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
The EU are opening up all walled gardens so it's not just Apple, but also Google, Facebook, Microsoft, eg everyone will have to comply. It will make things a lot better in the end. It's getting out of hand for many reasons. We won't need so many apps which all do the same thing, eg messaging. If you can't see the dystopian future with corporate walled gardens everywhere then you aren't looking properly
bleet bleet blat blat bloop bloop me so smart
So then we will have monopoly apps which do things like messaging?
Laws don’t apply to a company that “does something bad” though. Laws are specific and target behavior deemed by elected lawmakers to warrant legal actions.
Wim is (quite justifiably IMO) pointing out an action that doesn’t seem to align with the stated intent of anti-monopoly laws.
Less monopoly. Like instagram. I really hope that this creates the opportunity for someone to create a desktop app for instagram. They won't do it, I guess for reasons for control over users interaction. But I want an app which I can use access to instagram and my other social media accounts without having to use all the terrible official apps. It will hopefully influence better cross platform integration etc
I find it anstounding that anyone should feel like they are “owed” anything from a free product or service. Something free should be allowed as much control over it that its owner desires. “Free” means the customer has done none of the work and still recieves some kind of benefit.
Very interesting thread. I think it has to do with the fundamental differences in product liability laws between EU and USA. This is reflected in our positions probably because we grew up with the values that exist on each other's side of the pond. Let me explain what I mean and let me hear your thoughts. I'm not a lawyer and my understanding of it might be a bit too simple.
In the EU consumers are protected by regulations. Products must be carefully tested and proof that they comply must be made BEFORE they can be sold to customers. Therefore there are countless norms and regulations that companies must comply with.
vs
In the US consumers are protected by potentially very high compensation companies have to pay in case a customer was harmed by the product AFTER the purchase.
The infamous Liebeck v. McDonald's case (McD had to pay $2.7 million to an old lady who spilled her hot coffee over her body) is a good example. Well, suing a company for not warning enough of the dangers of hot coffee is probably laughable for all of us. In Europe, you could have hoped probably for some thousands while I believe in the US the million-dollar compensation is nothing unusual.
While EU laws try to protect consumers by making companies ensure safety by complying with norms, US laws protect consumers by making companies fear legal consequences. I think the regulation of Apple's walled garden must be seen in this light. On the other hand, I would find it very cool if I could sue Apple because the AppStore has ruined my life 😂
Enjoy open backdoors apple is holding for every us government agency who asks for it. Sorry I don't trust apple. On a rooted android device you can access and disable ANY of the ruining processes. Even core system ones.
Knowledge is power.
The amount of casual piracy is much less on iOS. At least where I am, the number of people using jail broken phones is pretty small compared to the number of people with cracked software on their desktop. It is true that the people using jailbreaks to skirt piracy probably aren’t going to buy the software anyway … but if all phones were jailbroken and one didn’t need to make that step there are a lot of people that will start using pirated software rather than pay for it.
You mean meta? Yeah they will have one in their "metaverse". Educate your kids not to go there
Any backdoors are there because of local requirements (for example, China requires all App Stores located in China on their own servers). If you don’t trust Apple, it’s because you can’t trust your own government.
That's for sure the future, but it will be expensive to use powerful AI.
I don't see any evidence for this though. Also I think piracy is a more complex thing than black and white. someone who pirates could be someone who can't afford it, but is a potential future fan/purchaser. It's not all bad, it can get people learning who don't have access.
Here's the big difference: Microsoft used its dominant market share in Operating Systems to try to force other browsers out of existence, even though IE was objectively worse than other browsers. They literally tried to coerce Netscape into abandoning the Windows platform. Apple does not have a dominant share in mobile devices but is able to command premiums in the App Store, even in a closed ecosystem, because the product and the experience is better, at least in the estimation of a large (but, again, not dominant) customer base. Apple has never made conditions for the App Store like "you can't have an Android version". Microsoft still pursues platform exclusivity in their gaming console closed ecosystem. Apple has good reasons to control the software on phones specifically, since they are used for emergency communication. My understanding of the Android app experience is that it has at times been awash in malware, spyware, and IP theft, and it still is if you step outside the Google Play store.
Uhh...so? Why is that a regulatory problem for the EU to solve?
