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
Sorry about that! It's an Apple bug. Just reinstall Audulus and it should work.
I'm hoping my updates keep going about as frequently as previously:
👍
I personally don't go for subscriptions for music apps. But I really don't understand why people get so worked up about this topic.
No iOS music app is an essential. Other than FOMO, there's nothing pressuring anyone to buy a music app. A subscription is either worth it or not to an individual. People will vote with their wallets. Markets will follow. Pretty simple to me. 🤷🏼♂️
(Disclaimer: I'm not judging anyone getting worked up about it and I'm not trying to discourage anyone from saying so. I'm genuinely interested in understanding what provokes that level of emotional reaction when it comes to music apps.)
Only subscription I do is for DJay Pro app, and so far it’s working out pretty good.
I said to myself I would pay for a yearly sub until ivE paid as much as buying Serato and see how it goes
The price has to be low eNough, and the updates often enough
I hate to reply to a wall of text, but "rentier capitalism" is defined as "the economic practice of gaining large profits without contributing to society. A rentier is someone who earns income from capital without working."
Is this what you honestly think? You think these developers are trying to earn their income without working?
Taylor has confirmed that even if you aren’t subscribed, you can open and use Audulus patches.
So then, you could subscribe for a month, create patches to you heart's content, unsubscribe, and use all your patches until you needed to edit them or make more then. Interesting.
In my case, that would be a very economic model, as I probably would only develop patches very sporadically. No matter as I have no compatible devices anyway. 😂
Even if you aren't subscribed you can build entire patches using the modules in the Module Library. So for free you get a very powerful tool. The subscription is mostly for power-users who want to build custom modules.
That's very generous.
Generous and reasonable
Can the free version be used as an AUV3 though? I have the full unlock so can’t confirm, just asking for other people who may be wondering.
I agree that subscriptions suck and the current system sucks and capitalism sucks but at the end of the day there are powers that be that are FAR above iOS developers that are the root cause for this and why people need to seek alternatives to make a living. It seems a bit misguided to be that angry at a developer just trying to get by when people 500 stories above them are pulling the strings and ruining us all in a class war.
Lizard People. Of course! Why did I not see this earlier?
That's not what he's saying, if I understood correctly. In the academic article he linked to above by Sadowski, which is what lays out the thesis of subscription models as a form of rentier capitalism, the focus is on the way the platforms extract value from their position in the digital ecosystem. Developers who opt for the subscription route are participants within the platform's structure, it is mainly Apple which is doing the exploiting and which has the most to gain. The article is worth a skim, imo, even if people don't have time for a deep read. I'll take a deeper look at it, this topic is interesting to me and I think there is likely at least some truth to it.
Also, just to pre-empt one possible reply, he is not saying that Apple engaging in rentier capitalist practises means that Apple is contributing nothing to society as a whole, as a company. The rentier accusation is only directed at the appstore aspect of Apple's business, from what I understand.
Can the discussion of subscriptions maybe move into a thread of its own since it has turned into a discussion about subscriptions generally.
Ironically, it costs $12 to have 48 hrs of access to that article. $50 for the PDF!
Audulus Pro is a steal by comparison
But, if a dev sets up a subscription > @Taylor said:
Touché 😂
Forgot, btw, to attach this link, which is freely accessible, at least where I'm located:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3544976
Having to pay for information is way more dystopian lol
Ok I skimmed the article, which identifies three mechanisms of "Rentier Platforms"
I searched for a mention in the paper of synth apps and didn't find anything.
So there, you can subscribe to Audulus Pro without worrying about contributing to "Rentier Capitalism"! Enjoy!
Taylor, you missed the point of the article entirely, though, because it is not criticising devs. It is also not about the app store or apps specifically, but about a broader issue. It is about platforms, like Apple, and these platforms' motivations for promotibg subscription models. I already provided a summary of the main points from the article, as pertaining to the context of being a critique of platforms, above, btw. Cheers
Pasting it in here again for your convenience @Taylor. Again, this only refers to the Appstore in its function as a platform, it is not a criticism of the entire Apple corporation, product line etc, and is general rather than speaking about Apple directly:
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:
Capital Convergence
Platform real estate companies facilitate investment into physical property in order to gain fees from mediating financial and rental housing markets.
This links the interests of digital platforms and real estate capital, allowing both to benefit from shared data, infrastructure, and rent extraction.
For example, companies like Airbnb, WeWork, and real estate investment platforms gain income from property transactions while also asserting influence over housing access and pricing.
Digital Enclosure
Platforms use licensing agreements and digital rights management to exert ownership over software and data from Internet-connected devices.
This allows continual rent extraction from physical objects even after point of initial sale. It creates an asymmetry where platforms have outsized control.
An example is John Deere controlling tractor software to charge farmers for repairs and modifications, illustrating enclosure of agricultural machinery.
Data Extraction
Platforms engage in mass data collection for internal use and external sale, much like mining natural resources.
While data's value is uncertain, belief in its value and need for extraction volumes is certain, fueling expansion of data rentier regimes.
Data extraction links with broader dynamics like exploitation of labor needed for data production, dispossession as communities lose data rights, and the power to influence governance due to control over data flows.
@Gavinski those are all good points, but I just don't see why you would want to bring it up in front of some indie devs.
Maybe start a new thread instead?
I'm clarifying some points Bruques made in this thread that seem to have been repeatedly misunderstood, so this was a good place to address them. But I agree, probably better if Bruques starts a new thread to discuss all this, that's up to him of course. If people continue to address my points here, I will continue to address the here, otherwise I won't continue. Cheers ☕
I'm not sure what is unusual about entities trying new and at times devious ways to extract money from others. That's the basic dynamic that has been going on since men started trading acorns for mammoth steaks. Corporations can drool all they want over the prospect of huge returns by manipulating people in new ways to part with their money, but at the end of the day people will catch on and walk away, or someone else will capture their customers by offering a better alternative. This is just another story arc in the same old soap opera.
That’s simply not always true. Often, maybe, but there are more than a solid chunk of people (in the US anyway) that are not very financially literate and those are the types of people that can’t/don’t walk away because they often don’t realize they’re being had or if they do it’s too late. Its the same reason scam callers are still able to make money. If it was that simple there would be no scammers.
Of course there are people like that - always have been. It's true in a general sense though and it is nothing new, just a variation on an age old theme. If a model doesn't provide enough value markets will dry up or competition will enter with a better alternative. Not something I'm interested in debating though. It simply isn't important to me. I've already "voted with my wallet".