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
so to backup apps with imazing, i just use the free version, go to "manage apps" and click on the cloud/download icon in the "library" tab?
If you want to keep 'em don't delete 'em.
There are no guarantees from any developer on any platform that they’ll keep maintaining today’s software tomorrow let alone in 3 years.
Software is transitory. You are buying a temporary license. Nothing software related is close to being permanent.
It can be very frustrating but I wouldn’t expect to get a refund on anything 3 years old let alone software that is never usually refundable except where required by law — if the EEC didn’t compel apple to refund within 30 days do you think they would?
Mind you, you can’t blame Apple. They only have $200 Billion in cash. Every penny obviously counts. Your €5 is clearly better off in their offshore account than yours… :-/
On the dev’s side they could be unable to update. But why doesn’t Apple still host the old version for people who actually paid for it? They build this walled garden where you can’t backup your stuff on your own, and then delete the apps you own so you can’t retrieve them. It’s just one more of the many bad things Apple does.
The person who buys the app has no ownership interest?
The person who leases the app has no ownership interest. You cannot buy an app unless you purchase the source code directly from the dev. Afik, application software has never been sold outright. It has always been licensed, with a one-time lease payment, covered by carefully-written terms and conditions that you must accept to install the software. For the AppStore, Apple provides those Ts and Cs, which you accept when you install iOS, and sometimes when you update. Mostly those conditions deny any warranty for useability, etc.
Though it’s not unreasonable to expect access to purchased apps. With an old device frozen in time... expecting to be able to recover everything to an old state with or without third party apps involved.
True, but refunding didn’t exist until the possibility of legal ramifications from various jurisdictions. Until tested, by possibly court action, or threat of, the T&C’s aren’t always the cast iron legal terms, more like a guide, that is often updated by Apple themselves.
Are you sure that you can’t download patterning 1 by going to your purchase history and re-downloading from there?
My new iOS philosophy. Export everything to desktop immediately. The real products from iOS are the wav files, not the apps. Assume apps can break or be lost at any moment.
The main thing to remember when trying to figure out the App store is that you are not Apple's customer. The developer is Apple's customer for the App Store. The dev is who pays Apple.
The comparisons to places like Best Buy or Staples aren't really very good because Best Buy doesn't stop a manufacturer or developer from supporting their product outside of the store. If Sweetwater sells you a soft synth from NI and then stops carrying that synth, NI can, and does, continue to support that application directly to you. Apple forbids this.
You aren't leasing an application through the App Store. You are buying a license to use that software from a developer through Apple's store. Apple then turns around and makes it a total PITA for the developer to support that sale. This isn't true in a normal store/customer or developer/customer relationship. I wrote a MIDI controller for OS X about 20 years ago. I sold it for about 5 years and actively supported it for about another 5 years after that. Interest in the app was completely gone by then so I pulled the whole thing from my website. About 5 years after that, I had an old customer write me and ask if they could get the controller for an old machine they were putting back together. I didn't have the built application at that point, but I was able to pull out an old machine of mine and do a new build for him so he could work on his project. There is absolutely no way I can do that for anyone once I leave the App Store.
Yes. Treat your iOS device and the apps you use on it like a fragile instrument. Record it and keep the files because it is going to break eventually.
In their court cases Apple defends the way they treat the App Store by comparisons to game consoles and game stores. That is their attitude and it shows in their interactions with both developers and end users. You have to take that in to account if you are going to try and use iOS or iPadOS in any sort of professional or long term setting.
I think Patterning is different. The app is no longer able to be purchased, but it isn't gone completely if you already purchased. If you go to your Purchased Items you should be able to search for it and re-download it. You must be on the same Apple ID that you used to purchase it of course.
There's a difference between apps completely gone from the App Store and ones you just can't purchase anymore.
Apple is a third-party seller though - the developer owns the intellectual property, so Apple isn't really in a position to legally make decisions on behalf of the developer.
Apple is in complete control of the terms of the sale of software on their platform. If they wanted to maintain the availability of older versions of the software on the App Store, then they could include that in the terms the developer signs up for. They could require that any IP the developer uses would be valid for as long as Apple requires (they probably already do this).
These issues don't usually happen because a dev pulls an app from the store. It's almost always that Apple pulls the app or the dev stops paying Apple. It definitely makes sense for Apple to stop further sales in these situations. It also makes sense that Apple would continue to make the apps available for people who have already paid for them and for Apple to require that the devs explicitly agree to this.
As I mentioned, if a developer has no company, is dead, or something along those lines then logically Apple would have no way to distribute funds to an entity with legal control over their software.
That's why they would stop new sales. This doesn't stop them from supporting existing customers with the already built app that Apple already has as long as it is viable on the hardware/OS the customer has already paid for.
