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.
App Trials/Demos. What am I missing?
Starting to watch videos as I'm gearing-up to dive into the 7-day Loopy Pro demo/trial. It's great to be able to try software before using it, and I'm confused as to why something that is considered an absolute must for Desktop virtual synths etc. is not so widespread within the iOS world.
Clearly it can be done, so why is it so rare?
Comments
because they are already so cheap. almost free.
"real" ios'ers just get them all:)
It's true that, relatively-speaking, they are cheap. But not all apps can be said to be "almost free". Also, there are many different apps of similar types. Not all will suit every person. And given that its not possible to sell unused apps, there's unnecessary jeopardy involved.
Isn’t it true you’re always able to refund a purchase after giving it a try?
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204084
Possibly, yes. Technically, no.
I think it's really only there to catch errors in purchasing, or for when an app is truly 'broken'. It's not there as a way to demo plugins, willy-nilly. I did refund an app a little while ago. i regret it because it was a hasty decision, but also as I learnt that it's possible it impacts the developer negatively, in some way. I have other apps that I would refund were this not the case.
Even at these prices, I can't afford to keep making the wrong decisions, so I've become kinda paralysed with purchases
In the EU, it is. Apple is forced to respect consumer rights here (I mean, the ****s they are, they literally had to be forced
). Can't confirm for other jurisdictions.
I see, didn’t know that refunds are only possible in the EU, that’s a shame! I use it a lot, it should be your right to give it a try first.
The App Store. Usually a demo would be in demo mode until the user purchased and entered a license key from the dev. You strictly can not do that on iOS. You could put out a lite version for free, but then you run the risk of Apple rejecting one or the other at random and not in sync. You can do an in-app purchase to enable the full version. That'll work and some software takes this route, but it does confuse or anger some users. I see lots of negative reviews on apps for this reason. Some users will do a first check of an app description and won't look further if they see in-app purchases. This will also open up more possible points for rejection from Apple.
The extra trouble to do demos on iOS combined with the already low margins for devs on iOS are going to make it so it's not worth it for many developers.
I don’t think that they should be forced to honour the kinds of refund carnage that would happen in the case of a no-questions-asked refund policy. As far as I’m aware, the laws exist to protect customers against companies that would abuse the basic rights customers in cases of products not fitting description etc. They aren’t there to allow customers to demo unlimited amounts of products.
The issue is that under the provisions provided, other than accidentally hitting the buy-button, or a child spending $1000's on IAP, a refund seems to only be granted for claims that the software is either not as advertised or is not fit for expected use. In either case, this is likely to have negative repercussions for the dev's, no?
The only viable method is via IAP, and I should’ve been clearer in my OP that Loopy Pro's model is specifically what I'm referring to.
Not sure I understand the negativity towards IAP in this case(I'm sure you’re not referring to yourself). It’s not as though there are any hidden costs. It's just the price of purchased, delayed. We can only speculate as to how this will work out for Michael, but I imagine the advantages will end up outweighing the disadvantages. I think it's a solution that works out as a good compormise for everyone.
Yeah, I'm not saying that the negative reaction to an IAP from the user makes sense, just that it's there and can be a negative for the dev. It does complicate app submission for the developer and that always adds to the possibility of rejection. My main point is that the margins are already very low, so adding any more work is less likely to be done. But, if a demo is going to be done, then IAP is the most sensible way to do it.
I would love if this became standard for any app over $20, but these plugins are so cheap, that it doesn’t really bother me. And you can generally get a good sense of whether it’s worth it for you by what people here say, and YouTube demos as well.
Okay. But regardless of what you or I think, EU law guarantees consumers the right of return/cancellation within 14 days in case of an online purchase, without having to justify their decision. I'm simplifying here and there are exceptions, of course, but Apple isn't one of them. That is what they were made to face, rightly imho.
The only issue I know of with the App Store and refunds relating to refund carnage would be that Apple can choose to charge the dev the 30% even after the refund. So, the dev can have to eat the 30% and not get any money. It seems that Apple rarely actual does this though.
