Audiobus: Use your music apps together.
What is Audiobus? — Audiobus is an award-winning music app for iPhone and iPad which lets you use your other music apps together. Chain effects on your favourite synth, run the output of apps or Audio Units into an app like GarageBand or Loopy, or select a different audio interface output for each app. Route MIDI between apps — drive a synth from a MIDI sequencer, or add an arpeggiator to your MIDI keyboard — or sync with your external MIDI gear. And control your entire setup from a MIDI controller.
Download on the App StoreAudiobus is the app that makes the rest of your setup better.
Comments
That's why I get a bit 'scared' when I look back at all the cash I've spent on apps over the years...
Sure I'm a recovering 'app-a-holic' but the amount I've spent on iPads & Apps could easily have covered an 88-Key Korg Kronos which is still a very, very capable music-workstation
I could understand the distaste for a monthly subscription, but I think (while obviously nobody really likes the idea of a recurring payment) that the low subscription price and yearly recurrence is very reasonable.
Psychological difference is that while I might 'throw away' £3.49 to have a play with a tool like this and then keep it 'in the box' for later use. With this pricing model I'll just read the description and keep it in mind, then if I need it later I'll try the trial and see if it fulfills my requirements.
That said, I'd probably also apply the same mentality for a £6.99 tool (with YouTube examples substituting the free trial).
Kinda my point.
When you face it, you would drop 98% of past impulse purchases, perhaps often made one time more to support the developer. I don't want that ghost reminding me regularly (I have bought more apps than is healthy to remember and surpasses in cost the few iPads I have, but some necessary for work of course).
I could be wrong but I think we have a debate on creator vs consumer going on here. One that we all need to have with ourselves!
$3.49 a year to subscribe? Read the description on the App Store. I wouldn't call it unreasonable. Cannot be compared to the Adobe model and implementation of subscription. Berating the dev is just rude and unnecessary.
Indeed 3.49$ for one year seems reasonable. There are currently 41 music apps on my iPad.
41 x 3.49$ = 143.09$ - every 12 month
Yay!
@anickt said:
I think you're misunderstanding us here (or at least me). Price is of no concern. It's the recurring nature of it. I will explain...
A couple months ago, I needed an iPhone/Universal app that had mastering tools, so I tried an app called AudioMaster.
https://appsto.re/us/X0Oebb.i
I downloaded it and saw they had eliminated the "unlimited usage" one time fee for $99.99 which kind of pissed me off, so I went with the "quarterly" option instead. When using the app, all I could think about was "when's the next payment due" rather than "I wonder what this function does". Granted, $4.99/quarter is more expensive than $3.49/year, but both are looming expenses over my head I don't need. I'd much rather have saved up my money and paid the $99.99 outright for AudioMaster unlimited.
This is frustrating logic. Each individual developer is not asking you to opt in to paying a subscription fee for each and all of your apps. You get to choose per app if you want to pay what the individual developer considers it is worth.
It's not a system where you either subscribe to all apps or pay up front for all. You can pick and choose, and you already own the vast (100%?) majority of the software on your device (until Apple deems it obsolete, at which point you can't reclaim back 'unused' value of all the apps that you 'own', but you can certainly cancel a subscription fee).
I think the main problem is that nobody wants subscriptions to become the norm.
Furthermore, I could almost understand a subscription for an all singing, all dancing DAW - but for an eq?
Why not instead, charge for future upgrades or features as in-app purchases? Many do this already and so it gives the consumer choice.
THIS! This was the point I was trying to make.
Yes. That's the point.
Of course I'd rather not pay anything for anything. I was doing the preliminary tech checks today for our upcoming UDAGAN performance in Airbnb HQ. You won't be able to afford any apps for the price of a barista coffee in there! (well, maybe Figure!). The vague point being that not everything can be compared as equivalent.
Myself, I'd rather pay the fee to have the peace of mind to know that the tools I use to make a living were going to continue to exist and grow with the platform, the times and with the imagination of the creators.
I'm not interested in 'taking a punt' on two hundred £2.99 apps and hope that the developers continue to support them through pure altruism, until they don't, or worse, an uncertain percent don't work reliably due to lack of support in 3-4 years, when all the currently enthusiastic developers lives have moved on a bit and they don't have so muxh time for their hobbies any more. We're already starting to see this!
