far our experiences with AUv3 on Mac are far from smooth; auv3 can be made to work in Logic but auv3 support in Logic seems buggy as hell.

    For me, it's a ideal scenario.

    I want to pay $100 por an Auv3 app if I can use it on my iPad and my Mac.

  • @DJB said:
    Here's an hypothesis.... Currently iOS apps are reasonably cheap as they can only run on mobile devices. As soon as those same iOS apps can also run on your Mac, devs could argue that you'd have to pay the amount equivalent to at least the macOS license, or even the sum of an iOS and macOS license. In any case, prices for iOS apps could potentially go up if they run on macOS as well. Just a thought. I could be wrong - we'll see how things evolve!

    So far our experiences with AUv3 on Mac are far from smooth; auv3 can be made to work in Logic but auv3 support in Logic seems buggy as hell.

    The devs can release a separate version for desktop ;) Same way with an iPad app that is not universal .
    Problem solved :)

  • edited November 2020

    @wim said:

    @Nubus said:
    It could imagine it might be a little disappointing at first. You might have an app available, then not.

    I’m not sure I understand. No apps are going away. If you have an app today, you’ll still have it in the future.

    On iOS yes. If you buy an iOS app, it’s always there. But although it remains on an iPhone or iPad, it’s no guarantee it will remain on MacOS. I can see some ambivalence there, but it’s not really a concern

    Just answering your question

  • I think this is a case of Apple trying to leverage the work of app developers into a selling point for their new ARM Macs by putting developers in the middle and leaving them to explain to their users why they opted out of allowing their apps on the ARM Macs. An expectation of lots of new free apps on their new Mac because they already bought the mobile Apple app version will give them a sense of increased value versus the current situation in this regard.

    Too many users will fail to appreciate the work and concerns associated with having their apps available on the Macs. A sense of entitlement may lead them to lash out at developers who opt-out as these users think it’s some sort of money grab. This may be discouraging for many developers. This unilateral default opt-in move by Apple seems like the epitome of corporate greed.

  • Since these M1 chips are basically the A14 chip configured to run on Mac ...it just seems like kind of a collateral bonus that iPadOS apps will run on the Macs. It doesn't seem like Apple has given too much thought to the potential issues down the road. Or they (likely) have and are just remaining quiet.

    Given that iPads are touch screen and the new macs are not i've been trying to think of what apps i look forward to using on a mac, the only ones i can think of are music apps . Beatmaker for sure. synths and drums machines. But now using a mouse on all of them?

  • edited November 2020

    @niktu said:

    That said, I would love it if I could run FabFilter & Brambos plug-ins in Live or Logic, etc. but I won’t be holding my breath for this. Fingers crossed.

    FabFilter plug-ins are VST, VST3, AU, AAX etc.

  • @BitterGums said:

    @niktu said:

    That said, I would love it if I could run FabFilter & Brambos plug-ins in Live or Logic, etc. but I won’t be holding my breath for this. Fingers crossed.

    FabFilter plug-ins are VST, VST3, AU, AAX etc.

    Sorry, yes, you're absolutely right and I already have some of them. I meant in the context of iOS priced iOS apps suddenly becoming available and running inside the DAWs I mentioned. So, I don't think that will happen because they already have premium priced VSTs, and will unlikely allow their budget iOS plugins to suddenly run on a MAC. If they did, that would likely spell the end of their premium priced plugins. That said, it could yet prove to be a better business model for them - iOS prices = more buyers. I have no idea about this but fingers crossed. I have no doubt that for DEVs that have apps or plugins on both platforms (eg. Audio Damage and FabFilter), will need to reconsider their pricing models.

    I think at the end of the day, the M1 announcement is only going to mean a better Mac experience with way more (budget) software options for users. Even if many DEVs "opt out", there will be plenty of DEVs that will remain "opted in", IMO.

  • @Carnbot said:
    Yeah I hope that most developers eventually get on board with this, as it’s a big incentive to get one of these Macs and this is what Apple are hoping too. It’ll be great for cross platform workflow.

    I mean the base Mac Mini is just $699 so would be pretty easy to get for testing. Obviously it’s an investment and not for every developer.

  • I've got exactly one app that doesn't work on macOS Big Sur and it's Renoise...

    Actually I'm pretty surprised that the drivers for my audioInterface made it and most things are working as expected with a lot less hassle than when Catalina was released so I'm a happy camper so far. (Logic is my main 'DAW' anyways).

    As as expected, no 'avalanche' of iOS apps on an Intel Mac Mini :D

  • @Paulinko Is it really a "default opt-in" here?
    How would an iOS app look like on the Mac AppStore when there's no Mac-specific build?

  • wimwim
    edited November 2020

    Excerpt from here: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple_silicon/running_your_ios_apps_on_macos
    (the whole article is worth reading)

    Choose Whether to Include Your iOS App on the Mac App Store
    After you sign the updated developer agreement, the App Store automatically makes compatible iOS apps available to users of a Mac with Apple silicon. However, if you’re already planning to ship a macOS version of your app, or if your app doesn’t make sense on the Mac, you can change your app’s availability in App Store Connect.

