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
any alternative (GM) for this besides Bs16i (which I am not a fan of)?
funny ... I had actually someone comment on my YT that this app is not longer available
that's how I found out
I don’t think any vendor would want to do that - I’m sure it would be a legal nightmare to manage.
As you say, they could, but I seriously doubt that any vendor would.
Yeah flux fx disappearing from my iPad pissed me off. It worked like crap and they never responded to my support requests, but i accidentally turned on the offload apps setting one time and now I xm never get it back. Shit sucks but what can you do
The simple fact is Apple does host software from developers that have ceased trading, developing. So all this about Apple couldn’t do because it would be a legal minefield is not correct, I have downloaded apps from developers that no longer exist, or have stopped trading via the AppStore, Apple even keeps older versions of software that meet criteria for older devices. It’s just Apple doesn’t really provide the support to allow you to download without resorting to third party means.
All of this is specualation.
None of us are copyright lawyers. None of us have seen the confidential agreements between individual companies and Apple. None of us know the consumer laws in every region Apple operates in. And none of us know the legal, financial and technical problems Apple would face in continuing to host old apps.
Just be thankful we have moved on from the days when you had to buy software on a floppy disk in a cardboard box and most packages cost over $100.
Even if it is not perfect I say hooray for the app store. It has allowed us to get a treasure trove of brilliant apps for a small amount of money.
There's no copyright law involved. Apple doesn't have any claim to the copyright of my software to be on the App Store. If they did, no developer would agree to the terms. It's a simple distribution agreement. It isn't confidential and every dev has to agree to the same terms. The terms are on Apple's website and anyone can go look at them. I posted a link to them in another thread here.
Actually, I just had to agree to an updated set of terms to submit a bug fix for LRC5 today. Part of my submission was, once again, getting the broken web interface to let me agree to the terms for every country that Apple distributes my software in. The terms are the same for every country. I can withhold my software from being available in countries and regions if I want to and Apple does have to restrict certain software in countries that has disallowed that software, but the agreement applies the same to every country that Apple distributes the software in.
The only case that I can think of that has different terms is for software that is part of Apple Arcade. Those have a different payment system too because of the way Apple charges for the service. The relationships between the devs, Apple, and the end users is different than it is with normal apps in the App Store.
The situation is really much more simple than all of the stuff being floated in this thread. Apple isn't acting as a publishing house. They aren't contracting the development of the software. They are simply distributing the software and charging the developers for this distribution. The devs have to agree to all sorts of terms about how Apple is going to make the software available. Apple could easily include terms that would make it so the developer had to agree that once the dev had approved an app for distribution that Apple could maintain a copy of that version of the software for customers that had paid for it.
There is if the developer decides to stop developing and doesn't want the software to be sold anymore.
My point was that consumer law is different in every country.
There could also be a problem with Apple shareholders. They could ask "why are we using resources to support products that don't make us any money?". Again, speculation.
@NeuM said: "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."
I am the evidence for that assumption.
On the last IOS update install I did, having switched off auto updating specifically to avoid this, the update process nevertheless offloaded multiple apps from my IPad ‘to make room’, re-downloaded the icons for them after, but surprise surprise, I lost several orphaned apps I had bought, which are still in my purchase list, which were working just fine on my device, but which are gone from the store, e.g. Little Midi Machine, Noise Machine, Industrial Composer, Vox Matrix, Caustic Editor for Volca Sample, Ambient Mixer… all bought, all still working, all gone.
And forget all the legal bollocks: Apple used to let you make and keep your own local whole-machine backup, apps included, presumably at your own risk.
But then it deliberately deleted this option, presumably to push everyone to paying for iCloud storage. Losing access to your favourite apps became collateral damage as a result.
I can accept that my own backed up software will one day stop working on the latest platform. What I am not happy accepting is that fully functional software I enjoy using can get hoiked off my iPad at any moment, and there’s nothing at all I can do about it. That’s why I’ll never spend ‘professional’ level cash on apps here.
