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
There is this notion being floated that somehow blockchains, being decentralised, are somehow more likely to survive in the long term compared to centralised systems.
Just take a look at the thousands of different blockchain-based projects that have been started in the last few years only to disappear very shortly afterwards to be quickly disabused of this notion. Blockchains are just as fallible and ephemeral as anything else.
For what you need blockchain here ? There is still need of some central authority which will verify if licence information added to blockchain is really valid (in terms of law) - otherwise it will end like NFTs where anybody can make screenshot of other NFT, mint it and claim he is original owner
))
In second, when some centralised external authority is needed for validating data, whole point of blockchain is lost and you can stick with just ordinary centralised database.
This applies for example to whole currently available DeFi sector, where basically all that "decentralised" finance application are always strongly depended on some real world company behind given DeFi project - which is single point of failure because that company can be regulated, controlled and in extreme case shut down by government.
Blockchain has sense only and only in case when there is absolute lack of ANY centralised autority in ANY form, when whole system is based exclusively only on trust-less interactions between individual nodes (in it's simplest way users) of network.
And another absurdity: let's imagine there is a blockchain network for app ownership. Maintaining that network, especially if it's based on proof-of-work, is going to be extremely expensive. Blockchains are inefficient by design.
Who is going to pay for all that electricity? Do you seriously want to pay $100 in gas fees to transfer the ownership of a $20 app?
If you want to mint an NFT today on the Etherium network, which basically means registering a URL link to a JPEG on a server somewhere, you'll be paying between $100 and $200 for the privilege. All that wasted electricity comes at a cost, and someone has to pay for it.
@richardyot of course we would need to create laws for that. Blockchain is just a technology that could be used for that purpose. Without a set of international laws that backs this, it would be useless. For copyright holders we have a legal solution that is agreed upon most countries and is exercised by legal bureaucracy. This is probably feasible for content creators but there are many many more licensees than creators and the current solution doesn’t scale so much. Therefore I think for licensees of digital goods we need a different solution and I believe blockchain could be a technical solution for this legal problem especially in a globalized world. Yes, blockchain is basically a database, a massive database that cannot be tampered with. And this is exactly what is needed.
Haha - @dendy and I are in total agreement here. 👍
Blockchain also makes sense if you need a trustworthy massively transactional system that is shared between different parties who do not trust each other. And IMHO that is exactly what is needed to address an international solution for licenses/ownership of immaterial goods. I think the sheer number worldwide transactions regarding licenses and ownerships is probably hundreds of thousands if not millions every day. I cannot imagine any central or decentral register of legal proofs for these kind of transactions that is operated in the classic way. ATM a content creator or patent creator registers it at a central entity in an analog way. Every transfer of a copyright or patent requires an analog process and is usually exercised by people. If we want to lift licenses of customers to the same level of agility, do you really think this could work with the existing analog processes? I don't think so. Any analog system would be totally overwhelmed. I think we need a digital system that is able to handle such huge amount of transactions. The central in the form of a legal system of a country is needed to legally back this digital system and the justice system to deal with violations.
The bottom line is that with the analog system it would be impossible to establish such a global license management, but with the help of a digital system we could. Blockchain is just an enabler here. The real important change would be in the legal system.
And guys, one wish I have is not to bash everything blockchain. I can understand that this is the counter reaction to all the blockchain hype but please don't overreact. IMHO blockchain actually is a significant technological innovation but it follows the typical hype cycle that I've seen countless times. First it is not fully understood, then innovators want to use it for anything and the hype level is high and pisses people off, but usually many broken business models later the dust has settled and we can clearly see where it makes sense and where it doesn't. We are currently in middle of the hype cycle. Remember the times when even car makers were thinking of nuclear powered cars - that's where we are with blockchain right now.
Nuclear power is cool... as long as you don‘t (have to) consider the waste
Exactly. Blockchain is also cool and drives crazy ideas. Survive will only these use cases where the value outweighs the total costs. And with nuclear power I have my doubts if you don't need nuclear weapons and many rounds of heavy weight ammo. But there always can be technology innovations that change the game, like nuclear fusion or proof of stake 🤣
But the blockchain is just a database. It's a distributed database that is an order of magnitude slower, less efficient, and more expensive than a centralised database. Why not just use a centralised database? It will be better in every way.