I suppose if it's a free app they could do that, but without a company or individual which is legally responsible for an app, Apple really has no choice. Apple does not own the app(s). They have zero obligation to offer or support an app for a company or individual that does not exist. In fact, that could be a point of liability for them that could result in a class-action lawsuit from users or states (or countries) where they sell.
For example, if customers suffer data loss due to an app not being updated in a timely fashion or perhaps the developer (or company) had customer data housed on servers they no longer had access to resulting in catastrophic data loss... suddenly, Apple would be liable.
Apple wouldn't be any more liable in that setting than they already are for an app the user agreed to buy when the dev was active. The liability rests with the developer. The user bought the app when the developer was selling it on the app store. Is Apple liable for a no longer available app if the user hasn't ever lost access to it on their device for whatever reason? If Apple actually allowed for real backups of apps by the user, would they be liable? They used to support this. This situation is caused by Apple deciding to "optimize" backups combined with not allowing developers to directly support the applications that they've sold through the App Store. Apple could solve this problem easily. They simply don't want to.
As I've said repeatedly, in this theoretical scenario there literally is no developer (and consequently, no property owner) because their company is gone or they are gone. In that event, Apple cannot simply take ownership over this property. It only makes sense that they discontinue sales of the app. Even after sales are discontinued, they still allow users to re-download their purchased app. As far as I know, they do not delete apps remotely from user devices. So, a user might continue to keep and use the app with no support and no hope of upgrades, but there would come a time the app would be incompatible for one reason or other.
Finally, developers do not have a "right" to access the App Store or Apple's devices. That simply does not exist. Apple may for any (or no) reason decide a developer is not one they want on their platform or they are too much trouble for them. They are completely within their rights to kick a developer off.
Yes they could, if it was written into the developer terms and conditions that the binary would remain indefinitely barring any overriding legal circumstance or other agreed conditions. It isn't, and I'm sure Apple prefers it that way.
But there is no legal reason that a contract couldn't be drafted to accommodate this.
Why should they? Does it somehow benefit Apple more than it costs or inconveniences them? They run a business. These things all exist at their option.
To support the people that buy and use their devices and stores. There are multiple threads here now about situations where people have lost access to applications that they have paid for and it breaks projects. One of them suggested that this happened during an OS update where Apple deleted the application to make space for the update but then didn't have the application to reinstall after the update was finished.
There's a certain point where these choices by Apple make it no longer viable for people to use their devices in certain settings. Apple has passed that point for me for any sort of music creation already.
Of course. Everyone has clearly said that Apple could do this if they want, but they don't want to. You said that they can't, which is incorrect.
I said Apple cannot take ownership over a third party's software/intellectual property/app. It opens up a myriad of legally shaky problems for them if they were to do that.
As for whether they "want to" or not, that would be attempting to read their minds and motivations. One cannot base any argument on mind reading assumptions.
This is an assumption: "One of them suggested that this happened during an OS update where Apple deleted the application to make space for the update but then didn't have the application to reinstall after the update was finished."
Where's the evidence for this assumption?
The distinction is between entering into a contract with a provision to host a binary for download indefinitely and "taking over intellectual property". I maintain that this could be done legally and without a "myriad of legally shaky problems".
But this continuing this discussion isn't how I choose to spend my time, so I'll leave the last word to you. ✌🏼😎
I'm sorry, but I'm right on this and you're not. 🙂 Have a great day.
The app was removed during an update. Apple does remove apps on a user's device if the user has marked the app as off-loadable. So, the supposition was that a bug in the upgrade process caused the delation. If that is the case, then Apple's policies make the situation unrecoverable. If an update to an OS causes a device to need to be factory reset and you can't have a full backup anymore, this situation is inevitable. Bugs happen. Apple has setup a system that will break users' access to software that they have paid for and should still be viable on the device they own.
I don't think anyone suggested that Apple needed to take ownership of the application in any way. If they are going to make the devices so that users can't do a reasonable backup that protects their usage, then Apple really should make the effort to not make their ecosystem so fragile.
Every point you're making hinges on this statement being factual, "The app was removed during an update."
How do you know this is a fact? This was an assertion made by someone else, not you. If you were the one this happened to, I'd put more stock in the statement because I trust you'd be more able to check the validity of the claim.
I'm not calling anyone a liar, but I do take issue with citing someone else's claim without evidence. Mistakes are often made without clear evidence of actual sequence of events. Unless actual evidence is available to support the claim, such as an acknowledgment by Apple (just one example) then I remain skeptical.
For the example I mentioned you are correct and all I can say is that Apple's process makes it a possibility. The scenario I gave where you have to do a factory reset is not dependent on the other situation at all. It is what will happen with the way Apple does recovery of a device today. Apple has made the choice of stopping users from backing up their apps with a local backup. That's the core of the issue.