The software wouldn't be sold any more. It would only be available to those who have already purchased it. And it still doesn't have to do with copyright. There isn't any copyright agreement in place for any party involved in the distribution. My selling you a license to use my software doesn't give you any copyright privileges. Apple distributing my software doesn't give them or the buyer any either. It's just a distribution agreement and the buyer has already paid for the license to the app. Also, there is specifically no time limit on the purchase of the use of an application purchased in the App Store. So, this is all already covered by the agreements I sign up for when I let Apple distribute it.
Which doesn't apply to my agreement with Apple to distribute my software. It does impact what Apple can do in certain countries, but Apple deals with all of that in the App Store distribution. It's part of what the dev pays that $100 per year and 30% for.
They might ask why Apple gives away new versions of Logic without charging people who have already bought it. The answer for both would be that it's part of the value proposition for the products that they sell and it induces customers to buy more from them instead of chasing them off by making it difficult to use the platform in a professional setting. But that still doesn't have anything to do with Apple not being able to do support the buyers. That's part of why they might choose not to.
I think the real answer, and yes this is speculation, is that Apple hasn't thought about needing to handle this situation since they changed how backups are handled and that they probably won't think about it until they get enough blowback from the problems they've caused.
My point was along the lines of Apple possibly not being able to host old apps on their App Store servers they don't hold copyright for. This might be an issue or not. I have no idea. Speculation.
My thoughts about consumer law was more about Apple's obligations to end users under consumer laws in different territories, not how consumer laws impact the direct Apple/developer relationship. Again, who knows if this is an issue (I am guessing Apple's lawyers probably do).
The answer is because it sells more Apple hardware and makes shareholders more money.
Absolutely agree.
Apple doesn't hold any copyright for any of the software they distribute on the App Store (except for what they write themselves). So this can't be an issue. Copyright isn't involved in any way.
My point was that they already take in to account local consumer laws for end users in how they distribute on the App Store. The developers have to agree to terms that allows Apple to meet these laws or opt out of selling in specific regions or countries. But more to the point, local consumer laws wouldn't take away consumers' rights to be able to keep access to software they've paid for. It would be much more likely that some regions might develop stricter laws forcing app stores to maintain access to software people have paid for.
Yes, that was my point. Fixing the issue that they have created with breaking the way backups work for an end user being able to save their apps would also help them sell more hardware and make them more money.
What I was getting at is this: could it be an issue that when Apple is activly distributing software owned by the developer they are allowed to host it on their servers. But if the developer closes down business (or decides they want to discontinue an app) then Apple is not allowed to continue to host the software as the developer has exclusive ownership of the copyright? I don't know if this is so.
Yes, local laws might do that. What I was suggesting was that local laws might compel Apple to provde some level of support for any apps, old or new, that they have on the app store. If an old app doesn't work on the new iPhone then local laws might be a problem and an expense for Apple. Again, I don't know if this is so.
"Breaking" is such an emotional word. I'm sure Apple would say "changing the way backups work".
Like you, I don't like they way backups work now.
My comments are just a response to suggest that maybe the issues around this are more compex than meet the eye and that none of us probably know the full story.
Have you checked your record of downloaded apps through the App Store? Usually these apps which are no longer for sale are still in your records for re-downloading. I'll assume you already checked this unless you say otherwise.
@NeuM said: “Have you checked your record of downloaded apps through the App Store? Usually these apps which are no longer for sale are still in your records for re-downloading. I'll assume you already checked this unless you say otherwise.”
If we are doing assumptions, I’ll assume you didn’t read my above response. If you had, you’ve seen this:
“I lost several orphaned apps I had bought, which are still in my purchase list”
This isn’t a subject for debate, this is a matter of fact, no assumptions necessary.
When the dev stops paying the ransom, Apple remove the app from the store. At that point, the app will still be shown in your purchases list, but it will no longer have the download from the cloud icon next to it. It’s gone. For good.
Which is not what happens if you buy software for any other device. In that case you can still have the software, still run it on (doubtless outdated) gear for as along as you make and maintain a good local copy and compatible gear to run it on. Because you can make a local copy. Without any specious ‘legal’ issues raised by non lawyers futzing the issue.
Apple enforce a coercive monopoly against the interests of their customers, because there is no viable alternative to the iPad ecosystem for those who wish to make music that way. Their way or the highway.
It’s what it is, but I don’t have to like it.
You can make a local copy with iMazing, even in „demo mode“ (which really surprised me).