Seems salient to this discussion 😂
fusion technology is in no way related to nuclear reactor technology, nor did it benefit from the latter - it‘s 2 different appliances derived from a basic model.
There seems to be a common denominator in all these technologies:
when they designed nuclear bombs, they did it for the blast - but „forgot“ about radiation
(still) armour breaking shells are used, despite knowledge about the consequences of breathing in the dust
still nuclear power plants are designed and delivered - as greed is man‘s strongest emotion
This seems the driving force behind blockchain technology (as applied in most cases today).
Mankind just seems to work this way (it‘s in our genes).
Many problems are easy to solve, but at the expense of less expenses.
ps: the „forgot“ above is almost unbelievable from a scientific point if view
pps: I don‘t want to derail the original topic into a moral case, these are plain examples of what I consider „the human aspect“
(sorry for being kind of misanthropic)
Yes, that is correct. Blockchains with proof of work are slow, inefficient and expensive. But still it makes sense if you need a trustworthy database shared between players who don't trust each other. I think is is the case when it would come to an international system as proposed for license handling. Probably a good example is the SWIFT system. Since the US used their influence to cut off Iran from SWIFT, China doesn't trust it anymore and started to establish their own. Another example is the project I'm working on for the car industry. It is a software project that is about sharing vehicle data in a trusted way, for instance mileage. This is very often manipulated but actually is important for the value of the vehicle and it's integrity is essential for many different players: car makers, workshops, insurances, owners, dealers. The blockchain is a way that all these different players trust in the integrity of the value. This is no bullshit, it is an actual product.
OK, that's interesting - is this project up and running or is it still in the design/testing stage?
Who pays for the electricity?
What happens if there is an erroneous entry?
What happens if there are bugs?
In the UK it is illegal to tamper with things such as mileage data, you could go to jail for doing so. I'm actually curious to see how a blockchain can solve a problem that is already covered by the rule of law.
The project is finished for mileage values and actually I recently left the project. I don't know anything about its commercial success. I'm working for one of the big names in the car supply industry and I think I cannot say more publicly. The blockchain is actually operated by my employer - so it's central. But the blockchain enables the customers to validate and review the whole transactional history of the mileages directly by themselves. The customers have to pay for the service of course. Well, I think tampering with the mileage is illegal everywhere but nonetheless happens.
Those rules of law apply in Germany, too - but are impossible to be applied by the sheer amount of cars (afaik about twice as much as inhabitants... 200 million or so...)
Which makes the risk of being detected fairly low for a tamperer - a software could indeed handle this case.
It's not really a blockchain then. The one defining feature of blockchain is decentralisation. Your employer in this situation is the trusted party.
This is what I wanted to comment on as well. Historic moment, my friends!
A blockchain is actually used under the hood and according to the concept, the evolution of the solution may lead to a public blockchain. But already right now the private blockchain under the hood ensures that neither my employer, a compromised employee nor a malicious intruder can manipulate the data.
What you're describing is a private blockchain, which is fundamentally different to a public one (and public blockchains/NFTs are the subject of this discussion). A private blockchain is centralised and relies on a trusted party. It's essentially an immutable, append-only, centralised database. It is fundamentally different to what the OP is proposing.
What you have when you pay for software is a license. To resell AUv3s Apple would need to define its license terms to allow resale and allow a mechanism for loading the corresponding files. Note: NFTs don't store files and so are useless for transferring the software itself or the activation code (or whatever license enforcement system the developer chooses to use).
For sale or resale, either your transaction is valid and enforceable under your local legal system (in which case no need for NFTs because contract law got you covered), or it is not (in which case NFTs are useless because you can buy them all you like, they never confer legally valid ownership).
In the EU at least you already have a right to resell a license (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/top-eu-court-upholds-right-to-resell-downloaded-software/). I suspect Apple craft their App Store terms in a way to skirt this obligation and clearly they don't have much incentive to change it. Adding NFTs to the mix does nothing to change that. NFTs don't confer ownership, contract and sales law does. So NFTs are just a waste of energy and resources that don't add anything.
