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.

Apple No longer Storing Data for New IAPs? - Moodunits Update

2»

Comments

  • michael_mmichael_m

    @Poppadocrock said:

    @wim said:

    @tom_ward said:

    @wim said:
    Another thing. As far as I can tell, hosted content is no longer available for new apps, but is still supported for apps that already use it.

    If that's correct, then the moodunits announcement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That app has been around since 2020. Maybe "apps" encompasses new IAPs within existing apps as well?

    But maybe I'm not researching this well enough. I'll go away.

    It applies to new, non-consumable IAPs for any app (even if pre-existing). Their wording is...challenging, but basically any IAP that requires downloading data that the user can keep installed and in-use. Apps with sound packs and the like would be impacted. Things like games where you buy some in-game coins/etc. would be less affected. Apple decided they would continue hosting the IAP data that was already in their possession prior to the cutoff in 2022. That's my understanding.

    Thanks for that clarification. 👍

    Yea I think they were saying they were planning on adding more IAP sounds but are not able to do so.

    I assume because they would have to set up hosting that would support reliable downloads for the IAPs, and didn’t budget for ongoing overheads like that.

    Maybe the reason there have been more IAP download issues lately is that those developers now use IAP hosting that doesn’t match the capabilities of the Apple infrastructure that was previously in place, and it’s sometimes stressed.

  • JeezsJeezs

    time to create alternative stores !😀

  • wimwim

    Sure, if anyone thinks they do it for less than 15% of the price of their products, and they only want to sell in Europe. ✌🏼

  • tom_wardtom_ward

    @michael_m said:

    @Poppadocrock said:

    @wim said:

    @tom_ward said:

    @wim said:
    Another thing. As far as I can tell, hosted content is no longer available for new apps, but is still supported for apps that already use it.

    If that's correct, then the moodunits announcement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That app has been around since 2020. Maybe "apps" encompasses new IAPs within existing apps as well?

    But maybe I'm not researching this well enough. I'll go away.

    It applies to new, non-consumable IAPs for any app (even if pre-existing). Their wording is...challenging, but basically any IAP that requires downloading data that the user can keep installed and in-use. Apps with sound packs and the like would be impacted. Things like games where you buy some in-game coins/etc. would be less affected. Apple decided they would continue hosting the IAP data that was already in their possession prior to the cutoff in 2022. That's my understanding.

    Thanks for that clarification. 👍

    Yea I think they were saying they were planning on adding more IAP sounds but are not able to do so.

    I assume because they would have to set up hosting that would support reliable downloads for the IAPs, and didn’t budget for ongoing overheads like that.

    Maybe the reason there have been more IAP download issues lately is that those developers now use IAP hosting that doesn’t match the capabilities of the Apple infrastructure that was previously in place, and it’s sometimes stressed.

    Yeh, reliable and secure file access can be a pain. The work required to set it up, retrofit the app(s) to use it, potentially retrofit the IAP handling by adding custom server functions to intercept receipts and verify purchases...then paying to store the files monthly whether anyone buys them or not. The big player in that space is AWS, and those costs can balloon real quick.

  • michael_mmichael_m
    edited February 3

    @tom_ward said:

    @michael_m said:

    @Poppadocrock said:

    @wim said:

    @tom_ward said:

    @wim said:
    Another thing. As far as I can tell, hosted content is no longer available for new apps, but is still supported for apps that already use it.

    If that's correct, then the moodunits announcement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That app has been around since 2020. Maybe "apps" encompasses new IAPs within existing apps as well?

    But maybe I'm not researching this well enough. I'll go away.

    It applies to new, non-consumable IAPs for any app (even if pre-existing). Their wording is...challenging, but basically any IAP that requires downloading data that the user can keep installed and in-use. Apps with sound packs and the like would be impacted. Things like games where you buy some in-game coins/etc. would be less affected. Apple decided they would continue hosting the IAP data that was already in their possession prior to the cutoff in 2022. That's my understanding.

    Thanks for that clarification. 👍

    Yea I think they were saying they were planning on adding more IAP sounds but are not able to do so.

