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 Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

Apple App price increases.

124»

Comments

  • knewspeakknewspeak

    @NeuM said:

    @CapnWillie said:
    Perhaps everyone would have been better off if Apple didn’t create a market out of thin air? Consumers? Music makers? Indie Filmmakers? Graphic Artists? Devs?

    Yeah. Sure. It’s all Apples fault 😭😂🤦🏽‍♂️

    Exactly.

    Exactly, out of thin air, Harry Potter the Apple CEO, I think, Consumers, Music Maker’s, Indie Filmmaker’s, Graphic Artist’s, errm, human beings existed before Apple :D

  • NeuMNeuM

    @knewspeak said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CapnWillie said:
    Perhaps everyone would have been better off if Apple didn’t create a market out of thin air? Consumers? Music makers? Indie Filmmakers? Graphic Artists? Devs?

    Yeah. Sure. It’s all Apples fault 😭😂🤦🏽‍♂️

    Exactly.

    Exactly, out of thin air, Harry Potter the Apple CEO, I think, Consumers, Music Maker’s, Indie Filmmaker’s, Graphic Artist’s, errm, human beings existed before Apple :D

    And thanks to Apple all of those creators have a marketplace composed of more than a billion potential customers they can sell to.

  • wimwim
    edited September 2022

    @eylvy said:
    Something's not adding up, can you explain this please? The developer of the app gets to choose the price of their apps and Apple gets to take some percentage of all sales. So does that mean after the price increasing in October - Apple will take a larger percentage of the apps sales?
    Example: A dev has a $10 app, after October it'll become let's say $12. Can't the developer just lower the price on his/her own?
    What I'm making from this is that from a dev's prospective, Apple is just going to take a bigger share of the apps sales than today.

    Developers don't have complete control over the cost of their apps in all countries. They set a price in USD (Apple's operating currency) and then Apple translates that price into local currencies in each region. What this increase is doing is balancing the falling value of currencies like the Euro against the US dollar.

    Last year at this time 1€ was worth $1.16, now it is worth about $0.98. Euro prices at the time were calculated based on that exchange rate. If the same Euro price is charged today, Apple (and thus the developer) get 16% less than they did a year ago. So, they raise the Euro price to make up for it.

    It's not quite that simple as there are other factors that go into the price charged in each country or region. But that's the exchange rate side of it.

    Here's one article that explains a bit about what developers have to work within when setting prices for their apps: https://www.macstories.net/stories/a-beginners-guide-to-app-store-pricing-tiers/. Basically, they get to pick a USD based "tier" for pricing their apps. Apple does the rest of the price setting around the world.

    [edit] note, that article is out of date it cites 30% as Apple's take. It's now 15% for virtually all developers.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • knewspeakknewspeak

    @NeuM said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CapnWillie said:
    Perhaps everyone would have been better off if Apple didn’t create a market out of thin air? Consumers? Music makers? Indie Filmmakers? Graphic Artists? Devs?

    Yeah. Sure. It’s all Apples fault 😭😂🤦🏽‍♂️

    Exactly.

    Exactly, out of thin air, Harry Potter the Apple CEO, I think, Consumers, Music Maker’s, Indie Filmmaker’s, Graphic Artist’s, errm, human beings existed before Apple :D

    And thanks to Apple all of those creators have a marketplace composed of more than a billion potential customers they can sell to.

    And thanks to those billion potential customers, creators can sell their apps on the Apple AppStore. Symbiosis :)

  • magnusovimagnusovi

    Even if everything was alright, which we know it is not, and even if you were a real capitalist, which we know most are not, as a consumer you would fight for cheaper prices no matter what and fight against price increases. Somehow they got us consumers arguing their point for them craaaaaaaaaazy!

  • captchaclickercaptchaclicker

    @knewspeak said:

    @NeuM said:

    @knewspeak said:
    Taxes for the extremely wealthy down, prices up for everyone, seems quite fair :#

    At least in the US, the very wealthy already pay the lion's share of taxes and about 1/2 of the citizenry pays no Federal taxes, which is not at all equitable. I support eliminating the IRS (Internal Revenue Service), eliminating the income tax and implementing the "FairTax", which would ensure that everyone pays their so-called "fair share".

    As long as everyone get’s a fair share in the first place.

    They don’t. Not even close. I would argue that the very notion of “fair share” is derided by much of the political right in America.

