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.

«1345678

Comments

  • Mostly likely a a bunch of 'Android Fanboys' (Paid By Google) who got p*ssed :sunglasses:

  • @Samu said:
    Mostly likely a a bunch of 'Android Fanboys' (Paid By Google) who got p*ssed :sunglasses:

    😂

  • According to CNN
    "Among other things, the DOJ says Apple has used its control over iOS, the iPhone operating system, to block innovative new apps and cloud streaming services from the public; degrade how Android messages appear on iPhones; restrict how competing smartwatches can work with iPhones; and hinder rival payment solutions."

  • edited March 21

    @Samu said:
    Mostly likely a a bunch of 'Android Fanboys' (Paid By Google) who got p*ssed :sunglasses:

    Since politicians only jump to attention when there's money or political advantage involved, the simplest answer seems to be the most likely one.

    It's strange Apple has yet to learn how to play this game of corruption and political manipulation in their favor. There are only two outcomes when politicians stick their noses into any matter: You either become the steamroller or you get steamrolled.

  • @MadeofWax said:
    According to CNN
    "Among other things, the DOJ says Apple has used its control over iOS, the iPhone operating system, to block innovative new apps and cloud streaming services from the public; degrade how Android messages appear on iPhones; restrict how competing smartwatches can work with iPhones; and hinder rival payment solutions."

    The media is just a corporate shill. This is all to distract from headphonejackgate.

  • What DOJ here fails to realize that no one is 'forced' to buy anything, they buy the stuff out of their own free will...
    ...sure the prices could be lower but that goes for 'everything'.

    So this is more or less a 'paid lawsuit' sponsored by butt-hurt 'competing' companies.

    Looking back, Spotify would not even exist today if it wasn't for Apple and Google and yet they complain like cry-babies...

  • I didn’t realise they had such a market share in UK and US.
    I think they’re guilty as sin 🤣🤘

  • @Samu said:
    What DOJ here fails to realize that no one is 'forced' to buy anything, they buy the stuff out of their own free will...
    ...sure the prices could be lower but that goes for 'everything'.

    So this is more or less a 'paid lawsuit' sponsored by butt-hurt 'competing' companies.

    Looking back, Spotify would not even exist today if it wasn't for Apple and Google and yet they complain like cry-babies...

    Well said. Apple better learn how to lobby better.

  • Any lost profits will be compensated by higher prices 😃 well at least I can now use Google Pay on my iPhone 😂

  • wimwim
    edited March 21

    We'll all be too old to care by the time it finishes litigating. Lawyers will get rich and politician pockets will get lined. And we still won't have headphone jacks.

  • @Samu said:
    What DOJ here fails to realize that no one is 'forced' to buy anything, they buy the stuff out of their own free will...

    That’s irrelevant but illustrates the situation very well. Monopolies compromises choice, or free will if you prefer.
    Also Stifling innovation and competition is against the principles of the markets they are operating in.

    I still buy it myself because it’s a better product. But stifling innovation is very bad for us… with my free will I can’t even choose the better products because they were stifled and don’t exist 😉

  • @A_Fox said:

    @Samu said:
    What DOJ here fails to realize that no one is 'forced' to buy anything, they buy the stuff out of their own free will...

    That’s irrelevant

    How is it irrelevant when anyone can go buy an Android phone from a number of different companies?

    I can’t think of any action by Apple that has prevented anyone from buying whatever brand of phone they want.

  • @A_Fox said:

    I still buy it myself because it’s a better product. But stifling innovation is very bad for us… with my free will I can’t even choose the better products because they were stifled and don’t exist 😉

    Ditto! I mean the 'competition' has had plenty of years to try and improve their 'platform' and make it viable for developers to do for example low-latency music apps for but they have failed miserably in doing so...

  • @A_Fox said:

    @Samu said:
    What DOJ here fails to realize that no one is 'forced' to buy anything, they buy the stuff out of their own free will...

    That’s irrelevant but illustrates the situation very well. Monopolies compromises choice, or free will if you prefer.
    Also Stifling innovation and competition is against the principles of the markets they are operating in.

    I still buy it myself because it’s a better product. But stifling innovation is very bad for us… with my free will I can’t even choose the better products because they were stifled and don’t exist 😉

    Know how monopolies form? When government interferes in free markets to “protect” a special interest which is paying off the lawmakers. All historical monopolies demonstrate this.

  • Thanks God those feckless Bolsheviks managed to solve all the other problems they’ve caused (illegal invasion, insane inflation, weaponized DOJ, etc) and focus on something this “important”.😠

  • @Samu said:

    @A_Fox said:

    I still buy it myself because it’s a better product. But stifling innovation is very bad for us… with my free will I can’t even choose the better products because they were stifled and don’t exist 😉

    Ditto! I mean the 'competition' has had plenty of years to try and improve their 'platform' and make it viable for developers to do for example low-latency music apps for but they have failed miserably in doing so...

