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
This is an interesting topic, for sure. For the most part my apps have been "medium" priced, one-time purchase, unlimited updates. Since I added IAP for additional content packs in DrumJam, my limited statistical data has shown that there has not been significant revenue increase on average, after that point. Maybe slightly fewer people purchased the app, after seeing the "Offers In-App Purchases". The statistics show that as possible, but it is inconclusive.
Although from a developer standpoint a subscription model sounds great, I totally understand (and feel it myself) the aversion users probably have with it.
Here's what I want, Apple: Time-limited full version trials, sanctioned and enforced by iOS itself. Developer can set the trial period (a couple days or weeks), then at the end of that time iOS pops up a "Purchase it now" message, or it gets disabled. Then we could sell our apps for the price they deserve to be, but still have people get a chance to know they are really worth it for them. Oh yeah, and the possibility for paid updates, why not.
Realistically, I guess I'd better make some more apps, eh?
@sonosaurus said:
I'd pay cash money for some more custom patches in Thumbjam as good as JR Zendrix. I think you might be missing the boat on that opportunity, but I also understand your decision to keep IAP's out of the app.
Trials are an amazing idea and would have meant that many of my cloud apps would have never been purchased. The only thing that makes me wonder is whether it will not be open to manipulation by hacking folk. Reminds me a bit of PC times where people downloaded trials from company's website and used a crack/keygen to make it work. Apple is a bit more sandboxed right?
Cracked versions of apps still abound, your device just needs to be jailbroken to use them. My policy (and I suspect many others) has been to simply ignore the existence of pirating, and trust that enough real customers are out there.
When an app is purchased, does the developer retain 70% of the cost the user pays? Would be nice if Apple would change that to an 80/20.
I have no idea how this would work, but is just a thought for a possibility to generate revenue/income for developers. I have an app called: --- Mobicip Safe Browser---
I think the app was free, or .99. In order to achieve full use of the features of the app, via their website. Like, blocking certain websites, certain search words, getting a site traffic report and other features, I paid $9.99 per device/year to make sure my kids are somewhat protected on my ipods, from internet poo.
While this is not much different than the $1.00 subscription initially mentioned, it is something related to the app, that is useful for me, that I purchase on the developers own website. They get the enitre $9.99 I pay, minus taxes and Child Support.
Like I said, I have no idea what would be motivating enough for music app users to pay an additional fee, either yearly, or once, not within the itunes store or app. Just, maybe there is something, that there could be to appeal to users? I know that apple is pretty restrictive with apps, so my guess is it would need to be directly related to the app, but not possible to have the additional "thing" be actually part of the music app.
Fascinating reading.
I totally get the aversion to subscriptions but it's also a little strange. How many of us pay for annual iCloud, Soundcloud and/or Dropbox subscriptions? Spotify? Beats? Netflix? Synthpatcher?
I think I would be pretty into paying $2/yr for an app I enjoy and be fairly assured of updates (at least keeping up with the OS) because they are essentially a requirement of the revenue model.
Very interesting discussion.
Rhism , I think that the present Guitarism is the FINISHED ARTICLE the next to perfect app IMO. I would opt for choice#3 ,a new app Guiatism 2-3 with minor updates each time,pay,if I think I need to or hang on to whatever version I have.---I think you should build a New app or apps,that suit you and earn some deserved bees any honey,good luck on your decision
Well, I guess I might as well pop in for a few thoughts, even though I probably shouldn't since I just woke up and it's 3AM and I have no business being in front of an ipad keyboard at the moment, but I digress.
1: make sure your app has an absolutely mind-blowing app demo video for this new capability in iOS 8. I am somewhat optimistic that this will bring more conversions, and more pressure for sifting good apps from poor ones, along with new search categories. I've been seriously pissed about this arbitrary Top 150 most popular per category cutoff Apple has imposed since the majority of popular apps are crap psychological ploys preying on well intentioned idiots. Oh man I shouldn't be typing now.
2: in your case, diversify immediately! Not only has GarageBand been a free acquisition for anyone who bought last years gen of devices, but hmm, I forgot the rest of my thought
.
Oh wait, that's right, but… you are totally missing out on the app market for guitarists!
"What the hell?" I can hear you thinking, "my app is called 'Guitarism' for goodness sake!"
But the thing is, in terms of the psychology of a guitarist, they will always believe that they want to play their actual guitar into their device than use an app that does it because they know they can't get all of the articulation they want from it.
Now, if you used your app as a foundation for a new app which shows a person "how to play" a guitar, that's a different story, as guitarists, being at the absolute bottom of the barrel of theory understanding because of the historical dominance of tablature seem to cling to the notion that they can learn theory with minimal thought or pain, which is a very stupid and shallow mentality to have, but is the state of things.