    Income inequality has reached an extreme where the wealthy have received significant tax breaks over the last four decades and still could be said to pay “the lion’s share of taxes” because of how little wealth the average American has by comparison. Since investment income, business income, and inheritance is taxed at a much lower rate than wages, the wealthy often pay a lower rate than middle class people.

    What’s more, although some like to say that half of Americans pay no income tax, it is simply untrue. The payroll tax, which funds Social Security, is applied to practically all incomes. The exception, ironically, is that the payroll tax rate drops to 0% for any wages over $147,000. In fact, this exception is a primary reason why there is concern about funding for Social Security. If all wages were subject to the payroll tax equally, Social Security would be in a much stronger position.

    The problem with replacing income tax with more sales tax is that sales tax is flat, and makes no distinction as to ability to pay. So anyone whose income is so low they have to spend all of their earnings, they will pay more tax. Everyone else may pay less. Personally, I dislike the idea of raising taxes on the poor to reduce them for everyone else.

  • NeuMNeuM

    @knewspeak said:

    @NeuM said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @NeuM said:

    @CapnWillie said:
    Perhaps everyone would have been better off if Apple didn’t create a market out of thin air? Consumers? Music makers? Indie Filmmakers? Graphic Artists? Devs?

    Yeah. Sure. It’s all Apples fault 😭😂🤦🏽‍♂️

    Exactly.

    Exactly, out of thin air, Harry Potter the Apple CEO, I think, Consumers, Music Maker’s, Indie Filmmaker’s, Graphic Artist’s, errm, human beings existed before Apple :D

    And thanks to Apple all of those creators have a marketplace composed of more than a billion potential customers they can sell to.

    And thanks to those billion potential customers, creators can sell their apps on the Apple AppStore. Symbiosis :)

    Right. And none of it exists without Apple. So, thanks Apple!

  • NeuMNeuM

    @captchaclicker said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @NeuM said:

    @knewspeak said:
    Taxes for the extremely wealthy down, prices up for everyone, seems quite fair :#

    At least in the US, the very wealthy already pay the lion's share of taxes and about 1/2 of the citizenry pays no Federal taxes, which is not at all equitable. I support eliminating the IRS (Internal Revenue Service), eliminating the income tax and implementing the "FairTax", which would ensure that everyone pays their so-called "fair share".

    As long as everyone get’s a fair share in the first place.

    They don’t. Not even close. I would argue that the very notion of “fair share” is derided by much of the political right in America.

    Income inequality has reached an extreme where the wealthy have received significant tax breaks over the last four decades and still could be said to pay “the lion’s share of taxes” because of how little wealth the average American has by comparison. Since investment income, business income, and inheritance is taxed at a much lower rate than wages, the wealthy often pay a lower rate than middle class people.

    What’s more, although some like to say that half of Americans pay no income tax, it is simply untrue. The payroll tax, which funds Social Security, is applied to practically all incomes. The exception, ironically, is that the payroll tax rate drops to 0% for any wages over $147,000. In fact, this exception is a primary reason why there is concern about funding for Social Security. If all wages were subject to the payroll tax equally, Social Security would be in a much stronger position.

    The problem with replacing income tax with more sales tax is that sales tax is flat, and makes no distinction as to ability to pay. So anyone whose income is so low they have to spend all of their earnings, they will pay more tax. Everyone else may pay less. Personally, I dislike the idea of raising taxes on the poor to reduce them for everyone else.

    This thread needs to be moved to the “Off-Off-Off Topic” area if these political rants are going to continue.

  • michael_mmichael_m
    edited September 2022

    @captchaclicker said:
    What’s more, although some like to say that half of Americans pay no income tax, it is simply untrue.

    57% of Americans paid no income tax in 2021, and 61% paid no income tax in 2020, but it's typically almost 50%:

    https://taxfoundation.org/us-households-paying-no-income-tax/

    @captchaclicker said:
    The exception, ironically, is that the payroll tax rate drops to 0% for any wages over $147,000. In fact, this exception is a primary reason why there is concern about funding for Social Security.

    No, there is 24% tax rate for an income of $147,000 (actually between ~$89,000 and ~$170,000:

    https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-provides-tax-inflation-adjustments-for-tax-year-2022

  • ExAsperis99ExAsperis99

    @michael_m said:

    @captchaclicker said:
    The exception, ironically, is that the payroll tax rate drops to 0% for any wages over $147,000. In fact, this exception is a primary reason why there is concern about funding for Social Security.

