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
I'll admit to not super thoroughly reading all of the 69 (yep really that exact number) posts since the last checking in two days ago. But as I casually read them two questions come to mind, both with no agenda behind them:
As far as I can tell, Apple has about 29% vs. Android 70% share of the mobile device market. I keep hearing people say Apple is using their "dominant" market position to unfairly sway markets and stifle competition. How does that work when they're outnumbered by more than two to one?
Couldn't you flip the argument on its head and hold that by not allowing super apps, Apple is in fact weakening their position rather than leveraging it? If people want to be able to portably move their super-apps between companies, and arguably have more than two times the market options open to them to do so. Aren't they just more likely to avoid iOS? How does that help Apple?
Where is the material harm to anyone? Is something like portable "super apps" really enough of a necessity to warrant extraordinary intervention on the people's behalf?
The first two seem like logical inconsistencies. I'm interested to hear them sorted out.
The last one is just me scratching my head in puzzlement. Not so much at government as I'm a hard cynic on that score, but that people would feel it rises to that level of importance that it needs to be challenged by the courts. Does anyone here even know anyone in the USA who relies on apps such as this or would be any more than mildly inconvenienced if some reason they had to give it up due to being compelled to switch to an Apple device? I feel like I must be missing something.
.. where did you get the 29% share? Most sources I’ve seen say that Apple currently has about a 60% share of the smartphone market.
Legal analysis I’ve seen makes it sound like like there is documentation that some Apple’s decisions were made to limit competition by putting impediments in place and not relying on being a superior product. I don’t think it is all about super apps. We’ll see what comes out in the trial.
Could be govt overreach but there could be something there, too.
The tuning could be related to whatever evidence they came up with …and could be influenced by the EU goings on… Apple might be inclined to change some practices rather than deal with litigation in the US and EU.
This is one I pulled at random today and since it was consistent with other sources I don't specifically recall from an earlier, more thorough, search I just went with it. Could be inaccurate for all I know.
Thanks for the context.
Most people I know are scratching their heads over it and assume like I do it's more political grandstanding. But we all hang out in different circles. Like you say, we'll have to wait and see. We'll probably be too old to care one way or the other by then. 😂
Delaying, while subtly weakening the grounds for action as though one is listening to markets is a time honored tactic. Lotta pockets can be lined in the meantime too. I know. I'm a deep cynic.
I may have started the current flurry of posts on this subject by posting excerpts from Matt Stoller's Big newsletter on Substack. The article references anti-trust investigations going back a number of years but the tl:dr version is well stated in these two paragraphs which quote Apple's own executives noting that the current system inhibits convenient switching. That's not my opinion or Matt Stoller's, that's the Apple boys talking. So do doubters know something they don't about what does, or doesn't affect Apple's market power? Here's the relevant excerpts:
....
In the United States and the rest of the world, there are no super apps. Why? Because Apple, through its control of app stores, has banned them. It doesn’t allow rival app stores, and it doesn’t allow super apps to be sold through its own app store. According to the complaint, “as one Apple manager put it, allowing super apps to become ‘the main gateway where people play games, book a car, make payments, etc.’ would ‘let the barbarians in at the gate.’ Why? Because when a super app offers popular mini programs, ‘iOS stickiness goes down.’”
Apple’s own materials revealed in the complaint make the point even clearer. In one presentation to the board of directors, Apple highlighted the “[u]ndifferentiated user experience on [a] super platform” as a “major headwind” to growing iPhone sales in countries with popular super apps due to the “[l]ow stickiness” and “[l]ow switching cost.” It’s all about the switching costs.
....
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-the-apple-antitrust-suit-matters
This... I knew plenty of people, including people in underground scenes, foreign and Chinese, and never met a single person who had ever had any problem with social credit scores. I openly criticised the govt online and off and nothing ever came of it. Seemed it does exist but was blown up by the western media reporting on it some years ago > @wim said:
I think Wim is roughly correct with his number of Apple's market share, but is wrong that they are not number one manufacturer. Android is more popular than Apple as an OS, but Android is not a smartphone manufacturer. Samsung was, for more than a decade, the number one smartphone manufacturer but Apple overtook them again a few months ago.
So, Android is more popular than iOS, but Apple is the number one manufacturer of smartphones currently, and Samsung is now number two, after having previously topped the list between 2010 and Q4 2023.
