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.
Dev perspective: IAPs are expensive (for developers)
Hey folks - been a while since I posted here though I've been lurking.
Been working on some stuff that has made me reconsider my earlier pro-IAP stance on music apps. Wanted to get some thoughts from you guys.
The gist of my findings is that an app that contains IAPs for different functional pieces takes a lot more development work and time (and thus cost) than making the same app with all functionality included. Each new paywall takes time to create, and you have to reposition elements before and after the paywall appropriately for a purchase conversion funnel (which also damages the UX). Also, charging for a function via IAP means you have to make sure the function is worth charging for, which often means making more functionality than is actually needed just to justify the IAP. I've realized the hard way that this is the main reason why big feature additions take me ages to release via IAP in guitarism, but would have been much easier and faster to do in a regular paid app.
So the question: what's a better way to earn ongoing revenue from regular large functional updates? Options:
1) Focus on making new apps: that works fine for app categories like synths or effects, but I don't think people want a new guitar app every few months
2) Free updates forever: this seems to not generate much revenue in almost all cases. Of course all apps should try to keep up with iOS changes etc, but it seems that larger jumps in functionality need some kind of revenue model to make sense
3) New versions of the app as new apps, e.g. BM1, BM2, BM3. Provide "upgrade pricing" by launching each new iteration at a massive introductory discount (for a week or two). Perhaps the same issue as #1 - people don't want a new guitar app every few months.
4) Subscription. A single IAP that gives you everything, so the paywall development cost is one-time instead of recurring. This model has utterly failed so far, but I think the pricing has been too high. What if the price were super-low, like $1/yr? Poll attached.
Let me know your thoughts!
- Would you pay $1/yr for an app that's dominant (i.e. not one of many) in a category you use?59 votes
- Yep without hesitation27.12%
- Maybe. Would have to think about it, depends on what it offers25.42%
- No way, I hate the thought of recurring payments47.46%
Comments
If you did not loose function or content if the subscription is cancelled, I would be intrested to know more.
If the price was very low I'd be more than happy to pay an annual subscription for an app I use regularly. No hesitation. However I understand the psychological effect of this would be that people don't feel they own the app.
Sadly my initial reaction to this is that I don't own the item outright. I appreciate all the logic you have explained but emotionally I baulk from subscription model.
There is a little bit of gamble in App Store purchases that might favor developers. While I own almost every major music app that I know of, I only use two regularly; if the others were subscription-based it would be hard for me to find a reason to renew, even at a low price.
No way. Since I bought the ipad 1 I have probably bought at least 200 apps most of which now linger in the cloud. The thought of an annual payment of $200 is kinda scary!
I don't mind paying for an IAP where it adds a feature that I think May be useful or fun but don't want to be paying for additions that I have no interest in.
Also I once bought an app that came in different price levels, the top one of which included all further additional content. Perhaps unsurprisingly having bought the top level there were no further additions!
So that would mean I would have to be actively reviewing all my apps to make sure my subscriptions were actually being rewarded with new content and actively cancelling those subscriptions that weren't. Far easier to just avoid any app with that kind of payment model.
Personally I would rather pay a higher initial price, and then for future versions I think it's perfectly OK to release a new app.
I do understand that this is a big problem for devellopers though, the prices on the App Store might be great for us as consumers, but for devellopers it must be hard to create a sustainable model, especially with the upgrade policy.
@rhism I've missed you and your open exploratory thoughts. Hope life with your newest has been at least as rewarding as it has been challenging.
I'm pro any experimental models that keeps apps I want to use around. Already surprised by the results of the poll.
I prefer this
3) New versions of the app as new apps,
I know subscription is the hot shit, but it feels like paying rent.
I don't like to have to many fixed payments, they sum up pretty quick.
@Rhism I think this is probably one reason that there are several iFretless apps, apart from avoiding app bloat with all the different sample stes. What would happen if the subscription was not paid? I'm about to freeze my iPad 2 in its current iOS 7, AB1 state, and will not be upgrading any apps going forward in order to avoid losing functionality. Having paid for the basic app, I wouldn't want to keep paying a subscription if I didn't benefit from future updates. Also, what if something happened to your Apple developer account, Apple, or, God forbid, you?
Have you considered a Paypal donation button on your website? While there are many cheapskates around who would ignore such a thing, there are plenty of us who would be happy for the opportunity to show appreciation for what they gain from your ongoing efforts.
but a sustainable model might not be the best objective in the first place, whether apps are expensive or inexpensive isn't the issue as much as the needs they serve, at least thats been my experience. Imho it's better to find a hole and plug it than to find a hole and keep digging unnecessarily. Funnily enough you are one of 3 developers that I would do the subscription deal with and the other two are Jonatan/kymatica and Marcos/Samplr
but that's because of the apps you guys have created and I'm very certain that anything else added to the apps would be definitely needed and useful … hint hint like midi going both ways in guitarism
but just adding stuff for the sake of keeping sustainability would not encourage me to subscribe.
