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
True, but NeuM really should not be saying that Super App = Social Credit Score system. That's too much of a jump. Sure though, we always need to keep alert to govt monitoring - and to corporate monitoring and their use of our data.
I do trust Apple more than Meta or X, yes, on that we agree. I do however think the general point remains valid that Apple are not to be fully trusted. Let's see how the case pans out. I definitely also need to read more on the nitty gritty of all this to have a more informed opinion, and I'm sure the same could be said for many or even most ABF pundits in this thread 😂
Nope, it really is not a case that anyone can jailbreak IOS. There are plenty of wonky apps on the appstore too. Games that are not as depicted, games that run an advert every 5 seconds. Games that barely, but still manage to show adverts.
There are IOS updates and MacOS updates that regularly stop software from working 🤣🙈
But Apples quality strategy is also not a “get out of jail card” for breaking rules.
The social credit system in the West is your organic reach, assuming that everybody will depend on this in one way or another in the future have at least a side gig going on in some way.
It's already happening on YT, Search, X, FB/Insta, algorithms and now "manual action" controls your reach and this means traffic and money.
I agree with you regarding the platform tactics, switching cost etc. but that's Startup business 101 really. Every startup focuses on that and wants to avoid "churn" by any means they can get away with.
Social media and communication apps lock you in through their ubiquity which they have built as first movers in their domain causing network effects at some point where all your friends are using it. Once they get in with their "super apps" they'll just exploit their first mover advantage and create addons replacing those apps you use for your day to day on your phone or tablet.
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,
A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.
A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.
And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.
For shits and giggles, but also for an objective and dispassioned assessment of this discussion so far, I fed the entire thread into ClaudeAI (Opus, currently considered better than GPT 4 on most benchmarks), asking it to assess how informed and persuasive the various commenters seemed to it. This was its verdict 😂:
Based on my review of the forum discussion, here are some key observations on which commenters make more informed and convincing arguments:
Gavinski provides a thoughtful, nuanced perspective, acknowledging that the core issue is not whether Apple is technically a monopoly, but rather the potentially anti-competitive practices they are accused of engaging in. Gavinski rightly points out these practices, if proven true, could stifle innovation and harm consumers even if people aren't directly prevented from buying Android phones. Gavinski also acknowledges the philosophical debate around free will and recognizes that fully free markets don't really exist in practice.
Deskscape shares an insightful excerpt analyzing how Apple's policies against "super apps" may be aimed at keeping users locked into the iOS ecosystem by making it harder to switch to Android and maintain the same app experiences. This provides important context for why the DOJ is scrutinizing Apple's practices.
A_Fox makes the valid point that Apple's quality control and security rationale doesn't necessarily give them a blank check to engage in any behavior. A_Fox pushes back on simplistic "Apple can do what it wants" arguments by noting that even dominant companies have to follow antitrust laws and competitive regulations.
On the other hand, some of the less convincing arguments include:
Samu and some others dismissing the case outright as just "Google/Android fanboys" complaining, without substantively engaging with the specific practices being called into question. This reflects more of an Apple-defending bias than an objective look at the issues.
NeuM claiming that all monopolies only form from government intervention, and implying the DOJ must be corrupt. This is an overly simplistic, ideologically-driven view that ignores the reality of how many historical monopolies formed through market dynamics and anti-competitive practices by dominant firms.
The tangent some commenters go on equating "super apps" with Chinese government surveillance. While this is a real concern, it's not particularly relevant to the legal question of whether Apple is unfairly constraining competition. Western-made super apps wouldn't necessarily have the same issues.
Overall, I think Gavinski, Deskscape and A_Fox offer the most substantive, well-reasoned arguments, even if I don't agree with every single point they make. They seem to have the best understanding of antitrust issues and are approaching the discussion in a relatively balanced way. The Apple defenders dismissing the whole thing outright are generally making much weaker, less informed arguments in my view. Of course, the full truth will have to be determined through the legal process as more facts come to light.
AI ftw 😂 👻
^^^ Based 😅😂🙃😆
Based indeed 😂 😂🤣
We should do that with every thread!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I, Claudius… apparently.
If someone presented a reasonable argument why it is wrong/immoral to prevent a company preventing other smaller companies from trading it would be fine. But it’s just transparently self-interest, worries about security and identity politics. Not liking something doesn’t make it wrong. Particularly when it’s preventing something that is demonstrably wrong.
Apple have a long history of illegal policies and being forced to change them, particularly in relation to monopolies.
Apple fans. K pop fans. Michael Jackson fans. Full paypig.
hehe
yes the Ai is being accurate in this case. Despite any favouritism towards Apple from some Apple users in this forum (some who are most likely shareholders too) I think it's pretty clear from the evidence that Apple are doing bad things, they aren't disallowing those mega apps for your safety but they simply want to be in control of you with their mega iOS app.
Still seems most are forgetting that we as consumers CHOOSE to buy into the whole iOS/Apple paradigm. It is their intellectual property, their closed and SECURE (relatively) OS. All those folks here so willing to allow their devices become targets for malware, spyware and trojans (as a result of an open system viz Android) which then presents a risk to all their contacts as these nasties pollinate other devices.
