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
Yes, but it's not like it's going to turn in to Windows. Apple has done a really good job of securing iOS.
I know nothing about this case, so I won't comment on that. But as a general statement this is a bit too simple.
I mean, the exact same statement could be made (and was in fact made by the pro-business lobby) when the EU started probing the exorbitant roaming charges of mobile service providers. These companies invested billions! The EU citizens just want stuff for free! This will ruin business! etc. All the predictable arguments were there.
At the end of course it turned out that the companies were massively overpricing their stuff, forming a cartel to fleece their customers. They are still happily doing business with zero EU roaming charges today. 🤷
Again, I'm not interested in Epic per se, but Apple's argument that they can not be a monopoly "because Internet" has got to be trolling.
In my naive view, Apple aren’t a monopoly in the original sense of the word in this case as Fortnite runs on every other platform… Android is an option. It’s not like the power company that has no competition.
It strikes me as being about exceptionally greedy and very successful companies complaining that other even more successful companies are being too greedy and wanting a bigger cut of the pie.
None of it actually helps us as the consumers. In app purchases won’t go down, the vultures will just divvy up the money in different ways. They’ll pretend they are passing on the savings but in truth they know that if a customer is willing to pay Apple $5 for something, then they can charge the same and get a bigger cut. None of these companies are being altruistic.
It’s hypocritical Billionaires bitching about other Billionaires being more billionairey than them.
This is true, but from the regulators' point-of-view it isn't about anyone being more or less altruistic. It's only about enabling or stifling competition. You don't have to be a monopoly to be anti-competitive. Microsoft wasn't anywhere near a monopoly when they got hit.
If the bigger companies can't go up against Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. then smaller companies haven't got a chance.
As for terms of service, not all terms of service are legal. That's what the current Epic case is going to be about. If your landlord charges you illegal fees, you can take them to court.
It is tech and there are many ways to do things. If existing solutions do not meet the requirements, just invent newer ways. AppStores and IAPs did not exist until a few years ago. Just invent a new system to monetize your app instead of whining. If you are using the platform, you have already agreed to the terms of the platform when you signed up. Fortnite is not an exception to the terms just because they are free or huge. No point in sending an email to top executives at Apple at 2 AM saying they are going to implement their own payment system inside the app and threatening Apple with years of legal feud.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/epics-ceo-sent-apple-2-202725190.html
https://www.axios.com/apple-countersues-fortnite-developer-epic-5e63fe39-24a9-4959-8cab-59fb45425330.html
It takes 22 minutes and 22 seconds (or maybe 22 days) of serious thinking and visualizing to come up with a new system to monetize (I have no desire to sell anything and no time to spend 22 minutes...) If you cannot think, just follow Netflix or Udemy who are already selling outside the app without any issues. These are good examples of subscriptions and also one-time purchases. Netflix was paying 700K in fees a day or 853M a year to Apple before and they removed the payment option from the app completely and kept all the money for themselves.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-apple-tax-on-its-853m-in-annual-ios-revenue/
Apparently, the decision to implement their own payment system in the app was made by the top guy at Fortnite and he wouldn’t step down for causing losses to the company - other than chest thumping and thigh slapping. If it was an employee who took the decision resulting in getting the app banned from the stores, they would have fired the employee.
Terms were drafted by Apple’s celebrity attorneys - why would they be illegal??
We can not compare a landlord to Apple.
There are always uncertainties about how certain clauses can be interpreted or enforced. Even contracts written by the best corporate lawyers can be found to have clauses that are unenforceable or considered in violation of some statute...which is why almost all contracts have a proviso that such an error will not invalidate the rest of the contract. Much law is subject to interpretation.
It is highly likely that Apple has contingencies in place should they at some point lose one of the suits that tries to alter how the App Store works as relates to mobile devices.
Me too. I’d rather have more security than less cost
Two of the most recent rejections I've had from the App Store implied that my (free) apps might be trying to make money outside the app store. Seriously. Apple can't piss off Netflix too much or they'll walk. Netflix walking will tank Apple's sales and stock. This isn't the case for everyone else. Apple works hard at making sure you can't just think your way out of their cut.