I think it's insulting to call app purchasers cheapskates if they don't donate to the developer my donation is the price of buying the app!
To be honest, I'd avoid subscription based apps like the plague.
I'd prefer option #3 and would certainly have purchased a stand-alone electric version of Guitarism if I hadn't been able to buy it as IAP in the original acoustic version, for example. The one drawback of this is overhead from two or more full apps each with their own GUIs in storage use but that would probably only be slight especially when compared to the samples.
Maybe you should have put these 4 options in a poll instead of focusing on the subscription option only?
I'm on a tight budget and regular renewal fees would interfere with that - assuming that more and more developers would adopt this strategy. I'd prefer to be able to delay any purchases of apps or IAPs rather than be confronted with fixed expiry dates, because, let's face it, it may start with that $1 fee, but that figure WILL rise just as app (and anything else) pricing has risen too, especially when the corporate players step in.
Please, please don't open this can of worms!
I don't like the idea of a subscription, and would probably stay away from apps that had them. Ideally I like the #3 option the best, with new app versions coming out every few years. I'd gladly support that, assuming they were indeed new versions and not just minor upgrades.
I use not more than 20 music apps and use my ipad almost exclusively for music so it wouldn't be such a big deal for me to pay my yearly subscription especially knowing that the app in question is properly supported and both parties are satisfied. As an example, I've been using whatsapp on android and paying the minimal yearly fee never got in the way of me using it or its functionality. The problem I see is that if indie developers start charging £1 per year subscription the big ones will go for £10 or more.
Subscription is standard model for newspapers, because newspapers release new issues periodically. If a dev could promise releasing a new update every month, subscription might work. But the thing is music apps (or most of the apps) don't need to update frequently. Animoog's last update was more than a year ago, and it still works great on my iPad. I really like to see an update for Animoog, but even Moog stop updating it forever, I don't think it will really bother me. I'm not saying Animoog is perfect. It is like a hardware synth or a guitar pedal. You paid for what you got. If it really suits your needs, you could use that pedal for years until it is broken. And if the same company released a new update for that pedal, you sell your old model and buy the new one, or you can keep both of them just for fun.
That's why very few apps in App Store are using subscription model.
I think he was talking of $1 a year not a monthly subscription @logictree
I also don't like the subscription-idea, feels weird to me, and I would prefer very much the idea of new Apps ("versions"). This way everybody could just keep the "older" one (another question that arises here, is about upgrades for all those versions, cause there are times you need to update to be able to go on using your preferred App-), and developers would have more of a "steady income", which in turn creates eagerness to create... . Especially for my, say 5 hottest Apps I wouldn't mind paying again.
I don't like subscriptions either, I'd rather the developer just charge more up front for their apps versus IAPs too.
@BiancaNeve said:
I was talking about reimbursement for decent updates. If you read my post you'll see that I have no desire to pay more than the initial price if I'm not updating...
$1 per year is so little that I wouldn't have a problem with that. But the best solution would be for Apple to incorporate upgrade pricing for new versions / new apps.
However that does not seem to be happening :-(
So the next best thing is #3, but it still seems like a stupid way.
I think the model Korg is trying with Gadget is interesting but it will not work for all types of apps (provide the upgrade and new global functionality for free, but add new instruments that can be purchased via IAP). This means the app will be kept up to date, but you are not forced into paying for the update unless you want the extra instruments. And it seems to eliminate the problem about adapting the UI to distinguish between user with and without the IAP when used like this.
As a non dev I don't know anything about how much you charge to how much you get, but if it would work to have a relatively small amount of money at regular intervals, could you not just put in a feature as IAP, like custom chords for Guitarism for example, and charge the IAP for that. In other words, a new feature for a small amount, at regular intervals? (I'm not presuming that custom chords will be a small charge, just an example.) Maybe there is something that I don't understand.
I've gone with the model of building multiple apps. There's an initial development investment in figuring out how to do MIDI, generate audio, and so on -- after that, the challenge is putting new "front ends" on the back end code. Double Decker (the bluetooth QWERTY keyboard app) and NTBYF share a ton of code. I'll be morphing Double Decker into an app that supports the iCade, but it'll be a separate app. Voxkit and MIDImorphosis share a lot of the signal processing code, but are targeted at either beat boxers or guitar players. The MIDI over Bluetooth apps share a ton of code across iOS and OS X. Remote Recorder uses my MIDI code, a web server I wrote about 5 years ago, and was built on top of a demo program from Michael's TAAE SDK (thanks, Michael!). Sound Injector, which should be out soon, shares code between iOS, an OS X AU, and a PC VST. Build good parts, and then use them again and again....
Having different apps lets me cast a wider net -- very hard to make an app that everyone wants. Much easier, IMO, to target a narrower audience, and try to fill a gap. Multiple apps also lets me do cross-marketing.