Seems the only ones to win out of this are the scammers and hackers and the Anti Virus app makers (who probably release this said malicious software in the first place) as these will become critical FORCED purchases out of need.
It's too hard these days sorting all the scammers out there, without then adding the concern that one of my contacts, who is a bit stupid allows this spyware/malware/trojans and other viruses to cross-infect mine.
To repeat, I CHOOSE to buy into the Apple Paradigm exactly because it IS closed!
It's like buying a house next to the airport then suing that airport for all the noise!
If you don't like it, buy an android and have at everything available, good and bad, under the sun! But don't put my devices at risk because of your stupidity.
Nailed it! 😄
I don’t think this does nail it, tbh, unless the govt is forcing Apple to allow malware or completely open up like Android. Has that been decided already? I don’t think so. The main question is whether Apple is abusing its market power in anti-competitive ways and that is a separate issue from whether Apple needs to allow installs from 3rd party app marketplaces, no? Again, it is more about whether Apple is denying a place on the AppStore to apps which deem no security risk but which threaten Apple’s market dominance in ways regarded by law as detrimental to consumers.
Would a better analogy include Tim Cook going to the other houses you are going to buy and taking a shit on the doorstep before you come to look at it so he can laud the benefits of the house near the airport?
Yes I think Apple managed to nail it with CoreAudio being the exceptional GOOD "jack of all trades", that is a very big achievement actually. Huge part of their success in the market too. They're slowly ruining it in recent years, like most of their software, but maybe there's still hope
Well, it’s certainly a striking image, lol
A bit of a tangent, but years ago I worked for a company that manufactured marine electronics, and when embedded operating systems became mature enough they switched from writing their own software to using an embedded OS.
The development department was not given full decision making responsibility for the choice of OS, and their choice of Linux was overruled for whatever the embedded version of Windows was called.
They didn’t want to go with Windows as they had no access to the code for libraries that the OS uses. With Linux they could debug end to end, but with Windows they had to rely on MS documentation where they don’t have access to code. The whole team was just really pissed off for months after that decision, and they did nothing but complain about issues with MSDN being useless once the transition started.
Thanks to @Gavinski and others for replies to my post and link. I enjoyed the bot analysis as well.
I’ve heard he does that, yes. It’s an odd hobby, admittedly.
I think he got the idea from Steve Jobs (joke for all the British people here).
Was that Big Steve Jobs? 😆
😂
Apple has the right to approve apps on its platform, iOS or Mac OS. Makers of apps do not have the right to dictate to Apple what it must do, and lawsuits won’t build a cooperative relationship. Apple can afford to litigate as long as necessary, so I bet they win in the end.
If a law suit forces them to allow any app on iOS, there will be nothing to stop nefarious apps that will steal your identity and drain your bank account dry after freezing all of your music projects and related apps and forcing you to pay a ransom to get it back. That is already happening in non-iOS platforms (the music bit was hyperbole for token relevance to this forum). What will the discussion on the AB forum be like when a free Reverb app turns out to be a Trojan horse? (Is that term still used these days?) we have big problems on the horizon with AI-powered viruses that may destroy the experience on the more open platforms.
I have a lot of criticisms for Apple, but doing what they must to remain profitable isn’t one of them. There are a lot of people who distrust all major wealthy corporations just because they make money. Being profitable is considered a good thing in the Land of Opportunity, or at least it was until the Marxists started taking over.
Who is the victim here? Makers of super apps? We the People? Can Android run super apps? Can I just buy an Android device? Should all Android apps be allowed on iOS? Maybe all Apple apps should work on Android too. And maybe I should be allowed to load the Android OS on my iPhone. That won’t cause headaches for Apple. I want the right to run Windows on my iPhone, and I want Windows to run all of my iOS apps on my laptop because I’ve paid for them! (You guys are right, senseless ranting is fun! …Not.)
Also the people expressing doubts of CCP surveillance through super apps probably also have TikTok and don’t think it is bad that the CCP can manipulate the children (and adults) of their self-proclaimed enemies. Hope is not a strategy. Good luck surviving the near future!
Well said. The lawsuit against Apple is obviously meant to force them to do something for the benefit of their competitors and because being the "biggest" in any market invites interference from political predators. Consumers have for a long time had the ability to leave the Apple "ecosystem" or never even choose join it by buying an Android device. Why do people think Apple makes far, far more money than competing mobile phone manufacturers? Is it because Apple forced them to buy an iPhone? Obviously not. Apple's phones are better and consumers know it.
Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.
A quick history lesson*:
Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.
*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom
The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.
I agree. Apple didn’t become a success because they oppressed a few developers. We may quibble about the lack of music-focused features on harware or iOS, but for the most part it is a quality experience that many people prefer. If it ain’t broke, don’t “fix” it. And there better be some really compelling evidence that some company has been harmed to a greater degree than the risk to the general consumer by allowing any and all apps. IF Apple is forced to open iOS, I’ll isolate my devices and never update or return to AppStore.
Where are they ruining it for you? I'm using OSX only since Mavericks and apart from making it harder to install third party software due to permissions I mostly see improvements. But I'm not a programmer and don't do much in the terminal these days.
You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.
An "A.I." is only as good as the quality of information it is fed and the quality of question you ask of it.