    I assume because they would have to set up hosting that would support reliable downloads for the IAPs, and didn’t budget for ongoing overheads like that.

    Maybe the reason there have been more IAP download issues lately is that those developers now use IAP hosting that doesn’t match the capabilities of the Apple infrastructure that was previously in place, and it’s sometimes stressed.

    Yeh, reliable and secure file access can be a pain. The work required to set it up, retrofit the app(s) to use it, potentially retrofit the IAP handling by adding custom server functions to intercept receipts and verify purchases...then paying to store the files monthly whether anyone buys them or not. The big player in that space is AWS, and those costs can balloon real quick.

    In my job I see the amounts that we are being charged for technology services, and it’s always a difficult task to get funding for upgrades as justification for the cost is really hard to articulate. The typical scenario is that we tell Technology that performance is poor, they tell us that it’s because of resource availability, we ask how much to upgrade, we take that up a couple of levels, they ask us if we can deal with the performance for a while longer, things eventually start failing for the people holding the purse strings, and finally we get to upgrade with something that will be unreliable in a year or two. Reliable performance is not cheap these days!

  • wimwim
    edited February 3

    @tom_ward said:
    Yeh, reliable and secure file access can be a pain. The work required to set it up, retrofit the app(s) to use it, potentially retrofit the IAP handling by adding custom server functions to intercept receipts and verify purchases...then paying to store the files monthly whether anyone buys them or not. The big player in that space is AWS, and those costs can balloon real quick.

    And ... guess who uses AWS for most of online content delivery.
    Apple.

    https://www.turningcloud.com/blog/apple-uses-aws/
    https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/22/18511148/apple-icloud-cloud-services-amazon-aws-30-million-per-month
    etc. ...

  • NeuMNeuM

    @tom_ward said:

    @NeuM said:

    @yellow_eyez said:
    This is GREAT news

    I hope that means they are adopting klevgrand or audiomodern IAP which are direct from the dev rather than through the app store

    I think for a lot of the smaller devs who are new to the scene this will make it more costly for them to offer apps which require large downloads or the like. I can see both sides of the argument on this, assuming we really understand what is going on here.

    Agree it would be great news in the future if they decide we can self-host and sell the apps ourselves! As it is now, it's just another costly burden for developers all while not getting any price-break from Apple. The ~1 month head's up they gave developers to make this switch was particularly ridiculous, but that's in the past now. :joy:

    Your reference to the old days of box software applies pretty well here @NeuM. The retailer's take was essentially a hosting cost. Shelf space is finite, and you pay for your spot on the shelf. Apple wants to continue charging developers the same % rate, while making the developer use their own shelves. Because they still host the apps themselves it's not cut and dry, but that's kinda how it feels as a developer.

    I still have a strong suspicion this all has to do with the EU's demand that Apple allow other competing app stores on their devices. Since they've been forced to open their platform to competitors it makes less financial sense for them to provide free bandwidth and storage for the developers. Someone has to absorb those expenses and it won't be them.

  • wimwim
    edited February 3

    @NeuM said:

    @tom_ward said:

    @NeuM said:

    @yellow_eyez said:
    This is GREAT news

    I hope that means they are adopting klevgrand or audiomodern IAP which are direct from the dev rather than through the app store

    I think for a lot of the smaller devs who are new to the scene this will make it more costly for them to offer apps which require large downloads or the like. I can see both sides of the argument on this, assuming we really understand what is going on here.

    Agree it would be great news in the future if they decide we can self-host and sell the apps ourselves! As it is now, it's just another costly burden for developers all while not getting any price-break from Apple. The ~1 month head's up they gave developers to make this switch was particularly ridiculous, but that's in the past now. :joy:

    Your reference to the old days of box software applies pretty well here @NeuM. The retailer's take was essentially a hosting cost. Shelf space is finite, and you pay for your spot on the shelf. Apple wants to continue charging developers the same % rate, while making the developer use their own shelves. Because they still host the apps themselves it's not cut and dry, but that's kinda how it feels as a developer.

