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
I think the fact that they (unlike today) will finally have a chance to offer a universal licensing policy on their own terms will make it more attractive for these large companies to consider adding iOS as a platform.
I can't see the future, so I don't know if this will be enough in itself; but those who want big players with pro products to come to iOS may as well consider it a positive thing.
Needless to say, App store fans will continue to be able to enjoy their choice of buying stuff from there exclusively. As they should. But it will be interesting to see the reactions if (admittedly, a rather large if at this point, but soon not impossible) some of the big boys do launch their pro music software for iOS - but outside the app store only. 🙂
Remember when software developers used to split their take 50-50 with their distributors? I do (this was the standard split in the 80’s). They have a much, much better deal selling through a distribution mechanism with a massive global reach like the App Store. Sure, there are some perceived negatives, but it has never been easier for quality software to be developed and sold than right now.
Totally serious. Those companies all chose to enter the market knowing the rate and I’d be really surprised if iOS sales make even 1% of revenue for them. I think being hurt from a 30% cost to make iOS sales is extremely unlikely.
Perhaps, but I think a bigger factor is the size of the market. I’m sure the iOS musician market is tiny compared to other niche markets. For a product that requires a large team of designers, developers, testers, etc. I think revenue based on price to the consumer is probably more important than the cost to do business in the market.
That’s fair. But once they do decide to offer an iOS product, for whatever reason, maybe just marketing etc., then the fact that they can streamline their licensing offers commercial value in itself regardless of the size of the iOS market. IMHO, of course.
Well none of us make those kinds of decisions for large companies or manage their accounting (to my knowledge anyway), so this is all mostly speculation.
I’m sure if they figure out they could perform the same end-to-end functions as the App Store themselves they would want to see change, but I have no idea if any of those larger companies have any appetite for that kind of fight that usually involves very expensive litigation.
Luckily, the EU has done / will do most of the fight for them. In any case, I guess we can save our predictions and find out who was right whenever Apple opens up the walled garden and we have some real-life info on how it actually affects the market.
Looking forward to finding out.
Not super scientific but I was surprised how close my little Twitter poll was…
For what it’s worth, the app that I ported to Android makes 5-6x more on iOS, so from my perspective, whatever Apple is doing, it’s not too bad for developers. I would prefer the EU stay out of it, but hey, I guess if this is what Europeans want … you don’t get to be the world’s most powerful company without some legislative push back.
Now ask if it’s good for customers and competition?
A 70% profit margin is outstanding for just about any product. I'm not coming from a purely software background, but all the companies I worked for were extremely pleased if they could maintain only 30% for cost of sales. Different products - but cost of the retail channel was usually more than one level deep and ran up to 60% of the suggested retail price. Distributors and retailers each got their cut. Yes, downloadable software is different, but you'd be amazed at the cost of doing business internationally even for something like that.
Anyhoooo ... armchair speculation means nothing even though it's fun to debate. As mentioned, only time and events will tell. Me? I don't believe it will make one iota of difference. I believe the factors that matter are completely separate from this.
It's useful to remember too that increased regulation doesn't come without cost. There's a reason why software and other products are more expensive in Europe. It costs more to do business there. Now, I've lived in Europe and have to say I enjoyed the worker and consumer protections there immensely. But I made a really good salary while there, so the higher cost of living didn't bother me a lot. Sure, it'd be nice if Apple, etc. would eat the higher cost of doing business in higher cost markets, but as we all know, they don't, they pass it along to consumers for the most part.
That's not a comment on whether EU intervention is healthy or not. Just an observation that it doesn't come without some cost.
I think you'd be the first to admit that increased competition is good for consumers and markets. The real question is to what degree governmental market intervention is healthy for competition. There's no way to answer that in an unbiased way. I know what direction I lean, but I do find myself conflicted often. The answers aren't usually cut and dried.
Yes, I've heard some companies don't pay any taxes at all.
I've even heard some ex-Presidents don't pay taxes either...
Competition in a general sense is good. Mandates are not.
I’m not a sales person but I guess you are right that 30% of the retail price for sales and international distribution is not too much. But the point is that the plugin vendors already have international sales and distribution in place for their desktop products. They wouldn’t need the AppStore if it wouldn’t be the only way to distribute on iOS. Big companies usually don’t use the AppStore on MacOS and I guess for a good reason. Why should they pay 15% or even 30% for something that they are capable of by themselves?
Yep, time will tell. Would be interesting to hear from Korg or Steinberg about their stance on it. I also could imagine that desktop plugin market places such as plugin-boutique could think about making an iOS app store. We will see.
@rygrob as far as I know the “Google tax” on the Playstore is exactly the same as on the AppStore. In my opinion what makes the difference is that Android devices are usually less capable and especially tablets are no match for iPads. They aren’t serious personal computing devices. I can not imagine people spending serious money for video editing on Android. Moreover Apple devices are much more expensive and usually attract people with more money. I used to have an Android phone and I didn’t buy much more than a weather app and a podcast app. TBH if there wouldn’t be music making I would not spend a lot on my iPad, too.
Before people get outraged by the 30% commission Apple takes from big companies...software developers> @krassmann said:
The main reason developers don't use the app store is more because of the buy once get upgrades forever model not the commission. A lot of commercial developers rely on upgrade cycles for predictable revenue streams and on direct marketing to the registered users...often customizing prices based in certain customer parameters. The app store prevents that. Also, the ability to make licensable demo versions available.
The App Store has some advantages and a lot of music developers would use it even with the 30% commission if it were set up differently.
Ah right, so the only ways around that are either subscription or releasing a new successor product like Cubasis 3 succeeded Cubasis 2. For me that sounds like working models for earning on updates.
But it isn't, is kind of the point.
My point is that many focus on the commission as the issue when that isn’t the issue so much.
imo, neither of those models are great substitutes for the desktop model. The thing Michael is trying with Loopy Pro is good… we’ll see if it works. If it does maybe others will adopt it.
👍