It checks your idevice content and your purchases, then builds a complete title list to which all content can be downloaded (using your Apple ID) from the app store.
It doesn‘t copy directly from idevice to local storage, but the result is identical.
In my case it grabbed the PPG apps, which are definitely wiped from the app store, too.
(btw some not at 1st attempt, probably a connection problem, they seem to get them from a different storage area)
It only seems to work with 64bit compatible apps (and devices): some installs failed and the content of my iPad2 wasn‘t even listed (empty), but the latter might be handled by a vintage iTunes or some other software.
If you have old ipa files, iMazing will try to install them, but fails on non-64bit apps.
Thank you for sharing your findings. Great post.
It‘s not my findings... I learned it from @uncledave
Why are you saying developers must pay a "ransom" to Apple? Developers use the programming tools Apple developed to create software for sale on Apple's App Store. All of this is 100% voluntary. Any developer who doesn't like how Apple does business can choose to develop and sell their software elsewhere, Android being their primary competitor. But Apple has more customers who are willing to pay for software. Android does not.
Also, my prior comment was not meant to antagonize you. I realize now it may have looked like that. It was a completely benign comment.
Yes, no developer has to release software on iOS and I wouldn't call Apple's fees ransom, there are a couple of things to consider wrt to some of the things you said.
The first and most glaring for this forum is that, no, I cannot simply go write software for Android. Android is a sucking pile of crap as far as audio goes and there isn't anything I can do about that. It's not Apple's fault, but Android isn't an option.
Apple did not develop the tools for me to program for the App Store. The tools are almost all open source and Apple simply uses them. Even the collection of those tools into Xcode pretty much goes back to NeXT and not Apple. Sure, Apple has made some changes, but if you ask me, the NeXT versions were better. The only libraries I need from Apple are CoreAudio, CoreMIDI, and Quartz. Those are all Mac libraries and have nothing to do with anything involving the App Store. Quartz is pretty much a ripoff of the open spec for PDF. The principle programming languages underlying the tools are C and Objective-C. Both open and have nothing to do with Apple. Even Swift is open source and if Apple took that away and made everyone use Objective-C instead it wouldn't impact development at all. The OS kernel for iOS and macOS is open source and goes back to academic development at Carnegie Mellon dating back to 1985. The userland tools are BSD based and open source. (Apple deserves lots of credit for contributing to these open source tools. They are the prime mover behind many of them. But, all of that is still outside the context of the App Store.)
Have you ever watched that brilliant presentation from Jobs where he first introduced the iPhone? There's a key moment in that presentation where Jobs points out how Apple developed mutli-touch and boy have they patented it. Well, Apple didn't develop multi-touch. They bought the company that did and then they patented the hell out of it. Since that point, they have bought out many companies, including the company responsible for their Apple Silicon. Apple themselves estimates that they buy a company every three to four weeks. Between that and their massive amount of money they have to toss at pressuring companies to stay out of their space, there's not much that anyone can do to compete with them. Google can, but they suck and write crap software. Microsoft might eventually be able to do something if they stop playing around with running Android apps on Windows and get back to actually trying to make something useful. (Note, I actually liked the Windows phone stuff. I still can't figure out why they cancelled it.) So, no, there really isn't any viable competition and there are reasons that this is true. All small players are locked out and the big players keep limiting themselves to Google's garbage.
Maybe I could write my software as a web app? Nope can't do that because Apple blocks JIT in browsers. Why would Apple block using JIT in a browser? Because it might make it viable to write performant web apps that they can't monetize. The thing that I would most like to release on iOS is an AU that would allow you to write your own signal processing using Faust -- can't do that. Apple forbids compilers on iOS and blocks using JIT even in non-browser applications. Why would they do that? Apple now has their own dev environment on iPadOS in Swift Playgrounds. Interesting. Well, no, not really. They block using LLVM to compile C/C++ code and even using Swift outside of SwiftUI. So, now Apple has a compiler on iPadOS but no one else can? That actually goes against their claims that they treat every developer including themselves the same. So, why don't they allow outside developers to actually use the tools that Swift Playgrounds has or release competing dev apps on iPadOS? It isn't security. It is to lock out all possible competition from the App Store.