Finally, people already actively resell pro software. You can browse Ableton forums to find people selling license codes. You could say 'they could trade them as NFTs' but you would still need to get a valid activation code (not contained in the NFT) and Ableton AG would still need to validate it - which they already have a very good system for. What if Ableton AG ceases to exist? Well then you can no longer (legally) obtain that software anyway so long as someone owns the license.
A blockchain doesn’t implicitly mean it has to be decentralised – I could run a testnet on a bunch of raspberry pis (or similar) here, it’d be a blockchain, all in my house. It’s not useful for anyone else, but it’s a blockchain.
The survivability of distributed ledgers such as blockchains is a strength (‘bomb-proof”, as they say about these sorts of things) and a weakness – if the entire ledger exists in copies all over the place, updated as transactions go on, the chance of forking (accidentally or intentionally) becomes an increasing sad possibility, and you might end up with the 51% problem.
Sure, you can have either a public blockchain or a private one - but they are fundamentally different since a private blockchain is controlled by a central party. They're really not the same thing, since the main benefit (I would say only benefit) of a public blockchain is to remove the need for a trusted central authority.
A private blockchain relies on a trusted party, at which point it doesn't really offer anything that a traditional database doesn't already do, since you still need to trust the owner not to tamper with the data.
But at least a private blockchain doesn't have all the horrible externalities of a public one, in terms of energy usage, environmental damage, and e-waste. It won't make GPU prices go through the roof
Blockchain, the solution for nothing
Fwiw the BlockChain will never protect a user from a Scam or a Bad Actor. Content should be vetted and insured of authenticity that it is what the dev says it is. Leaving it up to the dev to make that determination is not different than what we offer today on the desktop. Anyone can sell their wares to anyone without much effort.
The BlockChain does not insure the security nor quality of what is being offered and rendered for the end consumer.
NFTs aren’t the answer. Secure, reliable, and trustworthy transactional models are what customers want when they make a purchase.
With the amount of scams, rug pulls and pyramid schemy NFT projects going on right now, the space is calling for some Regulation…which will come.
The space is definitely interesting, but you can already see the type of problems it is creating in worlds like Decentraland and Sandbox and other “MetaVerse” projects. The average user has been locked out of buying anything because of the cost of ETH to make a simple transaction.
NFTs and the blockchain do not solve an existing problem for Devs and their customers at this stage. The whole space is in a speculative bubble and i predict it will collapse under its own weight of greed until it’s figured out in a rational and regulated manner.
If you don't have a legal authority able to state (and back up its claim) that the blockchain confers ownership then the blockchain is meaningless. And blockchain doesn't scale.
About 5-10 years ago banks and financial trading firms were convinced that blockchain could be the answer to a number of problems that they have. And so people would get tasked with investigating if it was useful - and to a man/woman they came back with the same answer. It addresses problems we already have better solutions for. That's not to say there aren't areas where blockchain (or blockchain like things) aren't useful, but they're very narrow in practice. And the dream that this could be decentralized is the fantasy of a few nerds who have very little experience of how things actually work in the world. Of what lawyers do. Or how contracts work. Or the protocols for establishing trust, some of which are hundreds of years old. Lawyers aren't going to trust any of this stuff until there's a bunch of case law in courts they care about.
The problem with software has nothing to do with blockchain, it's simply a problem of murky licenses and the fact that as a culture we still haven't really come to terms with what it means to truly own something ephemeral, like a piece of software. Blockchain bros propose fixing it by making software/digital art like physical things, but that doesn't work because these things aren't physical.
All your software are belong to us
Fortunately, all of your criticisms have been answered… over the past decade of development.
https://blockgeeks.com/guides/blockchain-consensus/
I'm not sure if reading comprehension is your strong point. My criticism is that a centralised database is always faster, more efficient, and cheaper to run than a blockchain. Points that the article you linked completely fail to address.
No doubt in your reply you will move the goalposts, but just to stay on topic I will reiterate: a centralised database is orders of magnitude faster, cheaper and more efficient than the blockchain. Adress that argument by all means, but if you come back with some irrelevant tangent (as you are prone to doing) I will ignore you.
I’m more than happy to block you now, Richard. You are quite a prick.