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
So, you're an exception to the norm? That's ok.
And it's fairly common for developers to dismiss any feature-requests that aren't going to work, for whatever reason. It's just normal back-and-forth. What I've not seen, until now is any developer stating that their app is 'done', and in no need of any updates.
And again...I've made it very clear that I don't think that developers should be working for free, and that once an app has been released, only bug-fixes, stability fixes and OS-compatibility fixes should be supplied, until more payment has been secured. Whether developers choose to go the 'Loopy Pro' route (Seems more suited perhaps to bigger apps e.g DAW) or the Mela/Wootja route i.e Selling yearly updates as distinct entities, or just selling apps at the kind of prices-levels that will incentivise ongoing developer support, will be up to each developer to work out.
Not sure what sentiment you're talking about, really. And there are currently a few different ways for developers to leverage the app-store's functionality, limited as it may be, to secure ongoing funds towards further development.
And the desktop market is just as broken.
Apply for a refund with Apple. You paid for them, you should have access to them.
If they are no longer available then it means the developer has specifically removed them altogether (not just from sale) or the developer let their account lapse. Or they fell out in the 32 bit purge. I doubt a refund would be granted.
It would be interesting to try for an app that has been removed though.
Why not try? Again, you paid for (a license to use) the app, so app unavailability not due to anything you've done should result in a refund.
Time limitations. I don't know for a fact that there are any time restrictions on refunds, but I have a hard time imagining Apple granting a refund as far out from purchase as apps such as those would be.
You might be right but as far as I know, there is no advertised time limit on refunds.
I'm not going to wade through this to find out. 😬
I don't think you'd have a clear basis to claim that, but if the app was permanently broken by something Apple did and the app seller no longer existed, maybe.
So does this mean I have to give up hope on Modstep?
Give up on dubstep. It's over.
—(chef's kiss)—
If dubstep is played in a forrest...and theres no one to step to the dub....
I know you've said it's an opinion, but you must be basing that on something. I'd be curious to know what.
Also, I'm not just talking about a few companies/developers raising prices. I'm talking about changes that would involve both Apple and developers. Some ideas:
Implementation of demos, across the board (This would necessitate a commensurate change in the refund system).
Higher prices, across the board (The final price will depend on how the developer chooses to ensure future income from the given app).
The expectation/understanding that the app comes with features, as-is, and that only stability/bug-fixes and OS compatibility updates fall within the purchase price. This doesn't mean that developers can't give features for free, within a subscription or re-buy model. But I'm talking about normalising the idea that no extra work should be expected to be done, for free.
Implementation of subscriptions or app re-buy ('Conveniently', Apple is now forcing bi-yearly updates. That might be the moment to release the next paid version).
A cap/limit on the amount of times per-year an app can go on sale
These are just some ideas.
Would be nice if it were possible for Apple to implement a "time limit" in the functioning of an app so people could download and test it, but I think the reality is that if a person can download an app, they can also do something to that app so they can use it without paying for it.
Paying for an app up front and then getting a refund if you're really dissatisfied with its performance remains the best option for all parties involved, despite the additional effort. With the removal of a minimum of effort, I think people might start to get the idea they are owed everything. And that would be terrible for all developers.
what if 'A Forest' was played in a forest, and nobody was there to listen?
@el_bo : the underlying issues with the App Store ecosystem can't really be solved without changes on Apple's part. Buy once, get free updates forever is a formidable problem. A few developers are trying to workaround that system and time will tell if their efforts end up being workable. It is why on desktop, very few major music software developers make their software available in the App Store.
Fred Anton Corvest makes his plugins available through the desktop App Store. These are desktop-only versions of his apps.
Moog makes theirs available through the App Store (few music companies are more prestigious than them).
I could go on, but the point is “very few” is an odd assertion.
That is a relatively small number of apps. Look at the big names — the most critical players in desktop music: Native Instruments, Ableton, etc
Ableton Live, Logic Pro and ProTools are the top 3 used DAWs, so the fact that the #2 DAW is Logic Pro should strongly influence developers and any decision they make to include their software in the App Store.
Sigh, poor platform… ahh what could have been.
[Edited: I’m being a jerk]
Apple eats Logic Pro as a loss leader. They don't have to make money off of it because it helps to make the platform and ecosystem more attractive to a big chunk of their prosumer user base. It's the same thing for Final Cut. Having these two priced where they are makes a Mac look two, three, four, or five hundred $ less expensive to a bunch of their customers. It's why they can be dropped into the purchase of a new Mac.
The thing that is attractive to developers with the App Store is that it has the same impact on software that the iPod and iTunes had on music distribution. If you price the download cheap enough and make it easy enough to obtain legally, then it kills most piracy.
Of course, that depends on selling enough volume to counter the "cheap enough" part. That doesn't work out for all software. One of the effects this is going to have on software is to focus on software that can be made cheap enough to develop to leverage the model. There are lots of places to cut costs in software dev. One of the big ones is complexity.
The pricing and revenue models for the App Store favor devs that are going to put out lots of smaller apps with a cheaper price and no long term support --- software as loot boxes.
The other good way to make money is if you can run a subscription service with new content regularly available . These do well on the App Store. It's why Apple wants to try to move games to Apple Arcade. Most of Apple's own new apps for the iPhone platform tend to fall in this area. It's working pretty well for them looking at the latest financials. Kinda sucks though if your app doesn't fit this model. It also sucks if you have to pay Apple their cut of the take from your content creation.
The App Store on the Mac doesn't really give you any of the potential benefits I mentioned above and hits you with all of the downsides. (As well as all of the other downsides I complain about all the time with dealing with Apple and their store.) I really wouldn't look for the Mac App Store to get much growth.
Personally, if a developer/company has their software available on both the Mac App Store and their own site, I'll always pay for it on their own site.
I also only get Xcode from the Apple developer site and not the Mac App Store because they've delivered broken versions on the App Store several times and I can download once from the website and install it on all of the machines I have locally. Xcode is big and my ISP is definitely not free.
.
Interesting. Apple has updated (read changed) their policy statement in response to the blowback. https://developer.apple.com/support/app-store-improvements/
The changes are that they've now given 90 days to update the app and they've added to the details that will cause an app to be tagged for removal.
That seems reasonable, and like it makes more sense as far as their goals go too.
You're right about that. People who've fretted for years about whether Apple could remain committed to the Mac market need only see this chart to have their 'worst fears confirmed'. LOL.
Source: https://sixcolors.com/post/2022/04/apple-q2-2022-results-a-record-97-billion-quarter/
But it is the Mac market that Apple needs to maintain in order to feed their App Store golden goose with everything it needs to stay golden.
That’s a really significant change - and clearly excludes stable apps such as yours. Why Apple failed to think this through first, who knows, almost feels like click-baiting…
So, I ask again, where is the info about how to backup our apps using iMazing or whatever the software is?
Anyone know?