It is on you to recognize that psychological state and utilize it, because the way to make money on the appstore is to exploit people's psychology, to exploit those dreams!
It's not even about what they need, nor is it about what they want, it's about what they "think" they want, until they have it of course.
In this case, an educational app with great sounds (something that doesn't look like it functionally overlaps the free guitar in GarageBand).
That app market for guitarists is something you are clearly missing!
So, definitely think about how to repurpose your existing app into ones that meet different needs for different psychological states/rationals.
3: the one app, one IAP model is the most sustainable for apps that aren't games, in my opinion.
The bad part is, you really have to sell them in app (good visibility with quality/visually appealing promotion)
I personally think Audiobus has nailed it in this regard.
Two reasons for this, having one firewall to desirable advanced features prevents confusion for the user by reducing the pain for them for having to choose which feature to "try", second for the developer, if there are multiple feature based IAPs, the developer won't advance the least popular feature IAP, causing feature rot on something which could become more valuable with future development, but the dev psychologically convinces themself that the user doesn't want that feature and let's it rot, instead of developing it to its potential, while souring those who actually did purchase the app.
So, don't put yourself in the position of creating a psychology which artificially partitions your development based on "the market". Make one firewall where you can let your development continue without psychological bottlenecks.
4: once you hit your limit on what you are comfortable offering for that price (you may not ever really need to depending on how it goes), new version with the same setup, offering some features from the IAP in the previous version.
I should go back to sleep now… the end.
A couple more thoughts here. Suppose there's N people on iTunes, and they spend on average $X a month on apps. This average is not going to jump to 10X a month. The size of the "pie" is $NX, and that gets divided up by app developers each month.
The app market is a dynamic system. Where we are now (with the average total revenue from most apps at $5k) is because we have a low barrier to entry for developers, and lots of people trying to get a slice of the pie. If the average app made $100k a year, every person with any coding skill at all would become a developer, resulting in the pie getting sliced thinner, and the average getting brought down.
Every developer is trying all sorts of ways to get a little bit bigger slice, but we're still stuck with the same pie. If a method is effective in getting a bigger slice, tons of developers will also start using it, and things balance back out again.
IMO, for long-term, sustainable, family-and-normal-lifestyle-supporting income, app development is not it. There's simply not enough money coming in (due to the low barrier of entry), and things can change rapidly. Audiobus now has to deal with IAA pressure. My MIDI over Bluetooth app now has to deal with Apple's variant on the theme. Guitarism will have to deal with every other guitar-type app that comes along. If you've got a big slice of the pie, you can count on an army of developers to be coming after it.
Many music app users are amateur musicians, making music for themselves and friends because they enjoy doing it. There are tons of albums on Bandcamp; very few of them will ever make as much money as the average app. While I like making music, I spend more free time coding; I like doing it, it's interesting and challenging, and the app store is my "Bandcamp."
^^ well put @SecretBaseDesign
Another perspective is this: if there is enough value, people will pay more.
For example, I was more than happy to pay $50 for the Tonestack motherload, despite the competition from all the other amp sims, because the FX modelling was so good.
An even more extreme example is Auria, I paid $50 for the base app, and several hundred for the plugins, because they give you desktop-class performance and are streets ahead of the competition on iOS.
The Tonestack model seems a pretty good one, the app is relatively cheap and the IAPs, while more pricey, offer some very worthwhile functionality.
And now my 2 cents;
I think results of the survey here are going to be extremely biased. In your case (@Rhism), in a positive way through the dialog here on the AB forum.
I fall into the category of Hobby Musician. I do it for fun. Not saying that people won't pay money to have fun, and $1/yr would be acceptable (in your case I would probably be willing to pay more). In general I would not pay a subscription unless I know that I will definitely be using the app and therefore getting some fun and enjoyment out of it. The whole aversion to renting software thing.
@Rhism said:
Given the above example with no personal bias towards you, I would probably: not have purchased it for $20, would have probably purchased for $5, and might have tried the subscription for at least one year.
Given the personal bias I have towards you through the AB forums, I would probably do any of the 3 options listed above.
The previous posts cover most of the pros/cons. The ones most relevant to me are the number of music apps if this model is widely adopted and the price point the level out at for subscriptions.
The psychological aversion to subscriptions is something that will most likely change over time. As the younger generations grows up with it, they won't even know there was ever the possibility to BUY a piece of software that NEVER expired and didn't NEED an internet connection to run.
Were it possible, I'd prefer monthly subscriptions with micro-payments. Some like a set initial price with 3 months of usage and then $0.25/mo or something. I'd save a lot of money on apps I don't open regularly!