I was worried about the subscription thing, but if £3.49 a year for a quality tool that does it's job well and receives ongoing support and development is the benchmark, then bring it on!! You think a cabinet maker pays that much per year for drill bits? I'm pretty sure as trades go, this is not bad.
If we want iOS to become a truly professional platform, we've got to pay the price tag. Sorry folks! There's always Figure!
Are we creators or consumers?
I made this suggestion in the other thread. If I like a product a lot, I'll snap up all current and future IAPs to help keep development going. Beathawk is a fine example of this. Beatmaker 3 will be a fine example of this. ProCreate (art app) has been a fine example of this. Sampletank is a fine example of this (now if only they'd create an AU player!)
Not only that, but IAPs for features and whatnot play on the consumer's natural impulse to impulse buy most of the time.
I'm sorry to stop you right there, but that is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read in my life. I've paid the price tag for all the software I use on my PC as well as the software I use on my iPad. In the PC environment, most companies offer paid upgrades at a discount of the original price. Image-line offers lifetime free updates. Either way, paying the upgrade price is optional but often the thing you want to do as part of "paying the price tag".
The same could be done for the iPad, where a company offers an upgrade with all the new features locked behind an IAP paywall (bug fixes come free). This way, I could continue using the app like I always did, or I can purchase the new features as well (the latter of which I'd most likely do).
I'm not a big fan of subscription based pricing either and have been worried about its inevitable onset, but if this app is setting the benchmark for it.. then whew!! [mops brow] .. panic over!
I am intrigued by this topic (not the derailed version. Subscription pricing is a valid discussion, but please take it to another thread!)
I'm curious if anyone is using Pro Q2 with multiple instances and channels in Audiobus to effectively have several live graphical EQ channels? It is such a great tool, would love if there were a creative way to use it outside of Auria tracks.
This has also intrigued me actually. I've not purchased the fab filters yet but I've many times pondered on their viability for live use
I don't see why it has to be inevitable.
One of the big reasons for the explosion of iPad based music is the relatively lower cost compared to PC or laptop based software. Once the costs become comparable to their PC equivalent, then you might as well use the PC and not be bound by Apples brick wall surrounding anymore.
Yes! your type of live performing is exactly what I'm envisioning, but having all your tracks running live through Auria so you can do custom EQ checks and tweaks along the way.
Anyone out there doing this?
Doubleplus this.
Apple really don't make the upgrade model easy for developers. While developers can make it work with IAPs and bundles it really is a hack that doesn't work well for anyone.
I don't like the subscription model either, but it's a completely valid model. Developers have to eat, and I don't particularly see why they should have to support an app that is no longer generating revenue three years down the road (I wish they would, but I wouldn't work for free either). I am generally worried about @j_liljedahl being able to support his apps such as AUM, for example. Would I pay for a subscription if it meant he is still able to afford supporting it in 3 years? Maybe.
That said, I almost never buy apps with a subscription model.
Please calm down ;-)
As i said, as long as the subscription is optional to full-price, it is OK.
And it may be easier to eat, when an App is long-prooven and valuable and it's developer also well known, trustworthy and longliving!
But for a startup?
First proove yourself and your Apps (more than one) before adding a subscription model, IMHO.il
And for the notice, i support developers as written above:
I got everything from Bram Bos, most of iceWorks (and will get everything that get's AU) and now nearly everything from apeSoft. And i will start with that partner companie with Moebius Lab and such...
I just like what and how they do things.
A single App, and just a filter set, may not be enough to ensure thw living of a developer!
Quite easy not!
Work your normal Job the next 5 years and spend evenings and weekends for development of a trustworthy app collection.
Then, you may start with subscription models.
Stop with dreaming until then.
Reality is harsh.
Obviously I don't expect that you have read my posts on the forum, but you would find out that I have been advocating for more payments to developers that are putting their resources in the game, mainly out of selfishness because I want better apps and faster (sometimes). I also buy lot of apps to support developers, even if I never open it. I also understand the subscription dilemma very well, I have been in the software business most of my life. Not against it, have only given my analysis of the situation and don't think for a minute that it's better than the next.