I don't like IAPs as a concept, and I really really don't like subscription models. I believe you set the price, and the customer gets the goods. A few of my apps have stand-alone (and free) trial versions; this avoids the hassle of setting up pay-walls and checking receipts. The "free" updates are a way of thanking the customers for their support, generating good-will with the users, and the good will should bring in new customers. There are at least 500 million active iTunes accounts -- no matter how many apps I sell, I'll only reach a tiny fraction of that market (and if I do sell 500 million copies of something... ok, I get to retire).
All that said.... I think it's very hard to make a living writing iOS apps. A handful of developers will be able to hit it big, and keep a steady stream of money coming in. There's a big spike on sales when an app comes out, and then it dies off with a long (thin) tail. I've got a day job that pays the bills; my app development is essentially a hobby, with the benefit that it lets me buy music toys, and then deduct them on my taxes.
I've got a list as long as my arm of app ideas. Some of them might be hits, others might be misses. The hit/miss of my current group of apps seems to have almost nothing to do with how much work went into them. I just keep plugging along, writing things that are fun to write, and let the chips fall where they may.
I think that model #3 and filling the gap might be the best ways to go. I've found that having free trial versions can often get me to try an app that I otherwise would not have and most of the time I end up getting the paid version.
Interesting and useful responses so far - thanks for the participation!
I'm surprised by how many voted yes - I thought it'd be 90% "no way" but it's under 50%. Of course, you guys are generally much more "open to new ideas" so this might not be representative.
@syrupcore Missed you guys too!
@Fitz That's exactly the original issue. Charging even $1-2 for custom chords in guitarism complicates the app flow which is more confusing and annoying for users and more development cost for me - bad for everyone
@SecretBaseDesign Definitely agree that making many different apps works better. It just isn't interesting to me. I'm personally mainly interested in making 5 virtual instrument apps (rhythm guitar, lead guitar, bass, piano/keys, drums) and making them best-in-class, i.e. you don't need to go anywhere else for those instruments. Perhaps I'm a dinosaur and this is not how the world works.
Full disclosure: I've recently been working on an Android version of guitarism. To keep the project simple I decided to stick with a paid app - no IAPs. The project has moved incredibly fast because of that decision, and the user experience is better too. But with all the included features the app would be about $10, which feels excessive. Thus the $1/yr idea. My gut tells me it won't work, but I was curious so decided to poll you guys. The results above are more positive than I expected.
@SecretBaseDesign said:
I like your approach, and your apps. I don't have the resources to pass out paypal donations to my favorite devs like you, @rhism, @sonosaurus, Kymatica and others but I really wish you all the best in your app writing "hobby."
Enjoy it and know that you've got some reasonable fans/ users who will keep up their support as long as you have the time to keep up the quality work.
Personally, I like the 3rd option. It fits the broader PC software model that we are all accustomed to. And it seems the least complicated. Users can see the new feature list and decide if it is worth the price for the new app. fans can upgrade immediately to support a good dev. and older devices can stay on older versions no problem.
I'm also embarrassingly cheap, and honestly prefer the "free updates forever" option, but that's just not nice to the indie devs trying to get by. So, option 3 gets my vote.
@Hmtx The different options do have different price tags
$20 with free updates forever, vs $5 for a new app version every year (no major updates to older versions) vs $1/yr subscription for automatic updates. The subscription option is the cheapest.
Interesting point, there. I might go for subscription, but only if there is zero chance of auto-renew. It would be great if a pop-up comes up a year later saying "your subscription expired, want to renew?" That way, if there is an app or twenty that I don't use, I don't have to keep track of subscriptions. They just stop working. And I renew if I like it.
I'm against the subscription idea "per se". I think if you like one app, and you use it, you can keep spend money on it, through IAP or buying new versions.
But at the same time, you could paid a regular price (you can call it subscription as well) to get some aditional features or services. Example: Get Auria. You can still buy IAP but through a subscription you could get beta versions at advance, get mastering lessons, premium support, etc.
One thing I don't understand (despite the benefits to all of us), is the free updates for years. Devs, specially little companies, can't live that way.
@Rhism
I do understand that the overhead of creating additions as IAPs is cumbersome and that continuing updates for free is, of course, not sustainable in the long run, but, to be honest I don't understand your $20, $5, $1 comparision either..
Sure, subscription would be cheapest, but that would probably also mean less money coming in at your end in the long run or am I missing something? If you sold an app for, say, $10 with a $1 sub, instead of $20 without, it would take 10 years to recoup the rest of the intended $20 price. Does that make sense?
And you can't be certain that subscription money would keep coming in if a (cheaper?) competitor turned up; an up-front sale would be safer in that regard too.
You're saying that you're not interested in making many different apps, and then continue to say that you're interested in making five! new apps ???
All of which, btw, I would definitely be interested in to buy ;-) !