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.

Is Subscription Fair to Developers and Users alike?

13567

Comments

  • edited March 2023

    @tja said:
    In short: No.

    The best solution for both customers and developers is the "Working Copy" model, which is also be used by Loopy Pro ...

    While on paper this sounds like a win/win, I personally wouldn’t like to be a developer with 5 working versions of my complex app each with their own set of problems.

    One may think that once those past versions are running any bugs could be fixed in batch but if all of them have different set of features that’s bound to introduce differences that would make that challenging.

    Sounds like a nightmare to me tbh

  • Nope. Don’t like subscriptions. One off payments is best, since having steady leeches in my pocket just sucks.
    The only subscription I have is rent-to-own Serum, because no matter how much people hate on it, it’s just incredibly useful and has unlimited presets. It also has a hard end date, once it is paid off.

  • edited March 2023
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • edited March 2023

    'Modular' apps are a nightmare to support regardless of 'business model' as one feature may rely on another and every time a feature is used a check has to be done if the feature is available for a specific version a user has or doesn't have and a suitable fallback function has to be used instead...

    This might work for text based editors like working copy but for but for real-time audio apps the 'functionality check' will slow things down to a crawl especially if we're talking multiple revisions of modules that the user may or may not have updated...

  • @mambonassau said:
    ……
    That said, I think subscriptions for music software are usually bogus. My reasons:

    a) The overhead for coding a plug-in is vanishingly small. Anyone with a laptop and some know-how can technically make a plug-in. This isn't a comment on the use (or even sale) value of said plug-ins, but rather a comment on the lack of physical capital involved in their creation. While a software company may expand and thrive based on its products, thus increasing overhead (customer service, salespeople, PR, advertising, etc.), the most boilerplate part of its business model is - while complex - not necessarily as expensive as it’s made out to be. One of the reasons I admire Chris from Airwindows is that he demystifies the R&D “black box” code branding that makes folks pay upwards of $300 for a plug-in. A solid, good-sounding plug will keep selling in perpetuity if priced reasonably and maintained. A few classic examples: PSP’s Vintage Warmer 2, the Sonnox collection, SoundToys’ stuff, Valhalla’s stuff, etc.

    I don’t get your logic, the capital outlay and overhead are irrelevant without context. What is relevant is whether the revenue received over the life of a product provides enough income that have covered the costs of development [which includes all of the direct development time, r&d, skill acquisition, etc, infrastructure costs, and do on] and provided a decent living.

    It isn’t a trivial task to write a good plug-in. Writing a good plug-in doesn’t ensure a good return on the invested time.

    Even the companies people think of as big names are often barely turning a profit. Companies experimenting with subscription, etc. isn’t necessarily about greed…sometimes it is because the current models are becoming less sustainable.

  • @supadom said:

    @tja said:
    In short: No.

    The best solution for both customers and developers is the "Working Copy" model, which is also be used by Loopy Pro ...

    While on paper this sounds like a win/win, I personally wouldn’t like to be a developer with 5 working versions of my complex app each with their own set of problems.

    One may think that once those past versions are running any bugs could be fixed in batch but if all of them have different set of features that’s bound to introduce differences that would make that challenging.

    Sounds like a nightmare to me tbh

    I guess we’ll find out over time…I’d be inclined to find out from a developer using that model if it is a nightmare. It might not be.

  • What Waves did was absolutely fucked up and I won’t buy anything again from them but subscriptions have been pretty useful for me. Ideally I’d rather just buy everything I need but it gets pretty expensive really fast and it’s not an option for me. And then I’ll get stuff and not use it for very long periods of time cos I just am not at that point yet like mixing tools. I can sub to UAD and get a lot awesome plug-ins and stay subbed until I don’t need them and then can just end my sub instead of shelling out thousands of dollars and then just resub when I need them again. I see it like a rental like I would if I bought time in a studio. I’m not doing anything professionally though so my needs follow where I’m at in my creative process but I could see where subs would suck if I’m mixing all day every day and using the tools all the time

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @tja said:

    You only need to compare to a timestamp, the time of initial or latest buy.
    Seems easy.

    But still the app needs to have 'fallback functions' for those users who have not bought the latest release...
    ...in those cases it's not enough to just check for latest purchase date.

    Could be simple things like a dialogues having extra buttons for a specific new functions that are not present in the old version and the new functions have to make sure they don't affect existing functions (ex. they have to use different 'framework versions' for different versions of the app).

