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
Yup agreed S. Cheers, ED
I cant remeber the name of the app, but I ran across the some app that their model was a pay per save. You bought like 50 saves for 2.99...
Desktop plugins generally do too, which, if I remember correctly, is one of the reasons Chris Randall has given for the lower price of iOS Audio Damage apps.
"This time next year, Rodders, we'll be millionaires!"
Which is EXACTLY why quite a few of these developers do it...they'll always get money even if the end user does not use the app anymore, and in some cases has even deleted it forgetting it was a subscription.
Now, I know a person should always recall what they are paying for, but some of these are such an insidious amount we DO forget about them! Or at least forget about them for a while, after which time we have discovered we may have outlaid well over $100....
These app developers are not benevolent societies and nor should they be, and they have no altruistic reasons (haha well maybe in SOME cases) for producing this stuff, they are there to make money. The subscription model is turning out to be their cash nirvana and more and more are going down that road.
Once a developer adopts this method I drop them, I'll either just continue using the app as it is (providing it is one those "fair" developers that only charge the subscription for actual updated - not bug fixes - apps or new features. Cantabile for Windows is one for example) or look for something else.
hahaha, or just go back to using hardware.
I think it’s something closer to ideal, but now my concern would be that time is commodified. I’ll be thinking about always closing it and not leaving it open too long, or when I walk away, how much time is left, etc.. maybe that’s my ocd talking, lol.
There are some apps like this, I want nothing more then a sustainable solution for developers, but for me it’s not big enough of a difference to really change my opinion. It’s different then subscriptions but still in a somewhat related category.
Another thought would be the difference in apps applied to amount of time used… a host or work station app would be open a lot more and longer then a synth app that could freeze audio, or a midi fx app that could be recorded.
We are getting to the heart of the discussion here.
I don't see a problem with the model that's been used to sell most retail software for time immemorial. Or at least since the late 1970's, when I bought my first apps for a Radio Shack TRS-80.
Under this model consumers buy the application once and gain the right to use that version forever. They do not gain the right to free updates of whatever improvements the developer makes after their purchase. I think many software companies did give "free" updates for a limited period of time. But the equivalent of "free" back then was not necessarily cheap; it involved paying for distribution media (diskettes), elaborate (i.e., heavy) user manuals, and shipping and handling.
Software companies would release a new major version when they deemed fit. Usually annually or so, enabling developers to have a relatively constant stream of sales revenue, and encouraging them to develop a major new release to get more sales. Purchasers of previous versions would typically get a discount on updating to a new version. The discount was significant, but updates to a new version were still expensive. Retail prices back in the 1980's for software like word processors (e.g., Wordperfect, Microsoft Word, Wordstar) and spreadsheets (Lotus 1-2-3, Microsoft Excel) were generally $395 or $495 per application. I don't remember what upgrade prices were, I think roughly 1/4 to 1/2 of that, depending.
That sales model has always been popular. I'm not sure why it's not the default on iOS. Some iOS software is sold more or less this way (e.g, I think, maybe, Cubasis). But many iOS developers have adopted a practice of providing free updates indefinitely. I expect they've inadvertently created unrealistic expectations on the part of purchasers. Apple's App Store setup probably encouraged this; it's really the first scenario where retail-user updates can be pushed out seamlessly, frequently, and safely over the internet; often the user is even unaware it's happening. But there's no reason it has to be this way.
It seems to me there's an easy solution, which is basically to revert back to this sales model that's been around since the beginning of retail software: Purchasers gain right to use indefinitely, but have limited right to updates. A "major" new version requires buying an "update"; at lower cost than a new purchase, but still a significant cost.
Subscriptions make natural sense when you're buying "software as a service", e.g., web apps that the seller hosts on the internet on their own hardware and with their own administrators. Subscriptions feel like a bad fit when users are purchasing apps that are installed and run locally on their own machine.
And yet when an app recently came out priced at $2.99 people were asking for promo codes. How’s a dev supposed to win?
Exactly. Been following both threads and this was an eye opener. No matter what you do, it's hard to please everyone.
Even if the dev made it free, there'll be feature request after another, which would increase the development cost.
Edit: I wonder why? Was it my FOMO speaking? Or the premise of a beta? Or a "community feeling turned monetization"? Or other? Because the same thought came across my mind.
Guilty! 😂
I learned if you don’t ask you will miss opportunities. I buy a ton of apps, but developer offered the codes initially. 🤷🏽♂️
Blew my mind, that did.
You dog! 😆😆😆 of course it’s up to the dev if they want to offer codes so I suppose one would be foolish not to take the opportunity. 😎👍🏼 I’ve pretty much stopped buying apps unless they meet a specific need. There couldn’t possibly be a new synth app that does more than the 1,742 synth apps I already have. 🤪 …could there???
🤣 Tell me about it! I try to find a way to use everything I buy, but some synths slip through the cracks 🙃
Low prices turned me into a synth glut 🤑