They could get around that too by making it so that devs can sign up for a demo period on their apps that allows the customer to return the app within the 14-day demo period and no money would be charged to the customer before the trial period ended so that no refund would be needed. There are some apps that this wouldn't work for, like some very short games, so it would have to be opt-in on the devs' part.
15% ... unless the developer makes over $1 million in annual App Store sales.
I'm surprised this continues to be virtually always misstated more than two years later.
It should probably be mentioned that the clause about Apple retaining the right to not refund the fees to the developer is there for cases where developers are ripping people off, deceptive or being extremely negligent as I understand it.
Yes, but for the types of developers I'm thinking about it's going to be mostly 30% and for the small devs, eating 15% for a refund is going to be bad enough anyway.
Why it is there isn't stated. At least the last time I read it, it doesn't put any limits on when they can apply it. From all reports I've seen, Apple doesn't abuse this and it definitely does seem as if they only apply it in when the app is very broken or some sort of fraud.
I do think it would be really good for Apple to make some sort of demo system and then block refunds for those apps that enable the demo. One of the reasons I don't charge for my apps is that I don't like users not being able to test something before they pay for it. When I sold my AU's on OS X, I always had a demo mode so people could test it first. It made customer support so much easier.
The reason for not spelling out the conditions under which Apple would trigger the clause is because being specific sometimes rules out abuses one didn't foresee. Lawyers like to leave things as open as possible. I am not defending the clause just explaining the logic.
I think Apple would bully the EU just as much as it bullies developers - if it could get away with it. It would be happier playing God about refund requests, as it apparently does in other jurisdictions.
But to clarify: Are these negative reactions for models where a demo period exists, after which the customer can make a one-time-payment to complete the transaction? I think this is distinct from having a reduced/limited functioning app that then requires various tiers of buy-in.
As for complicating the submission process? I'm trying to see this from a position where all sides of the equation would be looking to modify behaviour and expectations in order to perhaps improve it for everyone. In such a case, Apple's part would be to accept this as a normal model.
And to the point of low margins? That's simple...Developers should charge more for apps (Something I think would be easier to do within such a model).
Not sure why it should only be applicable to apps over $20.
If only one iOS reverb existed, and it was $5, it would be very different. The 'problem' is that there are tons of reverbs. Not being able to demo them is going to mean people will easily try a handful, before finding the one that works for them. And unless each has something unique, there're going to be cases where all the other bought apps will just end up not getting used. At that point, we aren't just talking about writing-off the cost of a coffee.
Also, I'm not sure we should be normalising the idea that it's ok to just waste $5, $10, or whatever amount. I understand what you're saying, in that these aren't huge amounts. But not only can those small amounts add up pretty quickly, but not everyone can't afford to not get value from their purchases. The normalisation, which also comes under the guise of "They're cheap! Just get all of 'em" (That's not a direct quotation
) makes it hard to have what I think is a serious conversation about what I believe is a broken system.
I do take your point about the advice given here, and the excellent work by many of the Youtubers who test these apps, offer tutorials etc. But no matter how deep the dive, I don't believe anyone can truly know whether an app will or won't work out for them, until they've tried it for themselves.
But this isn't what is happening. It's been over a month since I made my refund, so can't remember all the details. But there are options (options that wouldn't exist were it just an automatic right to cancellation). From what I remember, there's no way of refunding just because...One has to choose between unintended purchase, an app having been misrepresented in some way (and thus not living up to expectations), or the app just plain not working properly.
I can't remember what I chose, but it certainly wasn't the truth i.e that I couldn't get my dumb, fat head around the workflow
As the system stands, those buying to test are forced to lie about why they want a refund, which could have negative repercussions of the developers.
So either Apple is blatantly operating outside the law, or the law doesn't cover this type buy-to-demo situation.
The idea of demo over refund makes perfect sense to me.