    Yes, personally I am very surprised the open source movement never won… I guess it’s cos they never made big money to reinvest. Which kinda shows more flaws in liberal ideas and economics. It’s that old saying… cash is king.

  • @NeuM said:
    Since politicians only jump to attention when there's money or political advantage involved

    Nailed. That should be part of the dictionary definition.

  • @NeuM said:

    @A_Fox said:

    @Samu said:
    What DOJ here fails to realize that no one is 'forced' to buy anything, they buy the stuff out of their own free will...

    That’s irrelevant but illustrates the situation very well. Monopolies compromises choice, or free will if you prefer.
    Also Stifling innovation and competition is against the principles of the markets they are operating in.

    I still buy it myself because it’s a better product. But stifling innovation is very bad for us… with my free will I can’t even choose the better products because they were stifled and don’t exist 😉

    Know how monopolies form? When government interferes in free markets to “protect” a special interest which is paying off the lawmakers. All historical monopolies demonstrate this.

    They can happen like that. I’m not sure it’s possible to have a true free market. I’m not sure all monopolies happen due to government interference either. In fact, there’s never been a capitalism without a government enforcing it either.
    But I’d be silly not agreeing with you that plenty of politicians are corrupt and act upon the interests of the wealthy - we wouldn’t even have capitalism if that had not happened.
    Much of Apples tech (and everyone else’s) came about due to the military industrial complex anyhow. Government money invested in developing silicon chips, Cold War, space race etc. GPS system… for nukes. All the microwave Electronic communications… it was not private individuals that did this.

  • edited March 21

    @michael_m said:

    @A_Fox said:

    @Samu said:
    What DOJ here fails to realize that no one is 'forced' to buy anything, they buy the stuff out of their own free will...

    That’s irrelevant

    How is it irrelevant when anyone can go buy an Android phone from a number of different companies?

    I can’t think of any action by Apple that has prevented anyone from buying whatever brand of phone they want.

    The law is what is relevant. The law is to try and prevent monopolies using their… umm… monopoly to stifle innovation and competition. A attempt to maintain the Principles of a free market. Because a capitalist free market does not exist and is very unlikely too. It’s a philosophy, a pipe dream and it is only regulation that allows us to pretend we have something near it.
    How can you enforce property rights without an authority backed up by a legal use of force?
    It risks ending up with a privately owned monopoly on violence.

  • Being given a predetermined, but limited number of choices does not mean free will.

  • Stifling> @A_Fox said:

    Being given a predetermined, but limited number of choices does not mean free will.

    Edit: it’s also irrelevant still, to wether a company has broke the law or not. Stifling competition and innovation is against the principles of the regulated markets they are operating in.

  • @A_Fox said:
    Being given a predetermined, but limited number of choices does not mean free will.

    You can always build your own phone from a Raspberry Pi 😂

  • @SevenSystems said:

    @A_Fox said:
    Being given a predetermined, but limited number of choices does not mean free will.

    You can always build your own phone from a Raspberry Pi 😂

    😂😂😂 I’m using my raspberry Pi running my own brand new crypto currency server to start a true free market currency, to give us true freedom 😉

  • edited March 21

    @A_Fox said:

    @SevenSystems said:

    @A_Fox said:
    Being given a predetermined, but limited number of choices does not mean free will.

    You can always build your own phone from a Raspberry Pi 😂

    😂😂😂 I’m using my raspberry Pi running my own brand new crypto currency server to start a true free market currency, to give us true freedom 😉

    That's laudable! 😄 seriously though... I'm all for freedom (of choice and in general) -- I mean, I run Debian Linux as my main desktop operating system. It doesn't get weirder and more "communist" than that 😁

  • @SevenSystems said:

    @A_Fox said:

    @SevenSystems said:

    @A_Fox said:
    Being given a predetermined, but limited number of choices does not mean free will.

    You can always build your own phone from a Raspberry Pi 😂

    😂😂😂 I’m using my raspberry Pi running my own brand new crypto currency server to start a true free market currency, to give us true freedom 😉

    That's laudable! 😄 seriously though... I'm all for freedom (of choice and in general) -- I mean, I run Debian Linux as my main desktop operating system. It doesn't get weirder and more "communist" than that 😁

    i first used Linux and Jack around 25 years ago, although it was unstable, I’m genuinely surprised it never took over, because.. you could route audio how you wanted to. I’m no expert but I compiled Ardour? I think it was along with the steinberg Sdk to run Linux VSTs.. certainly over 15 years ago. Renoise on Linux was quite a treat though! But I’ve got a Mac now 😂🙈 My free will was greatly compromised by proprietary printer profiles.