Requiring an internet connection to confirm the subscription each time the app was opened would be a deal breaker for me.
@syrupcore - What you're describing is more a pay per-use fee. Pay when needed/wanted and don't pay during the months you don't use it. That kind of defeats the idea behind a subscription (from a sellers point), low initial price and continued revenue. Stop the subscription and you start over (usually costing you more).
Pay-per-use sounds like renting. Now that's another idea
The solution is simple... Kill off all the other developers for a bigger slice of the pie...
Mmm apple pie
I would actually subcribe on a Monthly basis if the devloper had a road map for planned features. This seems like a fair deal, I help fund future development with no yearly subscriptions, cancel at any time. This should work if the funding pool was large enough where some cancelations would not sink the project. Charge full price at the store and send codes to your funders. Trust on both sides is paramount.
" ibeak for indy developers"
I wouldn't support apps that do yearly subscriptions. My reasons have been listed in previous comments above.
I imagine it is tough for developers, to feel like they aren't getting the amount of money they deserve. Honestly, I think a lot of developers don't take everything into consideration when it comes to pricing, or they underestimate the competition. Maybe it is unfair but you can't price out the app by the amount of time you spend on it.
I love IAP's and I hate them. Having one IAP that includes a bunch of features and updates at an affordable price is my favorite so far. Making every feature an IAP is not the way to go in my opinion. $10 for the app, but the IAP adds up more than the app itself and the app is crippled without these IAP's is something i experience too often. It puts a bad taste in my mouth.
Putting a price tag on the update? Better make it worth it. Spend a dollar or more for every single fx? Not me. Don't get me started on instruments/sample packs. want more presets? $1.99 for this pack and more for this other pack. No thanks. bundle these? maybe.. if it's affordable. Make a pro version and continuously make awesome updates. where's the donate button? You build a quality app that is useful and stands out at an affordable price, and keep updating it.. People will talk about it, word will get around.
Animoog stands out even though they rarely update. We all know how great that app is. What if they never included a simple feature such as save/import/export presets? That would cripple the hell out of it. I almost turned away the first time playing with it simply because of lack of presets. I didn't know how to make my own sounds yet, and the ones that came with it weren't horrible but they weren't amazing, and there was only a few. Build an amazing app but walk out on simple things like presets? Be careful with what you leave out and what you charge for. Those preset packs? I will never buy them, they don't add up to the price (least not for me). Other apps come out with updates that include updates like these for free. Would people talk more about animoog if they released presets for free? Maybe. I'd like to think so. It shows that they are at least somewhat active and let others see the potential of that app.
*note: I love Animoog and not trying to bash. Just want to give an example on a popular app to musicians.
Here is my $0.02 worth of opinion: I'm not a fan of subscriptions. I don't mind paying per version upgrade. I don't mind paying a large sum for upgrades forever (if the developer really does continue upgrading forever). The one thing that I see every year that concerns me, is that with each new iOS version, we all have to worry about all developers putting out compatibility updates. Will some developers abandon their apps and not make them compatible or will they keep things running? That question comes up every year. Here's what I'd like to see:
I would like to see a version upgrade per year. During the course of the year, a major feature gets released, along with incremental fixes throughout the year. When the next iOS version comes out, the new version of the app comes out, and we pay for it. I know this sounds like a subscription, but it really isn't. Here's why: If we decide not to upgrade to the new iOS version, and not move to the new app version, we don't have to pay any more money.....but, we'll be stuck on the iOS version and app version we have--but unlike a subscription, the functionality of the app doesn't die when we don't continue paying. Those with iPad2 systems with iOS7 wouldn't have to pay to upgrade to iOS 8 compatibility, and could stay with iOS7. Those with iPad Air systems could choose to upgrade to iOS8 and pay for the new version (with new functionality). When version 9 of iOS comes out, a new version of the app comes out, which makes the app compatible with iOS 8. etc., etc., etc.
In other words, in your given scenario:
"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."
I think the "$5 for a new app version every year (no major updates to older versions)" would be the best way to go. It is similar to a subscription, but unlike a subscription, the functionality of the app doesn't die when you stop forking over coin. :-)
On one hand, that makes sense, on the other, that would make iOS release a very expensive time of the year if you do want to keep up with all those purchases coming up together...
One difference between the subscriptions that a lot of us pay (dropbox, soundcloud...) for and @rhism's proposal: Almost all of them are using the freemium model. You get a certain amount of functionality for free and you can pay a subscription fee to upgrade. Thing is, from the creators point of view, freemium relies on scale. They need to sign up millions of customers so they can make money from the 4-10% who actually pay to upgrade. Music apps do not have that kind of reach.