I'm not a developer. But if I were, I would much rather have fewer very satisfied customers than to have more customers who either ended up refunding my apps or who ended up leaving them unused and/or uninstalled.
What apps do you make? I assume you offer the same model as LP, right?
My apps are under Neon Silicon on the app store (or for the Mac now at my web site). My apps are all free. so they don't really count in this conversation. I'm only trying to explain what I think the complications are for both developers and Apple within the way the App Store works.
I think a demo mode would be a fairly easy thing for Apple to implement and it would be good for everyone. I don't expect Apple to add the idea though. Devs have been asking for one for years now.
Lots of people just seem to have a negative reaction to IAP no matter what the reason is or how it's implemented. I think it gets associated with loot boxes and pay-to-win in games and so some people just don't like it. It's still a perfectly valid way for a dev to try and solve the lack of demo problem. A dev is just going to have to be willing to take a few complaints about it.
Apple shows very little in the way of signs that they are willing to do anything to change how the App Store works. It's been a few years now since they added AUv3 to iOS and they still haven't done anything to train the reviewers on what an AUv3 is or how to test them. As far as the App Store goes, Apple doesn't seem to have a clue what an AU is. It makes dealing with the reviewers really frustrating.
Apple intentionally set user expectation towards low prices for apps on iOS, very low prices in the beginning. The customer expectations are only slowly changing to accept higher prices. A dev could raise their price by 25%, but that might knock them right out of consideration for many potential customers. The app store model from the dev point of view is selling at low prices to a very large potential customer base. This works incredibly well for lots of types of apps. Mobile games are a good example where it works very well. It kinda works for audio apps. The potential market is still very large -- the number of phones out there is nuts. But, if you are making an app that's going to mainly be use in a more professional setting on iPads, this low price expectation still hits you and the benefit of large numbers of sales is much less.
I'm sure you are right, but it would be nice of them to at least mention what the intent of the clause is. I'm pretty sure they could do this without weakening their ability to apply it in a situation of abuse. The problem with the way it is stated now is that it does give Apple the ability to begin abusing it whenever they want and a company that already has their software selling on the App Store really couldn't do anything about it. It certainly makes me question if I would want to have paid applications on the App Store.
I never said we should normally the idea that it’s okay to waste money. Obviously I said $20 as makes sense to have a demo for more expensive apps. I don’t ever see that extending to $1-$5 apps. And if it did, the functionality would likely be decreased so it wouldn’t be a true demo of the product anyway. Unless the developer limited the demo time to something like 24-48 hours, after which you’d have to buy it to keep using it.
Also most people do “get them all”. I doubt anyone here uses just one reverb for everything. I don’t think that’s a bad mindset to have to want a tool for every job.
But you know the refunded money is taken from the developers profits. Apple doesn't simply absorb losses for refunds, nor should they.
What if there was a Pro Audio (or Video or whatever) category where the customer would know going in that they would get a demo but would be paying a “premium” price for the app if they chose to buy it? Just a thought.
It's potentially a little more damaging to the developer than that. If a developer sells a $10 app, the developer makes $8.50 and Apple keeps $1.50. If that app is refunded, Apple can charge the developer the full $10.
So far it doesn't appear that they actually do that. But, they can per the App Store agreement.
(And before we get into a pointless discussion over it ... I'm not taking any position on the issue. I'm just clarifying how it works.)
Just to state the obvious, the problem of Apple's potentially being a jerk with the devs should not be solved by EU consumers forfeiting their legal rights. It should be solved by Apple not being a jerk. 🤷
Agreed that it shouldn't be solved by EU consumers forfeiting their legal rights.
The reality is that Apple prices in the added cost of doing business in Europe. This is why app prices are proportionally higher than the US-EUR exchange rate alone justifies. Apple doesn't eat those costs, they just spread them out over all of you. That's their legal right, for better or worse.
At any rate, they're not drawing back that extra 15% / 30%, so I suppose not being total jerks - in that respect anyway.