    This inclusion of multiple framework versions to cover different revisions of the app will add bloat...

    It might 'appear' as just one version but inside the app-bundle there's likely multiple revisions of the app and depending on the current license of the user one is picked on run-time.

    If these methods were sustainable in the long run everyone would be doing it, not just two apps that get mentioned quite frequently...

    And what guarantee do we have on apps relying heavily on server-side functionality?
    At some point they will drop support for older versions.

    Oh well, we'll see where things go...
    ...I suspect a new model for distributing paid updates popping up at WWDC'23.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @tja said:

    @supadom said:

    @tja said:
    In short: No.

    The best solution for both customers and developers is the "Working Copy" model, which is also be used by Loopy Pro ...

    While on paper this sounds like a win/win, I personally wouldn’t like to be a developer with 5 working versions of my complex app each with their own set of problems.

    One may think that once those past versions are running any bugs could be fixed in batch but if all of them have different set of features that’s bound to introduce differences that would make that challenging.

    Sounds like a nightmare to me tbh

    You do not seem to understand the concept of this license.

    There is only one App and one version of it, for all users.

    Only the list of available and usable "features" may differ per user.

    As @espiegel123 has said, the time will tell.

  • edited March 2023

    So, now that some great responses have accumulated I will clarify: when I entitled this thread, “ Is Subscription Fair?” my thought was in regards to both sides. If we consider the survival of software companies and the survival of customers, is it fair for companies to collect subscription income in exchange for providing customers regular updates and new stuff?

    I compared subscriptions to salaries and thought to myself: “what if when I was hired, my employer told me they are paying me a lump sum from the beginning to cover a lifetime of pay?”. Would that be fair to both of us. Of course, it’s kind of a ridiculous notion to try to determine fairness when no one is promised life tomorrow including businesses, but the idea of paying once and expecting companies to survive and thrive with that model seems outdated to some degree. A company like Waves makes a lot money compared to most developers and most of us, but they are definitely not swimming in cash 😂 they make about $20 million a year. Small company for sure. FLS revenue is $6 million.

    I don’t like subscriptions, but I also don’t like seeing developers disappear because they don’t make enough money to keep going. I’ve been using Waves for over 20 years, but I’m definitely not married to them although at the same time they do make high quality products. There seems to be a happy medium between one-time and subscription. I do feel that Loopy Pro’s model may be the beginning to the answer, time will tell after a year of Loopy Pro.

    WUP seemed fair when it happened to me recently, but it was for only one plugin at the time and I had a credit on file that covered it 😂

    Perhaps we assume greed because of the tactics used by some companies to generate more income, but maybe they are doing what has historically worked for them to meet their goals.

    Respectfully, comparing FL Studio to Waves is unbalanced. Not because FL Studio is not great, but because these two companies are different animals with different histories. Waves reach goes beyond our community and stretches to consumer-based products too. With their accolades and history in the professional world, Waves is a premium brand, which up until recently, was predominantly professional only. I was an early user of FL Studio, when it was just a small, free application called Fruity Loops. FLS is the people’s champ, helping the bedroom studios and even pro studios make music on the go. Waves has truly thrived in pro studios the most. Do we value Waves expertise, patent ownership, history and pedigree, some do and some don’t. It’s not for everyone.

    My post is truly not about Waves vs. FLS, but they are both excellent case studies for both sides.

  • edited March 2023

    Same like i don’t rent HW synths (or my car) i don’t rent sofware. If app goes subscription it’s no go for me, bye app, rip. No discussion, at any condition. I’m not paying for product which is realky not mine and which can be anytime in future taken away from me (especially on iOS) no matter how much money i paid for it.

  • Fair? I don’t know, but I’m not doing it. I have zero music app/software subscriptions and no plans to support that.

  • My opinion is that there is room. In this world for all sorts of payment models. I came to the realisation that all the software I use is temporary. Any of the iOS apps could disappear at any moment. I see this with apps that have not been maintained or updated as iOS changes so really there is no guarantee that any of this software is going to be here tomorrow.
    It all seems to prove the concept of illusion and impermanence since it’s all a mind construction.
    I have used subscriptions where it made sense and I think the ability to drop in and out of a subscription without significant penalty is a good model. It can also be a potential good way to try out a suite of software. The idea that one is renting a studio for a time makes sense too.
    I think the manner in which it is implemented is what is important. The recent Waves debacle was more an example of poor execution.
    Maybe iOS music world could potentially operate the same way as GameCenter? Not saying they should just throwing up an idea. All the developers crate an alliance of sorts and all the apps are thrown in for a monthly fee. One subscription for all and then the developers all get a cut. Might work - might not. Just musing on April 1.