    No, there is 24% tax rate for an income of $147,000 (actually between ~$89,000 and ~$170,000:

    https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-provides-tax-inflation-adjustments-for-tax-year-2022

    You're talking about the marginal tax rate, not the payroll tax rate, which feeds Social Security. $147,000 is in fact the cap on payroll taxes.

  • Telstar5Telstar5
    edited September 2022

    “Greed”? Who’s “greedy”? Of course, it’s always the OTHER guy who’s “greedy”… NEVER us……

  • NeuMNeuM

    @Telstar5 said:
    “Greed”? Who’s “greedy”? Of course, it’s always the OTHER guy who’s “greedy”… NEVER us……

    Nice!

  • captchaclickercaptchaclicker

    @NeuM said:

    @captchaclicker said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @NeuM said:

    @knewspeak said:
    Taxes for the extremely wealthy down, prices up for everyone, seems quite fair :#

    At least in the US, the very wealthy already pay the lion's share of taxes and about 1/2 of the citizenry pays no Federal taxes, which is not at all equitable. I support eliminating the IRS (Internal Revenue Service), eliminating the income tax and implementing the "FairTax", which would ensure that everyone pays their so-called "fair share".

    As long as everyone get’s a fair share in the first place.

    They don’t. Not even close. I would argue that the very notion of “fair share” is derided by much of the political right in America.

    Income inequality has reached an extreme where the wealthy have received significant tax breaks over the last four decades and still could be said to pay “the lion’s share of taxes” because of how little wealth the average American has by comparison. Since investment income, business income, and inheritance is taxed at a much lower rate than wages, the wealthy often pay a lower rate than middle class people.

    What’s more, although some like to say that half of Americans pay no income tax, it is simply untrue. The payroll tax, which funds Social Security, is applied to practically all incomes. The exception, ironically, is that the payroll tax rate drops to 0% for any wages over $147,000. In fact, this exception is a primary reason why there is concern about funding for Social Security. If all wages were subject to the payroll tax equally, Social Security would be in a much stronger position.

    The problem with replacing income tax with more sales tax is that sales tax is flat, and makes no distinction as to ability to pay. So anyone whose income is so low they have to spend all of their earnings, they will pay more tax. Everyone else may pay less. Personally, I dislike the idea of raising taxes on the poor to reduce them for everyone else.

    This thread needs to be moved to the “Off-Off-Off Topic” area if these political rants are going to continue.

    I’m good with that.

  • captchaclickercaptchaclicker

    @ExAsperis99 said:

    @michael_m said:

    @captchaclicker said:
    The exception, ironically, is that the payroll tax rate drops to 0% for any wages over $147,000. In fact, this exception is a primary reason why there is concern about funding for Social Security.

    No, there is 24% tax rate for an income of $147,000 (actually between ~$89,000 and ~$170,000:

    https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-provides-tax-inflation-adjustments-for-tax-year-2022

    You're talking about the marginal tax rate, not the payroll tax rate, which feeds Social Security. $147,000 is in fact the cap on payroll taxes.

    Exactly. I’m shutting up now since I’ve probably been enough of a pain as it is, but I appreciate you clarifying this.

  • ZankFrappaZankFrappa

    The € prices have now been increased, the more expensive the app......phew

    some examples:
    4.99€ has increased to 5.99€
    9.99€ to 11.99€
    14.99€ to 17.99€
    19.99€ to 23.99€
    29.99€ to 35.99€
    MixBox inApp has increased from 79.99€ to 94.99€

    I am already looking forward to Black Friday ;-)

  • SamuSamu

    @ZankFrappa said:

    I am already looking forward to Black Friday ;-)

    +1 and thankfully I've already got plenty of apps to cover most if not all bases so this will simply reduce the number of apps I'll actually end up getting...

  • david_2017david_2017

    In the end many will loose. As samu stated. People will think twice what they really need, maybe devs will not make enough revenue, app development will suffer and apple will not earn as much as before…
    Sad

  • Agatha_agaAgatha_aga

    In Ukraine this has been the case since the beginning of 2022: +20%
    9.99$ > 11.99$
    On the other hand, it’s a good stimulus to think twice before buying and actually use what you have ;)

  • u0421793u0421793

    There’s an argument that they were too cheap anyway – the pricing ethos originates from the days of disposable mobile phone games such as all the angry birds wannabe apps etc.

  • ZaubrerZaubrer

    That’s why we have games which offer weekly subscriptions nowadays… similar to the old Jamba feature phone times lol

Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2024