The charger isn't changing, just the cable that connects it to the phone. The forced death of lightning will make a lot of cables and adapters obsolete, i.e. will generate a lot of e-waste, but will not make any difference at all in chargers. I'm sorry but this argument never made a lick of sense to me. In the mean time I understand that some EU states are forcing apple to include a charger in the box with every iPhone. Isn't this the exact thing the USB-C regulation is supposed to reduce?? I don't know about you, but I probably have half a dozen Apple-made USB chargers (perfectly compatible with Android phones) floating around my house unused. That's more e-waste.
And now I hear the EU is talking about forcing "interoperability" with messaging, even though I have no problem communicating via text with friends and colleagues that have Android phones, and they have no problem communicating with me. Apple makes a more attractive product in messaging, with additional features, and Google wants government regulators to shut that down rather than build something that competes. So, Google has convinced people that a green text bubble violates their civil rights or something. Apparently the EU is receptive to their arguments. Now Apple will not be able to innovate in the area of messaging unless they provide that innovation to their competitors as well. This is anti-competitive government intervention, I don't know what else to call it.
Of course, and I don't know this, but I suspect the EU's motivation might have more to do with getting rid of E2E encryption than "interoperability".
🙄 As an American I'm absolutely fine with regulatory intervention when monopolistic or environmentally destructive or otherwise dangerous practices are happening, and I am in a clear majority here. I just disagree that this is the case with app stores and charging cables.
No one is crying "end of the world". I'm not worried about Apple's survival at all. I don't like an entire product category being forced to being built in "EU approved" ways, when those standards are arbitrary. For example, when a standard emerges that improves on USB-C in the future, will companies need to appeal to EU regulators to implement that new standard? Seems like they will. Will development in this area just stop, as companies choose to stick with an aging standard rather than risk a fight with bureaucrats when they want to innovate? I guess we should all just be grateful that the EU didn't settle on micro-USB. They probably would have a few years ago.
It will be really interesting to see what Apple does here. But yeah, I'm personally not a huge fan of what the EU is doing with the DMA. To me it seems like consumers have choice and safety isn't at stake, so that puts me in the "if you don't like it, build it yourself" camp. Part of me hopes Apple uses their 50B war chest to fight back ...
In general, thank you to all my noble opponents on this thread. You are forcing me with your good arguments* to rethink my position, which may not be what i want, but it is what I need. 💁 I still think the EU is largely on the right path with this one, but I see a lot more nuances and questions than I did a few days ago. I appreciate it.
(*I don’t mean the legendary “the EU will be like living in China or Russia if it dares to tackle Apple” hot take here, even though that also added to an evening of entertainment in its own way.)
I mean, come on. 😳 MS owned the market, especially the corporate one, with 90%+ market share in some segments. Corporate users were usually not allowed to install alternative browsers in the first place, and most people did not choose the hassle even if they could. “Never prevented anyone” is lawyer-level wordplay in this case. 😊 Honestly, what keeps you on the fence about that specific case? What real chance did the competitors have?
Fair. Silly wording from me there.
Hey, there's more to the world than just the EU & the USA.
@Simon Apparently the world ends at the horizon and below the equator.
Your head says it's nonsense but in your heart you know it's true...
😂
Except that she ended up with less than one million. Despite the sometimes ludicrous sums awarded by juries, judges can overturn those awards on appeal. This one in particular has developed far beyond the facts of the case.
She didn’t initially sue for millions, greedy lawyers did that - she initially asked for the amount of her medical expenses, but McDonalds refused to give her any compensation.
Also, the lawsuit wasn’t about warnings about coffee being hot in general as much as it was about McDonalds serving coffee at extremely high temperatures that were capable of causing burns on contact with skin and not warning of this.
The biggest difference between US and European laws is that in the US a jury decides damages, and in Europe I believe a judge makes those determinations.
I was thinking the same thing. This is a really helpful expanding of a topic that's too easy to see in black and white. I enjoy the exposure to the nuances.
I'll just have to leave it that I disagree here. I was an IT Director during those times. I lived and worked in the US, Europe, and Canada, and supported operations in Taiwan, India, Russia, Latin America, and every country in Europe. Never once did we have the slightest hesitation at installing other browsers, and usually included them in our standard builds. We didn't prevent our users from doing so either. I know of no colleagues in the industry who did either. In fact some mandated Mozilla. BTW, a few of our critical business apps (Oracle Enterprise Applications for one), only worked properly on IE, but we still allowed users choice for other browsing tasks. Every IT and end-user I can remember discussing it with sort of shrugged when the subject came up. We just didn't care.