  • The topic question is silly - it is not a matter of being "fair" (whatever that is).

    A subscription is a commerical offer to a buyer. If the buyer doesn't want to buy it, it doesn't matter how "fair" it is.

    And it seems app buyers don't want to buy subs.

  • wimwim
    edited April 2023

    @Simon said:
    The topic question is silly - it is not a matter of being "fair" (whatever that is).

    A subscription is a commerical offer to a buyer. If the buyer doesn't want to buy it, it doesn't matter how "fair" it is.

    And it seems app buyers don't want to buy subs.

    Ha! You summed up my 384 word screed neatly and said it a lot clearer than I did - though I wouldn't call the question silly. Poorly worded only, I think.

  • @wim said:
    Ha! You summed up my 384 word screed neatly and said it a lot clearer than I did - though I wouldn't call the question silly. Poor wording only, I think.

    I originally had a slightly stronger word than "silly", but I edited it to be less harsh.

    New mods...

  • Yep, given the strong anti-subscrition views here, it is more likely that any iOS devs going this route will flounder rather than succeed, unless they do a very good job of convincing the community of why that subscription is necessary and that they will get enough value to justify it. If people can choose non-subscription products offering the same or similar feature sets, it is likely they will choose the latter, based on the feedback here. That said, the age range on the forum tends to skew towards older, so perhaps young folk are less averse. However, most of them are not making music to any large extent on iPads or iPhones, or at least not buying tons of apps, I’d guess - they’re more likely using cracked software on a laptop or just a handful of apps. Or they might be getting a lot of value from a cheap desktop daw, combined with a subscription to something relatively cheap but tempting like Output Arcade. For beats and loops based stuff, which seems to be the genre de noir among that age group, something like that would make sense and be affordable. Most teens or people in their 20s are unlikely to be able to afford the app-collector mentality that dominates this forum. Most will have little interest in the tons of variations on EQs etc that Waves are offering, and certainly not if they are forced to pay annually rather than monthly.

  • I think there are some factors specific to iOS that make things hard for developers to keep applications running.

    The Apple ecosystem in general is always changing under the feet of the developer. A new OS comes out and breaks things, the dev probably didn't get any chance to test beforehand and you can't tell your users to downgrade/reinstall if they have problems. Apple really doesn't care about breaking apps. And releases are often. It requires developers to do more maintenance

    Devs also can't easily release multiple versions of an app easily on the app store. While you could put out a new version of an app each year or whatever, migrating user content between versions is a total pain (and risks losing content). Developers can charge for IAPs, but that doesn't really work for core app improvements. Loopy Pro is doing its fancy upgrade plan, but its not feasible for most developers. Its extremely complex and not something built into iOS.

    These are some of the factors that push folks to do a subscription model. I don't like them at all, but with iOS being what it is they make more sense (even though usually they stop me from purchasing).

  • Awesome feedback, even the attacks on thread title/question 🤣
    Any response is better than no response 🤷🏽‍♂️
    I feel like this topic is a necessary “evil”.
    I hope this discussion birth’s wonderful payment innovations 🙌

  • In the context of subscription, it might also make sense to distinguish between tools and content/services. I have no problem subscribing to content/services that I regularly consume - ad-free YouTube, Netflix, mobile phone plan, online storage etc. But in general (see exception below) I prefer owning the tools that i work or play around with, and that is the category where music plugins fall for me.

    That said, I can see why someone would subscribe to Adobe or another specific collection temporarily, for a specific project. It's like renting a tool that you only need occasionally, like a van to help you move house. Makes perfect sense, even though with music plugins I personally don't need that kind of usage*.