If Android has a larger market share (it does), then Apple’s OS is not dominant. The real reason Apple is being attacked is because their ecosystem is more profitable. The lawmakers aren’t going to go after Android, it would be like trying to rob a bum on the streets.
Lol, Huawei, Samsung etc are also hugely profitable companies
I think they're trying to make the point that super apps are kinda devalued by not being able to be truly cross platform because one major platform, Apple in this case is blocking them.
This means they can't really set themselves apart from native Android services because they lose their main selling point, cross platform functionality. Super apps aim to be hardware independent operating systems basically, and betting on people making similar trade offs like when chosing Apple products (convenience over freedom).
I don't know it for a fact but I remember reading about China and its phone market that phones are much more of a status symbol there, and that people want Apple phones and the social image that comes with it, but loaded with their super apps.
People like that may exist in the west, but I think most use Apple because it has a nicer user experience and is the primary target of most app developers.
Yes Apple is defintiely a status symbol in China and a lot of ppl who really don't have the money to spare end up buying apple. Top of the line Huawei and Samsung phones still have a lot of cache there, but Apple is viewed as the best OS. Huawei has often been the best choice for camera, due to that collab with Leica.
But yeah, Apple are already allowing the super app Wechat on iOS devices there, has been out well over a decade already.
But you can at least use pesudonyms in the West, you can't do that in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_real-name_system_in_China
I would caution against using western media sources to make definitive conclusions about China. It is well known that our government feeds the media and scrubs Wikipedia... Manipulating the media has been admitted by the CIA publicly in the 70s.
Pseudomyms aside, it is a paltry thing for anyone in China to get a vpn and do whatever they want. X is filled with Chinese users on vpns. The primary reason for the Chinese firewall is to keep things from coming IN to China. Not to keep people from going OUT. This is what I've learned from knowing a lot of Chinese citizens, all of whom are confused at our western ideas of what their lives look like. Gavinski nailed it.
I read that article. It's true that in internet cafes in China you need an ID card. You also need an ID card to register when you get wifi or a sim card. But it's not like people need to use their real names on things like wechat.
Most westerners have an extemely shallow idea of what life is like in China at best. More often, it's just completely wrong. Sometimes they watch YouTube channels where white guys who used to be in China give them the lowdown on what life is actually like there. I saw a few videos by 2 of these jokers, forget their names, who claimed that every foreigner in China is being trailed by an undercover cop. This is utter nonsense. Either these guys believe this, but are wrong, or they wilfully mislead for clicks and views.
People in China are not free in certain respects, sure, but they know it and they mostly accept it as a trade off for security.
Our western govts have plenty of data on us and they get easy access to it when necessary. Commit a crime in the west - like those 2 kids in the UK who murdered that girl Brianna Ghey recently - and you will quickly find that the government can get access to your deleted WhatsApp messages or whatever, and will use that info to prosecute you.
.
I recall needing to produce ID to buy a SIM card on a trip to Spain.
So it's not to control unwanted sentiments from bubbling up within China, mkay.
Too many people are just reacting without first educating themselves. To those talking about market share and number of phones sold: have you even read the information released by the DOJ?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets
Here's what they're focused on, as pasted directly from the above.
Blocking Innovative Super Apps. Apple has disrupted the growth of apps with broad functionality that would make it easier for consumers to switch between competing smartphone platforms.
Suppressing Mobile Cloud Streaming Services. Apple has blocked the development of cloud-streaming apps and services that would allow consumers to enjoy high-quality video games and other cloud-based applications without having to pay for expensive smartphone hardware.
Excluding Cross-Platform Messaging Apps. Apple has made the quality of cross-platform messaging worse, less innovative, and less secure for users so that its customers have to keep buying iPhones.
Diminishing the Functionality of Non-Apple Smartwatches. Apple has limited the functionality of third-party smartwatches so that users who purchase the Apple Watch face substantial out-of-pocket costs if they do not keep buying iPhones.
Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets. Apple has prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of cross-platform third-party digital wallets.