    • Open the Pricing and Availability page in App Store Connect.
    • Disable the Make this app available on Mac option.

    Once you remove your app’s availability for Mac, the Mac App Store stops offering your app for sale. Users who already downloaded the app on Mac can still use it, but can’t download it again.

    * Emphasis mine.

  • So since most great developers here already will opt-out i wonder who wants to stay in?
    Moog? Oh i would like to run Moog apps on my macbook.
    Who knows maybe it also works the other way and developers which avoided iOS but will have a working native ARM version soon (like U-he, Spectrasonics and some more) consider it for iOS then as well.
    But then i doubt it will be cheaper there, at least not like its used to be with 1/5 to 1/10 of the desktop prices.
    However, i am looking forward to try my new M1 Macbook Pro and see how it performs against my old late 15" 2013 quadcore i7.
    Never plant to be a guinea pig on a new architecture but in covid times i need something to play with, lol.
    Knowing that maybe in half a year the 16" comes with a M1X or M2 with double the horsepower and more RAM.
    RAM is the thing i was a bit sceptic but so far i only have 8 GB RAM and so i thought 16 GB might do it for a while since i also avoid these days super large sample libraries which waste RAM and resources while not sounding better always.
    But in a worst case i send it back within the 14 days when it not plays well or i resell it in a year (you get mostly great value here on used macbooks) and get the new shiny toy then.
    My late 2013 is still working but my wife wants a new one and so she said buy a new one and give me your old. If she says.....

  • @rs2000 said:
    @Paulinko Is it really a "default opt-in" here?
    How would an iOS app look like on the Mac AppStore when there's no Mac-specific build?

    I think @wim covered the opt-in details. I have no idea how the apps would look, I think you’d need to have somebody with a new ARM Mac to know for sure since it’s my understanding only the ARM Macs will run the mobile apps without modification.

    From 9To5Mac article: Users will find the following message on the App Store for compatible iOS apps: “Designed for iPad. Not verified for macOS.” If the app is not compatible, the App Store will tell the user to download it on an iPhone or iPad.

    I think this would be why many developers would choose to opt-out until they’re sure their apps will work on ARM Macs and they are okay with that option.

  • From https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10114 the look & feel depends on how “multi-tasking” (split screen & more?) enabled the apps are. Sounds like they range from fixed-size windows to fully resizable. But they have normal menu bars and look just like a Mac app.

  • wimwim
    edited November 2020

    Here's what an opted-out app looks like on MacOS Big Sur with a non-Apple Silicon Mac. I clicked on google search result for "Mozaic App Store", which normally gets me to a web page with the iOS app description. In this case, it popped up the Mac App Store, which is kind of annoying. I did manage to get to the web page somehow later, but I'm not sure what I did.

    [edit ... ahh. Searching "Mozaic iOS App Store" did the trick.

  • edited November 2020

    A not-so-well disguised attempt at selling more iOS devices 😉

    Badly executed too: they should've said "is only available on iPhone and iPad" because 99% of consumers probably won't know what iOS even means, plus it's technically wrong because Apple themselves love to call iOS "iPadOS" on iPad 😉

    (a lot of nitpicking, I know... but it's these little obvious oversights that tell me that they have lost control over the big picture somehow.)

  • I hope someone sorts out a hack so we can run those apps that devs have opted out of.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Does anyone know what iOS apps are actually available? Any user expereinces or success stories? Keen to know what's working.

  • wimwim
    edited November 2020

    Extremely few people will have Apple Silicon Macs yet, so its a bit too early to get a feel for that.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @winconway said:

    @brambos said:

    @wim said:
    Nothing surprising there. That was announced months ago at WWDC.

    What is a bit surprising is the idea that they will automatically be available in the Mac App Store unless developers prevent it. I thought it would be an opt-in, not opt-out thing. (I'm going from what people have said here today, not having watched the video myself.)

    Yes, it’s opt-out. I have opted out for now, because I don’t feel like being the Guinneapig Helpdesk (and I don’t have one of those fancy new macs yet) :D

    WOOT on desktop, murda!

    Game changer. Oh, wait. :D

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • wimwim
    edited November 2020

    @winconway said:

    @SoNoob said:
    Not sure how devs are gonna feel about their 5.99 being desktop compatible.
    I just hope $29.99 iOS DAWs arent gonna become $199.99 iOS and Desktop DAWs

    edit: or worse yet...subscription based to cover all bases

    Actually, one DAW at £199, that runs universally across desktop and iPad, and loads the same projects and plugins on both, anybody who doesn’t want that should rethink.

    Because every has a brand spankin' new Mac, don't they? Of course they do. ;)

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
Sign In or Register to comment.