But that's just my experience and take on things. Yours is just as legit I'm sure.
Actually, it was the EU that used that wording as part of their justification for the law. I wasn't quibbling with your quoting of it.
At the risk of nitpicking ... a paid developer account isn't at all required to explore becoming developers. One can fully develop apps for free with Xcode. And Xcode is free, unlike Visual Studio. I did just that. My only purchase was a refurb 2015 MacBook Pro (best computing investment I ever made). Unfortunately, all I learned was that I don't have what it takes to become an iOS music app developer 😂.
You only need a paid account if you want to sell (or give away for free) apps on the App Store.
I'm the opposite. 🤷🏼♂️
Other than getting through the App Store review process, publishing an app, distributing an app worldwide, and monetizing it once approved is literally trivial. I'd much rather spend my time developing fun stuff than figuring out ways to distribute it, monetize it, and then babysit that process. Apple can gladly have my $99 per year and 15% of the proceeds for that. In fact, that is the only way I would actually be interested in selling software. ✌🏼
…,,,,
This is a (common) misrepresentation of the case.
Importantly, the woman initially asked only that McDonalds cover her hospital bills of $20,000. She had been hospitalized for eight days and required skin grafts due to severe burns. This was not a trivial injury.
McDonald’s refused to pay. So, she hired a lawyer to recover the hospitalization costs. Again, they refused the approach and they were sued.
In doing due diligence, the lawyers found that company policy was to hold the coffee and serve it at a significantly higher temperature than other coffee-serving businesses. The coffee was served at 190 degrees which causes serious burns in 3 seconds. Further, there had been hundreds of complaints about injuries in the preceding years and McDonalds had done nothing.
Most of the awarded money was punitive damages. Punitive damages are punishment. In this case for willful ongoing neglect. The judge reduced the punitive damages to 1/3 of the amount awarded.
The high sim was because there had been ongoing harmful negligence and not because some old lady spilled slightly hot coffee on herself.
If they had simply accepted responsibility and covered her costs initially there would have been no suit.
You said “ while I believe in the US the million-dollar compensation is nothing unusual.”
They are not common.
Makes me think of the Pepsi jet commercial in the 90ties, I recently saw a docu on Netflix ‘Pepsi, where is my jet?’. About the guy who sued Pepsi who promised you could get a $32 million yet if you collect 700.0000 Pepsi points. It was meant as a joke in the commercial.
Alright, thank you guys for your comments. This also cleared up my understanding of the McDonalds case and claims for high compensation. So this was not a good example. But it’s still my impression that the EU is more likely trying to enforce consumer rights with regulations while in the USA there is a different take on it. @Simon I‘m looking at the US and EU here because it’s the two biggest consumer markets in the world and that’s why compliance with the regulations of these two is so important for companies, including Apple.
There are a lot of regulations that I am happy they exist. For instance the nutrition facts label. In the EU it became mandatory in 2006 and I think that much earlier in the US. I think without these regulations the companies still wouldn’t give this information to consumers. Before 2006 I actually researched US food labels on the internet. AFAIK, there had been a lot of resistance in the industry against the labels. But don’t you think it was the right thing to do?
The charging cable regulation seems nowadays a bit over the top because there are only three remaining connector types and in my car I’m covered with a triple adapter cable. But there had been times when we had many more charger types. Just among NOKIA models you had several different types. Some had the same connector type but different voltages. It was a nightmare.
Let me come back to the AppStore. I think regulating this space makes total sense because we don’t actually have real competition that gives consumers freedom of choice. We have a duopoly. As the wording proposed, that is not too far away from a monopoly. Even a tech giant like Microsoft was unable to successfully penetrate this duopoly. Two companies control to a large degree what is considered to be an important computing infrastructure. Mobile devices are the biggest group of computing devices worldwide. For most people on the planet, especially in developing countries, the phone is the most important computer in their life. You see, this is not just a product, it is an infrastructure of global importance. TBH allowing alternative app stores is only one part of the puzzle. Both digital ecosystems act very similar. They act as the mighty gatekeepers who decide what can be running on their platform and therefore virtually all mobile devices on the planet. Well, China of course is a planet on its own in this regard. Apps are being censored not only for quality or legal reasons. Apps rejected for being alternatives to Apple apps.
