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.
Paying extra $ for each AUv3 instance
Would you rather pay extra few bucks for each instance support, for example paying extra $4 for loading 5 instances at once (lifetime), or subscribing monthly payments with unlimited instance support for an AUv3 app?
Comments
$4
I don't use subscription services personally. Can you limit AU instances?
Hell yeah you can
It's amazing how anyone hasn't tried it yet. I think that would be a much better business model for indie devs or small teams for making a little bit more and survive 
I don't know what the point would be of limiting instances. I guess it could work out better for the buyer and the dev though, making multiple instances an optional IAP.
Even though I don’t use multiple instances of apps that often I would still not pay subscription. That model just doesn’t work for me. I’d rather pay more upfront than have a pile of monthly expenses to keep track of.
I agree.
The whole point of AU is multiple instances. Making an AU and then charging extra so the thing works as intended seems kind of shitty.
And hell no to subscriptions.
no and no.
I wouldn't support an app that goes that route. I get that there need to be clever ways to monetize and support longevity of apps. Subscription isn't the answer, and IAP for things that should be included with the cost of the app isn't the answer either.
I almost never want to use more than one instance of any app.
I should have been more clear. I would pay more for multiple instance capability, whether I used it or not. I would not resent it. I would never ever pay subscription (but would force myself not to resent it).
Perhaps an easier to swallow way to frame the question would be: “Would you appreciate if an AUv3 app was offered for significantly less in a single-use limited version?”
That's definitely not the only point of AU though.
There is a heap of AU stuff I wouldn't care about having multiple instance capability and if it meant I paid $11 instead of $15 I'd be all for it.
I could see this instance limiting idea being potentially a good way to make apps more competively priced. You might get more sales overall because of the lower cost of admission.
VSTs are not limited by instance on PC/Mac. AUs are VSTs and usage shouldn't be limited. Would not be able a fan of this model at all.
Charge more for an app if preferred but limiting AUs is crippling. Would not pay subscriptions for apps either.
I'd prefer you to charge more money instead of subscriptions and limited instances.
Depends.
Ok what about in the situation where your device could only run one instance at latency settings you are comfortable with but then others with the newest devices could run more? The "feature" of more instances isn't something you need at the time but could always upgrade to at a later date.
Subscription is something I wouldn't even consider. I would probably only consider purchasing something that charged per number of instances, if the initial instances were dirt cheap. And the other tier were unlimited -- with the total cost being what would be a reasonable price for an unlimited AU.
That being said, I think both strategies are likely to lead to the sorts of disgruntlement that shows up in reviews. I suspect that AB Forum members are more forgiving of certain things than the public at large.
I'd honestly rather pay a little more up-front for something excellent than have IAPs to unlock features that should be part of core functionality.
@espiegel123 , i think you pretty much nailed it.
My response to such madness would be, thanks for the fish I’m back to the desktop.
Both versions of that "financial model" will be unsupported from me.
I would really pay more in advance and stop that crippleware right from the beginning.
Maybe some higher prices will keep reminding people what they already have and reduce the "oh, i totally forgot about this app or that functionality i already own" thread mentality.
Exactly.
But I can understand the reasoning behind your idea, Cem, and when I think about it, that could even work out. See Audio Evolution Mobile. Was a free app for a long time, limited to 3 tracks and a small selection of FX, so you could already do a lot with it and get the IAP upgrade if you found that you like it. I bet it wouldn't have become as well-known on iOS if Davy hadn't done that.
I think your model could work out quite well if the basic app (limited to one instance for example) is free.
Yes to IAP, absolutely.
ChordBud, FretBud would be killer as AUv3.
No, either AUv3 or no AUv3. Instance limitation is just greedy, but that's just my opinion...
Total nonsense, if you want more, charge more, if your plugin is worth it, it will sell.
Sugarbytes seem to have a good strategy with their last releases. Free to try with AU and save patch unlocking after purchase.
It's a good strategy and it makes it next to impossible to record the output since they removed AB & IAA support.
Sure Ligntning->USB and recording on the Mac works but)...
...if you really like the sounds and want to use them properly it's pay-time
I'm holding out for a sale on both Aparillo and Factory for now...
They both had their sales in mid July. Next sale is probably not before Christmas. Awesome apps, both of them.
Yeah, I thought so too. It didn't take me long to buy Factory after playing around with it, but I really appreciate getting to try it properly like that. It takes a lot of confidence in your app/product to do something like that.
After playing with Aparillo for half an hour, I knew I needed it, and gladly paid what they were asking. Same with Factory. “Try Before Buy” works great when you’re selling amazing apps like those.
I personally don't like any of those options. No subscriptions for me or anything which looks like it.
I think it would harm sales more than anything. They only work for content streaming etc.
I prefer an upfront one time purchase for an app tool, and I dislike IAP as well, which is messy.
No, if I like the app I'd still rather pay more upfront if given the choice.