    (*"That's because you don't ever finish your tracks, mate.") 🤷

  • First some assumptions:

    • most people creating music on iOS are probably doing so primarily because it's so incredibly cheap compared to just about any other option. Once you've got an iPad, you can create a HELL of a lot of music with a one-off Drambo or NS2 purchase
    • most professional musicians, the ones who can afford to pay for expensive subscription software, probably aren't using iOS as their main platform
    • most independent developers creating iOS music software are probably doing it as a hobby, because you probably have well under 1000 users. You're getting paid 70-85% of the cost of a coffee from each of those users in exchange for (maybe) 3-12 months of your expertise developing software, an expectation of lifetime of support & enhancements - this makes zero financial sense. IAPs are a fine idea in theory, but realistically you're only getting paid 70-85% of a 2nd coffee from a small percentage of your existing users
    • most "big corp" iOS music software developers (think Roland, Korg, etc.) probably regard migrating their products to iOS as a mistake (in purely financial terms) that will never return a profit. They've now got a bunch of iOS customers who expect to pay no more than $20 for every future product, who expect lifetime support for free, while those companies and their shareholders are used to their products being sold for hundreds or thousands of dollars
    • most iOS music software customers (myself included) have become used to thinking $20 is expensive for a software synth purchase, so they'll try to buy it on sale for $10. For those of us in 1st world countries, just think how ridiculous that is in the context of your other daily expenses
    • Apple treat their app developers like absolute crap, by (a) charging an annual licence cost just for keeping their software in the App Store, while (b) regularly breaking that software with new iOS releases, (c) taking 15-30% off the top of the purchase price just for making that software available in their walled garden App Store, (d) providing almost no support in the App Store for developers who want to make recurring income from their software. Feel free to suggest (e), (f) and (g)...

    Bottom line: iOS music software users are getting the bargain of a lifetime, while iOS music app developers are getting royally shafted

    How to fix this by allowing developers to be fairly compensated, while not blowing out the costs to buy their apps? No idea, but these might be worth considering:

    • the "subscription-like" model being used by Wotja and Loopy Pro. Personally I'm happy to go with that for a very small number and type of apps, but not for all of the several hundred apps I have on my iPad. I'm also not happy for apps I've already purchased to start charging me a subscription on top of what I've already paid.
    • app developers go with a freemium model, where they release limited versions of their apps cheaply, but charge more to make them fully functional. This might work for some apps - I'd be happy to pay $1 for a version of Model 15 that can't save or load patches, and full price for a fully featured version - but I doubt it would work for all
    • Apple implements a micropayments model for apps based on usage. I might not be willing to pay $2/month for an app subscription (particularly if I have lots of apps), but I might be happy to pay (say) $0.05/day on every day that I use a particular app. I might be even more willing to pay (say) $0.20/day to use every app on my iPad, and have Apple or a 3rd party split that $0.10 up between the developers of the apps I use that day.
    • Apple introduces a model that allow devs to require users to repurchase apps (possibly at a large discount) when users upgrade their iOS version. Before you tear that idea to pieces, consider that most times apps break is due to iOS upgrades, and developers are expected to "fix" their apps for free when Apple's changes break it. That's completely unreasonable and developers should be compensated for it. If iOS 17 comes along and breaks a bunch of apps, I'd be happy paying e.g. $1/app to get those broken apps fixed and working again. I can imagine some app developers abusing that (e.g. by forcing the app to fail when it detects iOS17, then asking users to repurchase it), but even so it'd be better than what exists today where some developers just walk away rather than invest a bunch of their unpaid time to fix a problem Apple created
    • Apple requires all app source code to be placed in escrow before the app gets into the App Store. Then, if the developer abandons the app, Apple releases the source code as open source so other developer/s can take it on and keep it working. To me this is the biggest problem with the App Store model today. Again there's the option for this to be abused, but it'd start to give us app users some protection and move us away from the current "app rental" model that a lot of us hate. For what it's worth, if this rule was in place in 2021, I would've personally revived WaveStorm as it was my favorite synth before it suddenly disappeared
    • Apple stops charging renewal fees for small developers that have apps in the App Store. That money isn't even a drop in the bucket for Apple, but might mean a lot to those developers

    Maybe none of these would work, but something has to change if iOS music is going to survive/thrive.