And here's the actual court filing.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
For reference, this is what Microsoft was charged with, and lost.
that it monopolized the market for operating systems of personal computers and took anti-competitive actions to illegally maintain its monopoly
that it attempted to monopolize the market for Internet browsers because such browsers would create competition for operating systems
that it bundled its browser (Internet Explorer) with Windows
and that it engaged in a number of other anti-competitive exclusionary arrangements with computer manufacturers, Internet service providers, and content providers attempting to thwart the distribution of Netscape’s browser
Apple is under no obligation whatsoever to support other hardware or software companies.
Someone please let me know when I can take a Toyota truck into a Lamborghini dealership and demand they fix it for me.
You're completely not understanding - hopefully not willfully. I suggest taking some time to do so if you're going to continue to comment if you want people to take you seriously on this topic.
If this were truly the issue, then it wouldn't be commonplace practice for everyone to have a vpn. The government would easily be able to make the use of vpns impossible if they are nearly as big and bad as we make them out to sound.
To the contrary, I understand exactly what’s going on here. Companies are trying to force Apple to support their apps and devices and they’re leveraging their bought off politicians to do it instead of letting consumer choice decide winners and losers.
I’ll bite, even if I regret it later….
Since many of us are pissing away time on this thread instead of making music, can you @vitocorleone123 boil down your points in bold for us? What law requires Apple to do what you assert they are not doing? Do other companies differ in their practices?
I’m about done considering this topic, and would love to see it wrapped up (not holding my breath). This whole matter hasn’t been explained in basic layman’s terms and I don’t have time to research the legal precedents behind court filings. I don’t frequent forums for lawyers for a reason. We all have opinions that won’t matter in how this case pans out, but I’d be interested to hear intelligent discourse on what will happen if Apple looses. How long before I should revert to my deserted island “oh crap” plan?
Legal merits aside, all I can say is I worry about us if we feel that the material impacts of the suit so kindly summarized for us by @vitocorleone123 warrant government intervention. that feels like a very slippery slope to me.
But I know feelings on where that line should be drawn vary drastically, so I'm only speaking for myself. ✌🏼
I'm out. ❤️
I don't believe it's everyone. Maybe every foreigner on a business trip.
From Surfshark:
Using a VPN in China is not officially illegal. China allows VPN providers to operate as long as they cooperate with the state, which defeats the privacy purpose of having a VPN in the first place. Many VPN services are banned, and the government often threatens to block VPNs altogether.
The Chinese government has even gone as far as removing all VPN apps from China’s Apple Store.
So, why doesn’t China block VPNs and VPN software altogether?
Well, it’s because VPNs are required for business in China, particularly international trade.
VPNs protect data sent between China and the rest of the world. Shutting down all VPNs in China would drastically limit the ability of global companies to conduct business in China.
There are still many inconsistencies regarding individual rights versus business rights for using a VPN. But, it’s important to note that to date, no foreign VPN users have ever been punished for using a VPN while traveling in China unless they were using it to speak out against the state or the Chinese government.
Agree. Thanks for posting the details of the claims against Apple. That's a good summary.
Microsofts case and Apples are very different because the mobile market developed out of very tightly controlled appliances compared to personal computers which were always modular and open. Microsoft tried to close an open system ("bait and switch"), Apple just doesn't open theirs to the extent where it would hurt their business.
Thats not the best analogy.
If Toyota made their vehicles only run on their fuel via a secret patented fuel additive and you can only buy from their fuel stations. Other people can sell their fuel through these fuel stations but there is a 30% cut to Toyota. But if your fuel is known to be lots better than Toyotas, Toyota maybe won’t let you sell it, or they might, but reduce the vehicles performance via software hitches when running on such fuel.
Of course no one would buy the Toyota, cos people aren’t thick when it comes to fuel. But lots of people aren’t particularly clued up about computers and software, integration etc.
They are buying a smartphone (etc) based on Apples advertising.
Now of course some people would say “so what! whatever is agreed between two parties is nobody else’s business”. But… That’s only correct when it’s of no consequence to anybody else. A bit like kinky sex really.
we’re all just cogs in a big machine, and if somebody is at risk of really ****ing the machine up, governments step in. Big Companies can rig markets, and it’s not allowed.
If it was allowed, Apple would have been dead in the 80s, killed by IBM.
You've gone way off on a tangent barely related to the discussion.
You have to admit it's a gas though.
(Sorry. Not trying to fuel an argument.)
😂