  • @A_Fox said:

    @michael_m said:

    @A_Fox said:

    @Samu said:
    What DOJ here fails to realize that no one is 'forced' to buy anything, they buy the stuff out of their own free will...

    That’s irrelevant

    How is it irrelevant when anyone can go buy an Android phone from a number of different companies?

    I can’t think of any action by Apple that has prevented anyone from buying whatever brand of phone they want.

    The law is what is relevant. The law is to try and prevent monopolies using their… umm… monopoly to stifle innovation and competition. A attempt to maintain the Principles of a free market. Because a capitalist free market does not exist and is very unlikely too. It’s a philosophy, a pipe dream and it is only regulation that allows us to pretend we have something near it.
    How can you enforce property rights without an authority backed up by a legal use of force?
    It risks ending up with a privately owned monopoly on violence.

    Which law are you referring to that made Apple culpable for people buying an iPhone over an Android phone?

  • I can't fathom this litigation being successful. Good political theatre I suppose though.

  • @michael_m said:

    @A_Fox said:

    @michael_m said:

    @A_Fox said:

    @Samu said:
    What DOJ here fails to realize that no one is 'forced' to buy anything, they buy the stuff out of their own free will...

    That’s irrelevant

    How is it irrelevant when anyone can go buy an Android phone from a number of different companies?

    I can’t think of any action by Apple that has prevented anyone from buying whatever brand of phone they want.

    The law is what is relevant. The law is to try and prevent monopolies using their… umm… monopoly to stifle innovation and competition. A attempt to maintain the Principles of a free market. Because a capitalist free market does not exist and is very unlikely too. It’s a philosophy, a pipe dream and it is only regulation that allows us to pretend we have something near it.
    How can you enforce property rights without an authority backed up by a legal use of force?
    It risks ending up with a privately owned monopoly on violence.

    Which law are you referring to that made Apple culpable for people buying an iPhone over an Android phone?

    What legal case are you even talking about?
    This DOJ case is not even about consumers being coerced into buying an iPhone. It’s about stifling innovation and competition.
    I bought my iPhone, ipads and mac… Its good points outweighed the bad points for me. But that does not mean the bad points are legal. In fact, plenty of consumers would be happy if they could buy illegal things, dangerous things, excessively polluting things etc. As many people are reckless, happily oblivious to the consequences of their actions, (peak individualist liberalism really) regulations are easily justified in this era.
    I’m not saying I agree with the status quo either.

    Apple is protected by the regulations of the markets it operates in, thus it has to abide by the rules, it really is not a one sided unfair thing. Apple patented a rectangle with rounded corners, as an example. If anyone breaches Apples interests… its very costly, due to the legal system.

    You can’t pick and choose from the regulations.

  • edited March 21

    @A_Fox said:

    @michael_m said:

    @A_Fox said:

    @michael_m said:

    @A_Fox said:

    @Samu said:
    What DOJ here fails to realize that no one is 'forced' to buy anything, they buy the stuff out of their own free will...

    That’s irrelevant

    How is it irrelevant when anyone can go buy an Android phone from a number of different companies?

    I can’t think of any action by Apple that has prevented anyone from buying whatever brand of phone they want.

    The law is what is relevant. The law is to try and prevent monopolies using their… umm… monopoly to stifle innovation and competition. A attempt to maintain the Principles of a free market. Because a capitalist free market does not exist and is very unlikely too. It’s a philosophy, a pipe dream and it is only regulation that allows us to pretend we have something near it.
    How can you enforce property rights without an authority backed up by a legal use of force?
    It risks ending up with a privately owned monopoly on violence.

    Which law are you referring to that made Apple culpable for people buying an iPhone over an Android phone?

    What legal case are you even talking about?
    This DOJ case is not even about consumers being coerced into buying an iPhone. It’s about stifling innovation and competition.
    I bought my iPhone, ipads and mac… Its good points outweighed the bad points for me. But that does not mean the bad points are legal. In fact, plenty of consumers would be happy if they could buy illegal things, dangerous things, excessively polluting things etc. As many people are reckless, happily oblivious to the consequences of their actions, (peak individualist liberalism really) regulations are easily justified in this era.
    I’m not saying I agree with the status quo either.

    Apple is protected by the regulations of the markets it operates in, thus it has to abide by the rules, it really is not a one sided unfair thing. Apple patented a rectangle with rounded corners, as an example. If anyone breaches Apples interests… its very costly, due to the legal system.

    You can’t pick and choose from the regulations.

    Apple was never given a patent for a "rectangle with rounded corners" and you can see this for yourself: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/D672769

Sign In or Register to comment.