  • edited April 2023

    @monch1962 said:
    First some assumptions:

    • most people creating music on iOS are probably doing so primarily because it's so incredibly cheap compared to just about any other option. Once you've got an iPad, you can create a HELL of a lot of music with a one-off Drambo or NS2 purchase
    • most professional musicians, the ones who can afford to pay for expensive subscription software, probably aren't using iOS as their main platform
    • most independent developers creating iOS music software are probably doing it as a hobby, because you probably have well under 1000 users. You're getting paid 70-85% of the cost of a coffee from each of those users in exchange for (maybe) 3-12 months of your expertise developing software, an expectation of lifetime of support & enhancements - this makes zero financial sense. IAPs are a fine idea in theory, but realistically you're only getting paid 70-85% of a 2nd coffee from a small percentage of your existing users
    • most "big corp" iOS music software developers (think Roland, Korg, etc.) probably regard migrating their products to iOS as a mistake (in purely financial terms) that will never return a profit. They've now got a bunch of iOS customers who expect to pay no more than $20 for every future product, who expect lifetime support for free, while those companies and their shareholders are used to their products being sold for hundreds or thousands of dollars
    • most iOS music software customers (myself included) have become used to thinking $20 is expensive for a software synth purchase, so they'll try to buy it on sale for $10. For those of us in 1st world countries, just think how ridiculous that is in the context of your other daily expenses
    • Apple treat their app developers like absolute crap, by (a) charging an annual licence cost just for keeping their software in the App Store, while (b) regularly breaking that software with new iOS releases, (c) taking 15-30% off the top of the purchase price just for making that software available in their walled garden App Store, (d) providing almost no support in the App Store for developers who want to make recurring income from their software. Feel free to suggest (e), (f) and (g)...

    Bottom line: iOS music software users are getting the bargain of a lifetime, while iOS music app developers are getting royally shafted

    How to fix this by allowing developers to be fairly compensated, while not blowing out the costs to buy their apps? No idea, but these might be worth considering:

    • the "subscription-like" model being used by Wotja and Loopy Pro. Personally I'm happy to go with that for a very small number and type of apps, but not for all of the several hundred apps I have on my iPad. I'm also not happy for apps I've already purchased to start charging me a subscription on top of what I've already paid.
    • app developers go with a freemium model, where they release limited versions of their apps cheaply, but charge more to make them fully functional. This might work for some apps - I'd be happy to pay $1 for a version of Model 15 that can't save or load patches, and full price for a fully featured version - but I doubt it would work for all
    • Apple implements a micropayments model for apps based on usage. I might not be willing to pay $2/month for an app subscription (particularly if I have lots of apps), but I might be happy to pay (say) $0.05/day on every day that I use a particular app. I might be even more willing to pay (say) $0.20/day to use every app on my iPad, and have Apple or a 3rd party split that $0.10 up between the developers of the apps I use that day.
    • Apple introduces a model that allow devs to require users to repurchase apps (possibly at a large discount) when users upgrade their iOS version. Before you tear that idea to pieces, consider that most times apps break is due to iOS upgrades, and developers are expected to "fix" their apps for free when Apple's changes break it. That's completely unreasonable and developers should be compensated for it. If iOS 17 comes along and breaks a bunch of apps, I'd be happy paying e.g. $1/app to get those broken apps fixed and working again. I can imagine some app developers abusing that (e.g. by forcing the app to fail when it detects iOS17, then asking users to repurchase it), but even so it'd be better than what exists today where some developers just walk away rather than invest a bunch of their unpaid time to fix a problem Apple created
    • Apple requires all app source code to be placed in escrow before the app gets into the App Store. Then, if the developer abandons the app, Apple releases the source code as open source so other developer/s can take it on and keep it working. To me this is the biggest problem with the App Store model today. Again there's the option for this to be abused, but it'd start to give us app users some protection and move us away from the current "app rental" model that a lot of us hate. For what it's worth, if this rule was in place in 2021, I would've personally revived WaveStorm as it was my favorite synth before it suddenly disappeared
    • Apple stops charging renewal fees for small developers that have apps in the App Store. That money isn't even a drop in the bucket for Apple, but might mean a lot to those developers

    Maybe none of these would work, but something has to change if iOS music is going to survive/thrive.

    Wow, fantastic post - thank you for clearing the deck, I feel like you hit many nails on the heads!!! You also suggested some really creative solutions 🙏🏻

    I’m not a gamer, but your post has made me think that perhaps the gaming world contains some viable solutions/models for our world since it is a software example where users and developers have thrived…

  • edited April 2023

    https://lapaas.com/how-games-earn/

    I wonder if a full featured app with an up front cost of say $29.99, optional daily content subscription of $4.99 per month or .99 cents per in-app purchase might do well?

    So $29.99 keeps the app working until the major version, like version 1 to 2. $4.99 per month gives unlimited access to all daily content (keep what you download forever) and .99 cents allows you to buy individual packs/presets.

  • @Stuntman_mike said:

    So $29.99 keeps the app working until the major version, like version 1 to 2. $4.99 per month gives unlimited access to all daily content (keep what you download forever) and .99 cents allows you to buy individual packs/presets.