TBH, what bugs me the most is that both ecosystems did impose a licensing model that locks consumers into their ecosystem. Do I really have the freedom of choice of the ecosystem? Can migrate easily between both? I think I can’t. Let’s say I have bought apps for 3000 bucks but now I want to jump ships. I cannot just sell all my apps and start over in a competitive ecosystem. This is perfectly doable on Windows or Mac but not on iOS or Android. If you ask me THIS is very much limiting freedom of choice and competition because it locks you into an ecosystem. Even further it makes it nearly impossible for another player to enter this market. Even Microsoft couldn’t make it. It will be a duopoly forever. This even stretches out to cars or smart homes. I know that some people now limit their choice of cars or TVs to models where their digital ecosystem is well supported. I would really very much appreciate a right to transfer licenses. Given that used software is as good as new, I could leave an ecosystem without a big loss. Hey Brussels, did you read that?
Update: typos
Yeah it makes sense for the average person and the average app. For most people the appstore is the right place to distribute something. But big department stores suck for many reasons, especially for art. But there's a lot of rich media content coming in the next decade and this doesn't make sense in the appstore. But this new development could mean a way of distributing it on iOS away from that. I bet it'll be on thousands of people's radar when this opens up in the next few years.
I guess it could be a cultural thing because in Europe independent culture is very important so letting the possibilities of that happen more easily is a high priority.
Of course a lot of it will not be seen because it will be distributed/advertised away from the mainstream and Apple won't be aware of any of it. But that's great because it's none of their business
Yes, indeed.
Very interesting. Thanks for your insights.
For me personally or for private users in general I agree that it was always just a few clicks away to install Mozilla or Opera and actually most people I know did that. But regarding corporate users, I think @ervin is right. It was quite cool that your company was so flexible or had flexible clients. But nomrmally as an employee, you are usually not allowed to install software on your company's Windows machine. You had to live with the Internet Explorer. Subsequently, software manufacturers adjusted to that and that's why most web UIs of that time were running best on IE4. That still would not be enough for me to justify the regulations.
In my opinion what changed the game was that MS seriously tried to poison the open web standard with their proprietary stuff. The predominance of the Internet Explorer made it attractive for developers to utilize Microsoft's ActiveX controls which would be a serious Microsoft lock-in. Users of OSs without an Internet Explorer would be unable to use such software or websites. I had been a Linux user and back then it was a serious threat for me to be locked out. At the time Microsoft was infamous for pushing through their proprietary closed source protocols and standards. And I saw this as a threat to the free exchange of information on the internet. Moreover ActiveX was a serious security hole since they were natively executed without a sandbox.
It was a horrible dark piece of junk software that was forged to bind us all to Microsauron and then came EUsildur and cut the ring off his hand. (Sorry, couldn't resist the exaggeration)
You have some very valid points there. Microsoft did all that, and yes, it was a pain in the ass to make sites that were both IE compatible and worked with everything else. Mozilla did this a bit too but not for greedy reasons. Thankfully the free market eventually produced alternatives that could do the things that MS was first to the table with. As they became widely adopted, even MS was slowly and reluctantly forced to support them. ... which happened without bureaucrats having to get involved. 😉😛
Microsauron! Love it! 😂
Actually, I do believe the regulation played some role, but I think the final nail in the coffin was HTML5. Since this open standard covered everything that web application developers needed. It made any need for extensions redundant. And most of all it is open and well-designed. I see this as a victory for open standards and open source which MS was very much opposed to at the time. Now it's different. MS is the biggest open source organization on github. If someone would have predicted that back then, I would not have believed it.
Anyway, coming to the "free market". There is one thing I remember very clearly from my macroeconomics at university. That there actually is never really a free market and that it's also not desirable from a capitalist point of view. There must always be some regulations that ensure fair competition between market participants and stable legal grounds that these businesses can operate on. That was in my books considered the prime objective for economic statecraft. I guess so far we can agree. But I think the need for regulation does not end with addressing monopolies. IMHO the harmfulness of a dominant player is not only characterized by its market share but also by its control over standards and infrastructure. I see the EU regulations of MS at the time and Apple today in this context and I believe it's the right thing.