    I still have a strong suspicion this all has to do with the EU's demand that Apple allow other competing app stores on their devices. Since they've been forced to open their platform to competitors it makes less financial sense for them to provide free bandwidth and storage for the developers. Someone has to absorb those expenses and it won't be them.

    That's a bit of a stretch IMO. Apple's policy was changed in April 2022, not just recently. The EU ruling was only just fresh out in March 2022. I find it hard to believe that in a matter of a few weeks Apple took a strategic move like that ... two years before it would take effect. Impossible? No. But unlikely in my book.

  • realdaweirealdawei

    Most likely part of a phased strategy to exit the App Store business all together. In just a few years everything will be WASM delivered via open web. Devs will have to get accustomed to hosting their own content and ultimately their own monetization. Apple will continue along the path of first party subscriptions.

  • EschatoneEschatone

    @rezidue said:

    @wim said:
    I bet this is why we're seeing more instances like with NS2 and SampleTank (or was it Syntronk?) where people are having problems restoring purchases for large content packs. Developers may not be setting up robust architecture for downloads, or in this case, decline to do so altogether.

    This is what concerns me. If someone decides to stop maintaining their website or there are issues with cdn you could find yourself unable to install what you paid for. Much more likely compared to Apple hosting.

    I was already on the fence about IAP app upgrades; but this seals the deal. If a full version of an app can’t be purchased from the App Store, I’ll probably be avoiding it, unless it’s from a small dev who has earned the trust. It feels like taking a crap shoot buying IAP from IK and a few other bigger players.

  • KrupaKrupa

    @NeuM said:

    @tom_ward said:

    @NeuM said:

    @yellow_eyez said:
    This is GREAT news

    I hope that means they are adopting klevgrand or audiomodern IAP which are direct from the dev rather than through the app store

    I think for a lot of the smaller devs who are new to the scene this will make it more costly for them to offer apps which require large downloads or the like. I can see both sides of the argument on this, assuming we really understand what is going on here.

    Agree it would be great news in the future if they decide we can self-host and sell the apps ourselves! As it is now, it's just another costly burden for developers all while not getting any price-break from Apple. The ~1 month head's up they gave developers to make this switch was particularly ridiculous, but that's in the past now. :joy:

    Your reference to the old days of box software applies pretty well here @NeuM. The retailer's take was essentially a hosting cost. Shelf space is finite, and you pay for your spot on the shelf. Apple wants to continue charging developers the same % rate, while making the developer use their own shelves. Because they still host the apps themselves it's not cut and dry, but that's kinda how it feels as a developer.

    I still have a strong suspicion this all has to do with the EU's demand that Apple allow other competing app stores on their devices. Since they've been forced to open their platform to competitors it makes less financial sense for them to provide free bandwidth and storage for the developers. Someone has to absorb those expenses and it won't be them.

    And there I was, a free market capitalist believing that competition was supposed to drive down prices and increase value😅

  • tom_wardtom_ward

    @michael_m said:
    In my job I see the amounts that we are being charged for technology services, and it’s always a difficult task to get funding for upgrades as justification for the cost is really hard to articulate. The typical scenario is that we tell Technology that performance is poor, they tell us that it’s because of resource availability, we ask how much to upgrade, we take that up a couple of levels, they ask us if we can deal with the performance for a while longer, things eventually start failing for the people holding the purse strings, and finally we get to upgrade with something that will be unreliable in a year or two. Reliable performance is not cheap these days!

    You definitely pay for reliability...or you pay for not choosing a reliable option when someone buys your IAP and can't download it!

    @wim said:

    @tom_ward said:
    Yeh, reliable and secure file access can be a pain. The work required to set it up, retrofit the app(s) to use it, potentially retrofit the IAP handling by adding custom server functions to intercept receipts and verify purchases...then paying to store the files monthly whether anyone buys them or not. The big player in that space is AWS, and those costs can balloon real quick.

    And ... guess who uses AWS for most of online content delivery.
    Apple.

    https://www.turningcloud.com/blog/apple-uses-aws/
    https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/22/18511148/apple-icloud-cloud-services-amazon-aws-30-million-per-month
    etc. ...