    This is partially what Roland is doing with ZenBeats already?!

    The core app is free to download with a limited set of sounds and features and a bit more when you register with Roland.

    You've then got the 'platform unlocks', 'version upgrades' and 'sound packs' to keep things up to date or go for the cloud thing to get 'everything' ZenBeats.

    I got on to the ZenBeats train when V2 was offered at a serious discount during the pandemic and when V3 arrived with the ZC-1 synth it was a $4.99 upgrade which in all honesty was a 'steal' considering how much the app has improved over the years (apart from the looks it behaves like a completely different app in so many areas with plenty of fixes here and there).

    I would not be surprised if we get a V4 unlock during 2023 at a reasonable cost and I'll most likely jump on it...

    There are a few apps I could accept subscription for if there is a clear reliable roadmap on what to expect during the subscription period.

    As an example my current Renoise license is good for a couple of years more or so considering their payment model includes a bunch updates until a specified version number, current version is 3.4.2. My current 'payment' is good until 3.5).

  • @Samu said:

    @Stuntman_mike said:

    So $29.99 keeps the app working until the major version, like version 1 to 2. $4.99 per month gives unlimited access to all daily content (keep what you download forever) and .99 cents allows you to buy individual packs/presets.

    This is partially what Roland is doing with ZenBeats already?!

    The core app is free to download with a limited set of sounds and features and a bit more when you register with Roland.

    You've then got the 'platform unlocks', 'version upgrades' and 'sound packs' to keep things up to date or go for the cloud thing to get 'everything' ZenBeats.

    I got on to the ZenBeats train when V2 was offered at a serious discount during the pandemic and when V3 arrived with the ZC-1 synth it was a $4.99 upgrade which in all honesty was a 'steal' considering how much the app has improved over the years (apart from the looks it behaves like a completely different app in so many areas with plenty of fixes here and there).

    I would not be surprised if we get a V4 unlock during 2023 at a reasonable cost and I'll most likely jump on it...

    There are a few apps I could accept subscription for if there is a clear reliable roadmap on what to expect during the subscription period.

    As an example my current Renoise license is good for a couple of years more or so considering their payment model includes a bunch updates until a specified version number, current version is 3.4.2. My current 'payment' is good until 3.5).

    Oh wow! Actually I jumped on ZenBeats at that same time. Yeah, I feel like this model could work well for many apps, given the roadmap is clear and consistent content is created as an upgrade. I wonder if Output will ever dip their toes in iOS water and port Arcade? I feel like it could do well if it doesn’t add a lot of bottom line to their business. It could work as just another platform to deliver their content instead of a whole new experience.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @tja said:
    Lots of content and opinions.

    For me, the situation is solved with the Working Copy license model, totally!

    Because of this, I need to reply to:

    @Stuntman_mike said:

    • the "subscription-like" model being used by Wotja and Loopy Pro. Personally I'm happy to go with that for a very small number and type of apps, but not for all of the several hundred apps I have on my iPad. I'm also not happy for apps I've already purchased to start charging me a subscription on top of what I've already paid.

    This is simply not true!

    The Working Copy model is very much like your regular desktop software model!
    You buy an App, get some updates and later, there will be a new version - which you can buy or not.

    It just does not involve App V1, App V2, App V3, ... which you often get with this model and may even make things complicated.

    There is just one App and you have it for your live-time incl. any and all security fixes, bug fixes and updates in regards to OS changes.
    This is simply perfect and in this regards much much better than the above desktop model, as it does not involve lots of lots of older App version which may or may not work anymore because of bugs, security problems or OS changes!

    And at ANY time, when the App offers new features that you like, you can buy it. Or not. Or in 3 years, or 10.
    Finish.

    It's simple, effective, has ONLY good effects for both customers and developers.

    And again, it is very similar to the regular desktop model - just there is no Reaper 1, Reaper 2, Reaper 3, ... but just "Reaper" - for all times (select any other software name).

    This model solves all problems.

    I have problems to understand the thoughts that people seem to have here ...

    Nice!!!

  • Depends. I have a subscription for my house, my car, my medical insurance, and honestly my wife and kids. If I didn’t keep the money flowing directly to each, they probably all go away. But I don’t subscribe to bread, milk, toilet paper. After I buy them and start using them, nobody wants them back.

This discussion has been closed.