@SecretBaseDesign said:
While I like making music, I spend more free time coding; I like doing it, it's interesting and challenging, and the app store is my "Bandcamp."
I like this.
Meaty discussion happening here
IMO this isn't really about devs making enough money or not. Some will make enough, most won't - that doesn't change. This is more about aligning incentives and maximizing value created in the system. The multi-IAP situation I described at the start lowers value for users AND developers, a lose-lose situation ripe for improvement.
@AQ808 I was hoping you'd jump in - your thoughts are always insightful! I agree with everything you said - especially wrt wannabe-guitarists and one paywall.
@Sebastian I knew you'd perk up at the topic
If a subscription model makes sense for any app at all, AB would be at the top of that list.
AB is actually the most-suited music app for a subscription model. Every active AB user gets immense value from it repeatedly over time. I don't know their revenue numbers but rank history tells me that AB2 made way less money than AB1. Granted that some of that is due to IAA competition but I suspect that's negligible. I suspect AB2 as a separate app would have done a lot better. And if subscription were consumer-palatable, that'd absolutely be the way to go for AB.
I've never written an iOS app so grain of salt here but it seems the apps with the clearest/cleanest IAP models were designed (i.e. product design, architecture and UI) from the outset with IAPs in mind. Additional content is an easy one. Gadgets in Gadget is an easy one. Plugins in Auria, easy. But by design, all of those types of IAPs live thematically within ever-expandable lists, so to speak, from the date of release. Auria was designed to allow mixer channels to be routed through N audio plugins. Adding plugins via IAP doesn't stress the product, architecture or UI. Korg Gadgets, same. Synth app presets, additional tracks in Nanostudio... same.
I think IAPs can add value for users. They certainly have for me. In the case of Guitarism, I would have been just as happy to buy Guitarism 2 "Now With Effects!" for $9.99.
The problem with concurrent IAPs + New App Occasionally models is that the IAPs are not transferable. If Auria released Auria 2 the forum would go down. No one has that much invested in Guitarism 1 but I would personally be bummed to buy previously purchased IAPs again at the same price.
@Audiojunkie I think that what amounts to an annual subscription for every single music app you own (it is that, whatever you say) isn't a very well thought-out idea. Think about it - under your plans, if you upgraded to iOS8 now, you wouldn't be able to pick and choose which apps you paid for new versions, you'd have to upgrade every single one in order to continue using it. So if you had $300 worth of apps on your device, you'd have to pay out $300 in order to continue to use all of them. That's ridiculous. $50 per year for Cubasis, $50 per year for Auria, for example.
And if you didn't upgrade, you wouldn't be able to use any new music apps that are only compatible with iOS8 (which will inevitably come). You wouldn't be able to use new iOS8 features on your iDevice - which considering that new iOS versions are free updates and can add significant functionality, is silly. You'd also be forcing developers to support legacy operating systems while adding iOS8 features, which would make their development pathway more fiddly and difficult.
All in all, it wouldn't work for the customer's benefit and I don't think developers would like it either.
Personally I'm in favour of heavily updated versions of apps being separate apps (as long as the original app wasn't over $20). So rather than Guitarism receiving a major update incorporating IAPs and new functionality, I would like to see that released as a separate app so that Rhism can get more money. I'm not talking about small incremental updates here, I'm talking the game-changers. Then anyone can happily continue using the original Guitarism if they want to, while people who want the upgrade can pay for a new app. When the outlay isn't expensive, I don't think this is unreasonable. Obviously, if Auria adds MIDI and comes out as Auria 2 at $50, I wouldn't support that. But I think that the current method of IAPs isn't a reliable enough revenue stream to fund further development of our favourite apps.
Further to the above, I think that Apple should offer some kind of upgrade pricing, so that owners of an original app could get a discount for its sequel if the developer wishes. Perhaps introducing bundles is a step along the road towards this. The current App Store model is way too restrictive.
i like the idea of subscription.but i bought a shit load of music apps.
i use about 20 now. $20 a year ?
ok:)
theres no harm giving ppl the option.have both models.let ppl decide what one they want.
as a thought,you could offer the subscription model inside AB....??..just add another link on the compatible apps page,..one that coukd direct you to a devs subscription page.
is that allowed?
30 day free trail and yearly subscription could work but id be putting less money into the industry as i feel only a handful of apps would be worth subscribing to.
Over on Discchord, Bianca noted that the "complete my bundle" thing could be used for paid upgrades. Just create a bundle with the old and new versions of the app, and then a customer can get a modestly priced upgrade if they bought the early version.
As a bonus if the final version of the old app marked the boundary of ios versions ie iphone 4 can't upgrade to ios 8 ipad 1 got stuck at 5.something then there might still be a market for the old versions as well