    That's actually really funny. AWS wins either way :joy:

  • tom_wardtom_ward

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:

    @tom_ward said:

    @NeuM said:

    @yellow_eyez said:
    This is GREAT news

    I hope that means they are adopting klevgrand or audiomodern IAP which are direct from the dev rather than through the app store

    I think for a lot of the smaller devs who are new to the scene this will make it more costly for them to offer apps which require large downloads or the like. I can see both sides of the argument on this, assuming we really understand what is going on here.

    Agree it would be great news in the future if they decide we can self-host and sell the apps ourselves! As it is now, it's just another costly burden for developers all while not getting any price-break from Apple. The ~1 month head's up they gave developers to make this switch was particularly ridiculous, but that's in the past now. :joy:

    Your reference to the old days of box software applies pretty well here @NeuM. The retailer's take was essentially a hosting cost. Shelf space is finite, and you pay for your spot on the shelf. Apple wants to continue charging developers the same % rate, while making the developer use their own shelves. Because they still host the apps themselves it's not cut and dry, but that's kinda how it feels as a developer.

    I still have a strong suspicion this all has to do with the EU's demand that Apple allow other competing app stores on their devices. Since they've been forced to open their platform to competitors it makes less financial sense for them to provide free bandwidth and storage for the developers. Someone has to absorb those expenses and it won't be them.

    That's a bit of a stretch IMO. Apple's policy was changed in April 2022, not just recently. The EU ruling was only just fresh out in March 2022. I find it hard to believe that in a matter of a few weeks Apple took a strategic move like that ... two years before it would take effect. Impossible? No. But unlikely in my book.

    The timing is pretty coincidental, but we'll probably never know for sure. They removed the option to upload IAP data from Xcode around that time (feb/march 2022), and that basically left about a month for developers to react.

  • ParthandParthand
    edited February 3

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:

    @tom_ward said:

    @NeuM said:

    @yellow_eyez said:
    This is GREAT news

    I hope that means they are adopting klevgrand or audiomodern IAP which are direct from the dev rather than through the app store

    I think for a lot of the smaller devs who are new to the scene this will make it more costly for them to offer apps which require large downloads or the like. I can see both sides of the argument on this, assuming we really understand what is going on here.

    Agree it would be great news in the future if they decide we can self-host and sell the apps ourselves! As it is now, it's just another costly burden for developers all while not getting any price-break from Apple. The ~1 month head's up they gave developers to make this switch was particularly ridiculous, but that's in the past now. :joy:

    Your reference to the old days of box software applies pretty well here @NeuM. The retailer's take was essentially a hosting cost. Shelf space is finite, and you pay for your spot on the shelf. Apple wants to continue charging developers the same % rate, while making the developer use their own shelves. Because they still host the apps themselves it's not cut and dry, but that's kinda how it feels as a developer.

    I still have a strong suspicion this all has to do with the EU's demand that Apple allow other competing app stores on their devices. Since they've been forced to open their platform to competitors it makes less financial sense for them to provide free bandwidth and storage for the developers. Someone has to absorb those expenses and it won't be them.

    That's a bit of a stretch IMO. Apple's policy was changed in April 2022, not just recently. The EU ruling was only just fresh out in March 2022. I find it hard to believe that in a matter of a few weeks Apple took a strategic move like that ... two years before it would take effect. Impossible? No. But unlikely in my book.

    The EU ruling seemed to be very divisive with some strange comments by some outside the EU/UK at the time. There has been an eagerness to attribute things to it, and confirmation bias from some quarters. Not saying that’s the case here but I have seen it quite a lot.

    Not wishing to stir that nest.

  • yellow_eyezyellow_eyez
    edited February 3

    @Jeezs said:
    time to create alternative stores !😀

    I didn’t see anyone respond to this, but I think you’re on to something

    For these measures to become stringent eventually the devs should collectively push back for more than just the App Store as a marketplace , and Apple should want to make things egalitarian -except for profit ofc lol

    But great point Jeez

    Edit - I see someone did mention that later

  • FriedTapewormFriedTapeworm

    @tom_ward said:

    @wim said:
    Another thing. As far as I can tell, hosted content is no longer available for new apps, but is still supported for apps that already use it.