At this point at least two things are obvious, the resistance against subscription is psychological issue and that users would not make as many one off impulse purchases as when you have pay and forget. This must not be underestimated and well known phenomenon in marketing. I have mentioned that we need payment method that accomplishes several things. Keeps developers in business by moving second wave of cash flow to them as early as possible (note "as possible"). Users need to get better future commitment that the purchased app will have a minimum life cycle known beforehand and defined feature and service vise, not because of the direct cost, but the hidden cost of building up workflow and knowledge base that can be nullified when app is lost out of the production chain. If we can find solution that covers this and of course mutual agreement of price, something's would be won. Clearly many more issues must be covered, but this is the thing I have been talking about.
Very few serious parttakers in this ecosystem (iOS music apps) want to get things for nothing, on the contrary. I'm e.g. Willing to pay more and get my developer chopping bugs and making improvements any day. There is a give and take in this business, but it's currently small and enthuistically driven so we have still possibilities to get our points out and known.
Another issue that makes me sad. Several developers serial publish useless music apps. Some are very cheap and don't change a lot, but there are those who charge 10-50 for apps and they are simply fraudulent goods. Look nice but useless. Developers and users must request that Apple do something about this, not to mention the copycats who don't even bother to change anything or publish the same app under several names. New and younger users are the main targets for those people.
Of course Apple does not do anything about the copycats. They get payed for doing nothing.
If another developer copies your work and/or infringes on your IP it's very easy to get it resolved with Apple though. At some point (in the early days of the App Store) there was another developer using the name 'Hammerhead' for a drum app and Apple made them change their name upon my request. All I had to do was point out that I had been using that name for a similar genre application (not even on the App Store yet) and claimed ownership of the name for drum application purposes.
OK - and all good. Problem is the fake lookalikes scams.
Yet?
Offtopic: I used to have a Hammerhead app back in iOS 5 or so (one of my first iOS development experiments). But then Apple changed everything about their audio code and broke it so badly that I had to take it down.
It doesn't matter if I agree with it or not, the subscription model has become the standard for electronic media & services. I look at it from a case by case basis: a subscription for Netflix? Fine. A sub for iTunes Music, Spotify, Amazon Music, etc. is not the way I would like music to be distributed but I say fine as it's convenient and inevitably the future (under our noses now) of the music business.
Music software is a bit more sticky. Avid has had a terrible last few years changing over Pro Tools to a subscription model concurrent with a perpetual license. It was confusing and .introduced poorly. Avid's communication with the music production, film & post community regarding their pricing & licensing is awful.
If iOS devs are going to move to the subscription model they have to communicate it with the community ad nauseum. Taking for granted that their process is understood ("Hey, they got this...") is a big mistake. It's not because Musician/Producers are fools (insert your drummer, bass player jokes here) it's because there are so many variables.
You produce a project using subscription plugins/AU's and 6 months later you want to remix or add to it. Are all the plugins up to date/paid off? Should you make stems/freeze tracks now just to be sure, etc.
Or "Hey, it's $6 a month now but is it going to go up?" Will the resub be for all previous versions, how can the consumer know the product won't be kept up ala' "Samplr"?
There are many cans of worms that makes subscriptions for music production software completely different than subscriptions to Hulu.
I'm not saying @lucas & Goose are in the wrong at all. I respect any dev trying to make a good piece of kit and make a living doing it. I just say subscriptions are still incredibly sticky in 2017. Who knows, maybe if enough companies turn to it subs will become common and accepted fairly quickly.
Bottom line is we never OWN any software, we just pay to obtain a license, most with plenty of conditiobs & boilerplate. I myself would prefer choice; to buy my "license" for an indefinite amount of time for a set price. I suspect if devs gave consumers the choice between subs & 1 time purchase and made the sub option less expensive (even by just 10%), many would migrate to subscriptions on their time, save a bit of money and feel as though they chose how their equipment is procured.
That may be better than arbitrary subscription only options, especially on new software. It's all very sticky... because next in the thought process is "What about trials, especially for new products?" and that complicates things even more.
Ah - I thought you had a Hammerhead drum machine revival in the works... Ta
>
It's their (developers) funeral. Clearly, they are confident in their business model. When it falls flat on its face, they may reconsider.