The Spotify complaint against Apple that is before the EU right now is based on this same thing. They just want to be able to link to their outside the App Store subscription service. It certainly sounds like the EU thinks that Apple's terms of service is this matter are illegal.
Epic's board approved this move. It's a low risk, potentially high reward tactic.
Apple's lawyers haven't been doing very well lately in their high profile cases. They lost the iBooks case and I still can't figure out how. They had to back down with Qualcomm when Qualcomm were pretty clearly (at least in my view) violating the idea of a FRAND patent situation.
My guess overall is that Apple is driven by investors wanting "services" revenue. The App Store is big at this. Personally, I suspect that when Apple has to open up the App Store a little bit, my retirement funds will take a bit of hit and then rebound brilliantly when Apple hits the next quarter with their highest hardware sales on record.
I really don’t think Apple’s sales and stock will be impacted in any significant way by Netflix walking - I think the opposite is more likely, as Netflix only has a certain number of platforms they distribute to, and they would certainly be impacted from losing the exposure that Apple gives to them.
> >
Apple doesn’t have to do anything Epic demands. They need Apple more than Apple needs them.
I was about to say that. Apple doesn’t make any $$ by listing the free Netflix app on their store (it is nice to have it on the platform but no real $$). If Netflix is not on iOS and a user wants to watch Netflix on their iOS device, they could always watch it in the browser on iOS device and not lose anything. Netflix will lose a lot by not having their app on AppStore. Same goes for the free YouTube app - google will lose a lot by not having it on AppStore. Apple sales or stock did not tank when Netflix removed payments through the app and moved all payments to their own website and made Apple lose 853M revenue (or almost a BILLION) every single year.
Udemy is not as big as Netflix but they have the option to buy courses on their website and access them inside their app and also the option to buy courses inside their app. Apple doesn’t block Udemy.
Also, SynthMaster desktop presets purchased on their website can be accessed through their iOS apps.
Yes, Their terms are subject to California laws. If anyone wants to sue Apple they have to follow CA laws.
Not if they file in a Federal Court.
The EU wouldn't be too worried about California laws either.
I know it won’t, but I still hope this ends up putting Epic out of business. They make vastly more out of the PlayStation platform than they do out of iOS, and yet they’re not taking Sony to court for the fact that they can only sell through the PS Store with exactly the same revenue splits. Apple is the publicity target, and that’s all they actually care about. Everything about this play is anti-consumer. They can F off.
In this regard, I would suggest you to watch this video about Apples paradox of choice:
I don't think there is any question that Apple is abusing it's market postition. But so does Google, and Microsoft and Facebook. The question is more: Are we O.K with that?
Personally I can't see a win for Epic here. Too much is at stake for a lot of companies that have walled gardens by themselves. At least I'm not aware that Android allows a completely different app store that goes completly around Google (at least not that I know off, no Android expert though). So after Apple, Google is going to be next.
But I feel trouble brewing in tech land anyway, Facebook isn't too happy about the new iOS privacy settings.
Definitely an interesting conversation, do these walled gardens stifle creativity? Perhaps.
Significant development that apple changed the royalty percentage recently under pressure.
Interesting post from Google engineer saying that by stifling Web technology on iOS, Apple are forcing developers to create native iOS apps instead of having rich web experiences.
https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/03/epic-case-begins-google-intervenes/?fbclid=IwAR09qoDWVggnJepDd5sak7E7bdAxWIHDrd4ZmMJWP9DgN98yVhxtLIGSxPA
Better web technology on iOS would mean less profits for Apple but more choice for iOS users.
I personally do get frustrated with Apples control over the ecosystem so I'm always one foot in and the other firmly outside of it.
I’m not sure it would. Installing third party software which compromises the security of any device can void a warranty.