    If that's correct, then the moodunits announcement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That app has been around since 2020. Maybe "apps" encompasses new IAPs within existing apps as well?

    But maybe I'm not researching this well enough. I'll go away.

    It applies to new, non-consumable IAPs for any app (even if pre-existing). Their wording is...challenging, but basically any IAP that requires downloading data that the user can keep installed and in-use. Apps with sound packs and the like would be impacted. Things like games where you buy some in-game coins/etc. would be less affected. Apple decided they would continue hosting the IAP data that was already in their possession prior to the cutoff in 2022. That's my understanding.

    Could a developer switch their IAP to some kind of consumable points system, that is then exchanged for additional content or access within the app?

  • uncledaveuncledave

    @FriedTapeworm said:

    @tom_ward said:

    @wim said:
    Another thing. As far as I can tell, hosted content is no longer available for new apps, but is still supported for apps that already use it.

    If that's correct, then the moodunits announcement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That app has been around since 2020. Maybe "apps" encompasses new IAPs within existing apps as well?

    But maybe I'm not researching this well enough. I'll go away.

    It applies to new, non-consumable IAPs for any app (even if pre-existing). Their wording is...challenging, but basically any IAP that requires downloading data that the user can keep installed and in-use. Apps with sound packs and the like would be impacted. Things like games where you buy some in-game coins/etc. would be less affected. Apple decided they would continue hosting the IAP data that was already in their possession prior to the cutoff in 2022. That's my understanding.

    Could a developer switch their IAP to some kind of consumable points system, that is then exchanged for additional content or access within the app?

    Remember, as described, this only applies to IAPs with downloadable content. The app providers will need to host those downloads themselves, because Apple will no longer accept and manage those files. It does not apply to unlocks, where the content or feature is already present within the app.

  • knewspeakknewspeak

    Developers who already provide hosting for desktop versions of their apps may well say bye-bye to the AppStore all together.

  • uncledaveuncledave

    @knewspeak said:
    Developers who already provide hosting for desktop versions of their apps may well say bye-bye to the AppStore all together.

    They'll still need the iOS AppStore to put their apps on devices outside the EU.

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited February 3

    @uncledave said:

    @knewspeak said:
    Developers who already provide hosting for desktop versions of their apps may well say bye-bye to the AppStore all together.

    They'll still need the iOS AppStore to put their apps on devices outside the EU.

    App stores in the EU still pay Apple to be able to access Apple's devices. It's not as if there is no cost to sell apps outside Apple's ecosystem.

    https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/

    Apple should never be legally liable for damages caused by malicious apps from outside app stores.

  • knewspeakknewspeak

    @uncledave said:

    @knewspeak said:
    Developers who already provide hosting for desktop versions of their apps may well say bye-bye to the AppStore all together.

    They'll still need the iOS AppStore to put their apps on devices outside the EU.

    Who knows what will happen going forward, until then there’s VPN’s.

  • knewspeakknewspeak

    @NeuM said:

    @uncledave said:

    @knewspeak said:
    Developers who already provide hosting for desktop versions of their apps may well say bye-bye to the AppStore all together.

    They'll still need the iOS AppStore to put their apps on devices outside the EU.

    App stores in the EU still pay Apple to be able to access Apple's devices. It's not as if there is no cost to sell apps outside Apple's ecosystem.

    https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/

    Apple should never be legally liable for damages caused by malicious apps from outside app stores.

    Well that’s the already established with MacOS, for how many years.

  • daktidakti
    edited February 6

    Maybe in some cases a solution for Developers is to embed data from IAPs into the app. When user buying IAP then only unlocks previously downloaded content. In this way, the content of the IAP is hidden in the app itself.

    It is not ideal, because if the IAPs take e.g. 1 - 40 GB etc. and the user does not intend to unlock the IAPs, then lose a lot of space on the device. But for small IAPs it may be a good solution, to Developer do not have to maintain another repository outside of AppStore. Unless Apple has protected itself from such practice...

Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025