Although I understand there are frustrations dealing with Apple (those have been well documented by developers complaining about all sorts of seemingly user or developer hostile decisions by Apple), but they're a business first and foremost and they have thousands and thousands of concerns and distractions, after all they are just a collection of people with the same frailties as any of us. AND their primary concern is staying in business, despite all of their talk about the environment, social equity, and overseas labor concerns. They have to get everything right because they're the biggest company in the world, right? Well, that's just not going to happen. People work there.
Regarding, "Have you ever watched that brilliant presentation from Jobs where he first introduced the iPhone? There's a key moment in that presentation where Jobs points out how Apple developed mutli-touch and boy have they patented it. Well, Apple didn't develop multi-touch. They bought the company that did and then they patented the hell out of it."...
When Apple buys a company or the IP owned by that company, then yes, THEY (Apple) developed it. Everything the prior organization did is absorbed by Apple at that point, INCLUDING all possible liabilities from the acquisition. That's just business.
Sure Apple is composed of people and they are a business. Those people who work on the hardware and develop macOS are brilliant wonderful people. Those that make the business decisions around the App Store suck. They really suck. And, Apple isn't at any risk of going out of business. They haven't been for years. Maybe they could ease up just a bit on the whale hunting and money grubbing of the App Store and allow their devices to reach their full potential.
If a company buys resources to lock competitors out of using that feature it is a potential antitrust question. If a big company does it often enough, it is antitrust. This is why Nvidia was just blocked from buying out ARM. The point I was making is that it isn't so simple to just go develop for some other platform. There aren't any and a principle reason for that is that Apple buys up the tools and resources that others might use to compete with them. There is no simple solution for developers that want to write software for mobile devices. Apple has locked down much of the market using what I definitely consider to be anti-competitive practices.
Regarding: "If a company buys resources to lock competitors out of using that feature it is a potential antitrust question."
A patent is an example of a time limited monopoly companies are given in exchange for divulging that protected information, which encourages others to invent alternative methods of achieving the same thing or something better.
I've never been of the opinion that antitrust/anti-monopoly laws are even needed because historical examples of monopolies have been government sanctioned and protected. Actual free markets don't result in monopolies.
Yeah, I know what a patent is. I didn't use the word monopoly. I said antitrust and anti-competitive. Free markets and asleep-at-the-wheel regulators don't do anything to reduce anti-competitive markets. But, I have no interest in debating this. The points I was making were specifically a response to your claims that a developer can just go write software for something else. They absolutely can't.
@NeonSilicon said:
Nor can they, in this case, choose how they want to sell and distribute it.
I come from a family of programmers (I’m not one myself), so I have to respectfully disagree with you on that. A developer could absolutely write for Windows or Android or Linux. Would the software be as good as Apple’s? Obviously not. But that’s not the issue. Apple does not have a monopoly. There are always alternatives. The alternatives don’t have to be of equal quality in order to be an alternative. A frozen supermarket hamburger is not the same quality as a perfectly cooked fresh Wagyu beef steak, but they are both food.
Mobile. And no Android doesn't work for audio. It's a sucking pile of crap. I've posted Google's own research on the usability of Android for audio in another thread here. The latency is still far too high and worse the touch detection latency is too high as well. Combine the two and Android is a non-starter. It's a total waste of time to develop audio applications for it. Disagree all you want. I know what the current state of mobile audio development is. I look for an alternate viable platform pretty much every week. I currently have a web search going for a not totally useless Chrome OS device that might possibly work for audio. Guess how that's going. The only thing on the market for Linux is the PineTab. It is very much underpowered and mostly not usable by end users. I still might get one to do some programming for except that they aren't ever in stock.
Why do apps like Cubasis and Koala Sampler have an Android version?
Why doesn't Cubasis on Android support plugins? Why is Cubasis on Android limited to a lower bit-depth and much lower I/O configurations?
I would suspect that Steinberg sees Android as a huge potential market and as a gateway in to their Windows and Mac applications. An area where they compete directly with Apple. I'd also guess that it helps that this also gives them access to all of the kids on chrome books. I hope it works for them and it pushes Google to work to fix Android. Meanwhile, https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2021/03/an-update-on-androids-audio-latency.html
So you can do audio apps for Android, even though they are not as good as iOS?