OK, now that is an area where I can see Apple being successfully challenged in court. It's true! Most people don't realize that there is only one html rendering technology allowed in iOS - Apple's. Chrome, Firefox, whatever, are forced to use use the exact same core browser technology as Safari. They can dress it up differently and add privacy and some other features, but at the core they are 100% hamstrung by Apple.
At this point, it’s useful to remind people that Apple developed their platforms (iOS and iPadOS) on their dime and participation as a developer in their App Store is voluntary. A developer agrees to play by their rules using their tools to develop. Can anyone walk into a Walmart and demand that they carry their products? No. Walmart has strict rules and negotiates hard with suppliers to make sure they’re providing something their customers will want. This is a similar situation. No one, no matter who they are, has a “right” to be on Apple’s App Store and Apple does not have a monopoly, despite their products and services making far, far more money than their competitors.
I think you misunderstood my point.
It could easily be argued that exercising absolute control over an open and ubiquitous protocol such as HTML is anti-competitive. There were successful concessions forced on Microsoft, for example, for allowing only its browser to be included with OEM distributions of Windows.
This comment does not relate to the Epic Games case. I see that one as un-winnable, but that may serve some use to apply pressure for change.
But, more directly to your point: If Wal-Mart took actions that could be construed as forcing people to only shop at their stores or preventing suppliers from selling in other stores by buying up all land suitable for retail, that would be anti-competitive and illegal. I see their stranglehold on web technology as bordering on that kind of behavior.
I’d seriously rethink that IOS is the safest platform, all those devices, same code base, wanted by the powerful people, hackers heaven.
Steve initially didn’t want an App Store…on this one he was right. Apple…ever the courageous in the past about removing things (including headphone jacks) should retire the App Store and allow for 100% unreviewed side loading. DMGs for all. errybody even.
Then invest even further in their own quality branded apps, services and experiences Logic, FCP, AppleTV+, AR/VR…
Also give up the privacy fight (because everyone lumps them in with Fecebook anyway) “Ooo all Big Tech is eeevil”
It wouldn’t affect them at all, and Next gen products probably won’t have App Stores anyway.
Wait, who has a “stranglehold on web technology”? Even Microsoft never had a monopoly over web browsers. The ruling requiring them to remove their browser was completely misguided at best.
I take it this is sarcasm? They’d never give up a curated App Store and they have no reason to do so.
Apple does have somewhat of a stranglehold on web technology in iOS. I said it before but apparently didn’t explain it well enough. I’ll quote a better writer than myself and leave it at that. You can do your own research if you don’t care to take it at its face value. I don’t care about it enough to argue with you.
Yes, it’s an editorial. No, I don’t know anything about this particular author’s qualifications. But this is just an illustrative quote of something that has been plain knowledge for years. I don’t think you will find anything that contradicts this anywhere.
Back to my point. If Apple forces use of Safari behind the scenes for web access then they can limit what features they implement. If they limit browser based features, they can prevent companies bypassing the App Store ecosystem through browser based services. If you don’t think that’s a stranglehold, that’s fine. I kinda do, and I think it’s an avenue that someone is likely to challenge at some point. We’ll see.
(BTW, I never said I thought that the Microsoft browser complaint was valid, only that if the government saw fit to come after Microsoft for something like that I could easily see them sticking their nose into this business.)
Anyway ... this is the kind of discussion I bore of after a couple of posts. I’ve gone way over my limit already. 🥱✌️
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/11/apple-accused-of-breaking-uk-competition-law-by-overcharging-for-apps
I'm doubtful it will be successful but you can but hope.
Really hope this wins, I need a cut from this
Particularly annoying is how the exchange rate for UK Apple apps is not justified too.
No sarcasm. Totally serious. App stores are doomed give it 3-5 years. and it It won’t hurt Apple or other “big tech” one iota. independent 3rd parties? Will become irrelevant due to Self-inflicted idiocy.
This is tangentially related to this discussion – if we accept that apps bought through the App Store are merely rented to us. But what about hardware?
The erosion of ownership: