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.
Audulus now subscription
I've succumbed to two subscriptions, but I hate that I did and I hate subscriptions. I think they're evil. Mild evil, but evil nonetheless. Extractive rentier capitalist wackness.
Audulus is now subscription. Sad emoji.
Comments
Hmmm... I also dislike subscriptions personally.
That said, I know the guy who makes Audulus. Certainly not someone I feel has evil capitalist intentions. Audulus is a passion project for him, but I reckon it has such a niche audience that one-time purchases make the entire endeavour unsustainable for him and going sub may be his way to try to keep it going.
At least I no longer need to regret that my iPad can't run the needed iOS version now. While I wouldn't use something like this under a subscription model myself, I do hope it's successful for the developer.
Yeah I know, when I describe as such I'm not describing the person or persons as evil, rather the model.
And I do think it's a shame, I hadn't actually gotten around to buying but I love that it exists, and it's on my list of next things, and was creeping towards the top as I ticked off others. I may curmudgeoningly get a sub for a year to support and cancel later out of contradictory principle of hating it. The fact that we have available to us such a thing, a la Max or PD is absolutely incredible, I suspect he's just years ahead of his time, and we're a few years away from music schools and universities and thus students adopting iOS / iPadOS as platform. I hope a non-sub model can be introduced alongside.
I already shared my thoughts in the other thread. It’s hard. How can we express thoughts about the new payment method without negatively affecting the general image of this product? On the one hand, you are helping developers to know what the public opinion is; on the other, you are doing harm if you do not like the change.
Yes, I feel torn here - I do wish the developer all the best, but I’m not going to be paying for any software with a subscription.
sorry, but i still don't understand this
i mean the in app purchases
Audulus now deleted
Me neither. What’s the difference between the ordinary version and Pro?
I’ve not tried this, though it was kinda on my list, but I though the Patch Editing IAP was Pro?
Well, that's why there's MiRack.
Sorry @Audulus_Mark but I'm not biting on this subscription.
Maybe purchase is still there after all? Promising signal maybe?
I personally don’t like subscription software but it is clear that the existing model doesn’t work for complex apps that have ongoing development and expanding feature sets and that are time-consuming to develop.
So some developers are going to see if something else can make continuing to work on their apps viable…rather than stop developing them. A number of great developers have stopped developing their apps because they aren’t able to earn a reasonable living.
The notion that subscription is inherently an evil capital extraction mechanism is over the top. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t that at all.
Most people here probably earn their money via that model under a different name … one expects to get paid for ongoing work. Your employer probably doesn’t buy you outright for a single lump sum for perpetuity.
Some small developers are trying out subscription because outright app purchase has not been financially tenable for them. And the App Store doesn’t have a built in mechanism for the subscription-ish desktop development model most are used to (periodic paid upgrades)
Someone said ”he should have at least tried the Loopy model”.
Maybe, he considered it and determined that the cost of developing the infrastructure to do it was greater than the benefit. It isn’t a trivial exercise to develop the infrastructure to make that model work. And Audulus’ potential market is small.
Before you say “they should have done x….” , consider the likelihood that they have spoken to other developers and looked at their numbers and have good reason to believe “x” would not make a difference.
They are trying to find ways to be able to make some kind of living …and the old way wasn’t working….so they are trying to see if something else works. They aren’t all money grubbing oligarchs who have been doing well financially and are trying to earn even more.
This is a matter of opinion, a matter of worldview. According to my ethics, my ontology my worldview, subscriptions are exactly rentier capitalism, and mild, normalized, insidiousness. You disagree as is your perogative, but I'm not wrong.
Along the lines of:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/anti.12595
...thus normalized for everyone else and how we view each other.
(I prefer Ron Eglash's Generative Justice, Lessig etc.)
If subscription turns out to be viable for the app for the developer to earn something like a living while the old model wasn’t viable, you’d prefer to see the app abandoned?
I don't think so - doesn’t the appstore under IAPs also show previously available IAPs that are no longer available? One easy way to find out - download the updated free version of the app and see whether it only offers you subscriptions, or still offers a paid unlock. Seems pretty clear from the dev’s announcement that it no longer offers unlock, only subs, but that those who bought an unlock before will have access forever.
I can understand why they have gone sub btw, even if I don’t like subs…massive amount of work, super niche app.
Worth mentioning is that I think you can still use the app if not subscribed but you don’t have access to patch editing. I think you can still use projects you created in the past and those created by others.
Maybe someone that doesn’t have it unlocked can confirm?
Like Audulus 1, 2 and 3 were abandoned? I’d say different paid iterations with new features added has worked for many developers too. Subscriptions sometimes work, sometimes though, they feel like you’ll own nothing and be happy.
I was about to respond to spiegel's straw man argument but you at least made the point I might have anyway so I'll say nothing.
Straw man argument? You two might consider the possibility that the developer has found the model to no longer be sustainable...and that the developer has more information than you do about whether the revenue he is earning is sufficient.
So many indie developers have been frank about the difficulty of earning a living coding music apps sold through the app store that maybe you should consider the possibility that they are telling the truth, not idiots, and trying to figure out a way of making it work.
As for Audulus 1,2,3....as the app store gets more crowded. it is more challenging to earn the returns that a developer made in earlier years.
update downloaded...
audulus black screen
ipad restartet
audulus black screen
hmmmm...?
ipad6
I know a couple of people who have been in sales their entire lives, and some years ago I was having conversations with both of them about the growth of selling subscriptions rather than outright ownership, as they were both attending seminars and reading literature on it.
So much of the education they received (mostly mandated by their companies) pushed two things:
Subscriptions increase profits with the incidental benefit that people are sometimes paying for a product or service that doesn’t have to be delivered
Subscription generally benefits the seller with no benefit to the buyer or higher costs passed on to the buyer. Communication strategies that extol false benefits for the buyer were generally part of that education
OK, so two examples don’t prove that subscriptions are ‘evil’, but the fact that there are companies that provided that education (and for all I know maybe they still do) adds to my poor opinion of subscriptions in general.
Some people have had to backup their projects and reinstall. I didn't have this problem with this update (also on an iPad 6) but it happened to me once earlier and i was able to solve it by tapping on the three dots at the top of the screen (the dots that give the slide over and split screen options) and choose new window which became visible at the bottom of the screen.
Some companies abusing subscriptions to squeeze profits out of people doesn't equate to "subscriptions are always evil and done for unscrupulous reasons" any more than price-gouging of one-time sales can be equated with one-time purchases being inherently about price-gouging.
Look, I balk at subscriptions, too, but it is unfair to treat all people adopting subscriptions as having bad motives. Sometimes, it is people with good motives trying to figure out how to get paid reasonably for their work because the current model isn't working.
I agree, and that’s why I said that my examples don’t prove that subscriptions are evil, and did say that my poor opinion of subscriptions is my own.
No one is treating them as having bad motives. Stop mischaracterizing what was said. I already posted exactly why it is rentier capitalism, and it's very easy to show the logic concerning why rentier capitalism is exploitative. When I write that rentier capitalism is evil, or is an evil, and that the logic is insidious I'm not at any point saying that a particular person who doesn't agree with me and sees no problem with it is evil.
You don't agree, fine, stop trying to bludgeon people with a different perspective.
What you earlier did by absolute definition is reply with a straw man argument. You're response to me or in fact anyone with my leaning perspective on rentier capitalism and the connection of that to software on subscription (and everything else in the modern era if we accept this model, water, air, shoes, underpants, feelings, whatever), is, suggest that that leads everyone to not be able to have a livelihood, and they will abandon their enterprises. IE you took an extreme and unreasonable position that by denying subscriptions I deprive the developer of a sustainable model. So you've narrowed all other options, and tried to make it appear that the opposite of subscriptions is abandonware.
Further, and I'll be extremely clear because this irks me, at an underlying level I'm irritated that you think you have to police my beliefs or anyone else's. There's an unacknowledged arrogance that underpins someone wanting to tell anyone else that their views on the world are wrong. Frankly just stop it. You think subscriptions are fine. I do not, fundamentally so, and I provided a very rigorous example of published research that explains this position far better than I can when in an irritated mood on a forum. Really. Stop it. Bef to differ. Disagree. But stop it. I believe that subscriptions impoverish all of us. The developers included. They lock developers in to a logic of being both rentier capitalist landlord of software, and simultaneosly labourer working for the platform that if they don't keep up on new features they lose out on their income, invisibly they work for the platforms, just a step up from an influencer populating social media with UGC in that respect. We are all poorer as a result. Ron Eglash's concept of generative justice would have it that we should be generating value at every turn, and for sure, whomsoever does the work should profit from it. But extraction models are to people like me, just wrong.
You don't agree. Cool. Carry on not agreeing.
The opening statement that approximates to, subscriptions are evil, is obviously my personal view on the subject. You think it's over the top. I don't. And then?
Is there an institutional app subscription model for ios apps? If a company or school wants to buy a license for all their students to have the app for classes?
Years ago a google branch wanted access for all their employees to a local hackerspace by paying a flat rate per month. But they waned a discounted rate, when we expected them to pay a premium since they were a company.
If an app has a corporate offer that would be x100 more lucrative and sustainable being subscription based.. it would be impossible to ignore that opportunity i think.
(I own audulus 4 but never use it. Like most of my apps, if there are no obvious presets to get me started in an aum session,, i lose interest)
🍻 cheers!
I think you make some very valid points here, and I can empathize on how irritating it can feel to be excessively policed.
I find the idea that big companies would hoodwink devs (or influencers) that they are acting in their own best interest while ultimately they are acting mostly in the interests of the platform, and perhaps against their own interests, very plausible.
Would this summary of some main points seem accurate to you?:
Platforms exemplify an evolution of rentier capitalism by devising novel socio-technical systems to expand and control resource access in order to persistently extract monetary and data rents across economic domains.
Platforms exert control and ownership over digital infrastructure and access in a similar way to how landlords control access to land or property. Platforms gain income simply from their intermediary position rather than directly producing value.
The "X-as-a-service" business model is centered on inserting platforms as gatekeepers and rent collectors. By turning activities into services, platforms make themselves a necessary part of the transaction and production process. They then charge for access to that service.
Platforms capture both monetary rents and data rents. Monetary rents refer to the fees they charge for use of their infrastructure or service. Data rents refer to the value they extract from the data about user behaviors, preferences and actions on their platforms. They utilize this data for targeted advertising, product improvements, and new data-based services.
Their position gives platforms outsized controlling power over access, terms of service, and pricing. This resembles how landlords can assert terms over tenants. Platforms leverage this to pursue rent maximization, competitor dominance, and expansion into numerous economic sectors.
While critics frame platforms as disruptive or a regression to feudal models, the author argues they exemplify an expansion and evolution of rentier capitalism. Their novel methods and reliance on digital infrastructure should not distract from recognizing their rentier function in restricting access to extract income and data.
Three key mechanisms that platforms utilize to function as rentiers:
I am fine with reasonably priced subscriptions as long as the app is maintained and updated regularly. I will wait and see if that is the case before making any judgment.