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
They’re apples and oranges as far as I’m concerned. Stagelight is more a full DAW, while Auxy is definitely more groove box style. I’d say it’s probably the best groove box style app I’ve used, there’s many I haven’t, but even the devs don’t position it as an end all be all app. They constantly encourage using it in tandem with other software, both iOS and desktop. It’s easy enough to drop in and out of the subscription, I like that it’s not hidden at all and when I’m not feeling it, I just let my sub lapse. If I want to pick it up again, I do. They say the model has been profitable, so that’s cool for them. It’s a tough landscape and I can’t imagine being an iOS dev to be honest...
@icsleepers : Excellent , informed comparison there .. Thanks
Fair.
I prefer the Jonatan Liljedahl / Igor Vasiliev Model, build an app with no obviously ridiculous omissions, set the price and get paid. Not only will the common dev sell more of their apps this way, they'll even get other devs asking them to dev for them.
we're talking about app upgrades and updates like they're just standard fare topics, the majority of the request I've been talking about, and seen talked about on this forum are things that should have been implemented already in whatever app, I see people talking about midi, panning, and sample input monitoring etc... , Music apps might be tools, services to some, but to many they are instruments. I don't want to subscribe for instruments for any reason.. I didn't want to do it when I was a child and had to give back the instruments at the end of the semester and I don't want to do it now. Lovdamusic is right a subscription based app is not important enough to keep a subscription because I won't even take the first look at one, soon as I find out it's a subscription it's out of site and mind. Instruments are for owning.
we are still acting like the issue is the how to pay, I don't believe that is the primary issue. If a musician finds the right instrument for him or herself, that musician will find the money for that instrument, it's always been that way for whatever instrument you were lusting for. I've had many a cup-o-noodled night after a day of just going to look at that guitar hanging on the wall in some shop that I was going to eventually buy when I had the money and I don't know any musician who can't relate to that.
If a dev makes an app that has the basics and standards as expected then they won't be riddled with request for stuff like midi in and out, input monitoring, audio import and export etc... and instead the feature request if any will be features that go above and beyond the scope what's expected in the app.... if it's just one new fangled esoteric feature request then maybe it isn't worth it for the dev to work on it, but if it's request for 5 or 6 such features then maybe it's time for a new version of the app or completely different new app and it should be easy for both the dev and the users to decide if anyone wants it, that's where the transparency comes in
... If a dev can make a career of this should not depend on what crazy pay scheme apple has on any day of the week, it should be because the dev is making instruments that people want to buy. I see many forumites throw money away at apps they don't need , won't use, even many of us who are ready to pay for apps that haven't even come out yet or that they know nothing about besides the fact one is gonna get made.... IOS users are the most frivolous buyers I've ever seen and I resemble that remark myself. They are willing to take chances on devs that no one would take on any other platform in the world and if things go south they just chalk it up to being a money grab or a bad cup of coffee or warm beer and keep on chugging on to the next time they can click that buy button.
I still can’t find anything approaching 7700. Maybe seven hundred and seventy... but seven thousand....... seven hundred. Seven thousand.... seven, one two three four.... five........... six................ SEVEN.... THOUSAND!..... and also seven hundred along with it???? Where are they???
@robosardine between the melodic instruments and every single drum wave sample there might be 7700. I cannot be arsed to count them all lol
Roger that- It’s time for me to bail out- I’m off to cancel before my first payment gets removed 🚠 cheers!
Auxy 6 update is unworkable because with every action you do you get a subscribe (free for 7 days) popup message. Extreme annoying earlier version before 6 didn't have that. It would be good if Apple could give user the option to reinstall older versions of an app. Because with this aggressive popup message Auxy is history for me, and probably a lot of other users.
Ah- so that’s a new thing- this also put me off it as well.
I'm not seeing the problem, because you don't have to subscribe to tools. There are plenty of tools that are the typical buy and it's yours (not getting into whether we're actually renting or owning software.) The dev makes a product, people can choose to invest in it or not. Why should that dev not be able to rent his app because of some arbitrary rule about it being a service or a tool? I've used equipment rentals many times when I couldn't afford or didn't want to buy, so why can't the producer rent their own product? It's just an option, and sometimes it's the right option. I don't know how well Auxy is doing, but if subscriptions are enough to keep them going, that's the bottom line. They only need to satisfy their customers.
Well who said they should not be able to rent their app? I don’t remember anyone saying subscriptions should be against the rules. They can do whatever they want. Of course it’s just an option. Of course there are other tools. Of course I’m not paying a subscription for Auxy. How do you think businesses ever know what to do? Maybe it has something to do with consumers deciding what they want? So here are consumers saying they don’t want subscriptions. Auxy satisfying their current customers is only part of the equation. They’ve got to satisfy potential customers. How could a business like this be successful relying only on the customers they already have?
Good and Services are not an arbitrary rule, they are nouns.
I would love to try out serato Studio but the Dev just told me this morning that if you cancel your subscription that you can't use the program at all. If they cut off any further updates but let you continue to use the portion you've already purchased and are satisfied with then I would support the subscription model but they don't.
Because the customers they already have might be the only ones that they care about? Chasing potential isn’t the only way to be successful, and if you really want customer engagement, you’ll focus on making the ones you have very happy and not worry so much about the potential.
https://m.signalvnoise.com/exponential-growth-devours-and-corrupts/
https://medium.com/the-mission/how-basecamp-built-a-100-billion-business-by-doing-less-on-purpose-5f978ce6478c
These are pretty lengthy articles but basically describe the philosophy behind the company basecamp (who used to be 37signals). They are a software as a service and have been around for years, and they know their place. Are they the best at what they do? I think so. Could they do more? Absolutely. But they know their limits and they don’t care about trying to grab new customers that expect bigger and better things that are out of their wheelhouse. They have no problem telling a potential customer that they should look elsewhere if they think the customer has needs beyond what they offer or are willing to offer. They refine their offering constantly and keep it the way they like it, potential be damned.
So while I see that you and a few others are speaking with your wallet and saying “Auxy, hear us saying we won’t buy your sub model”, and they might be saying “cool, we’ve got these customers over here that dig it and we’ve developed a nice relationship and that’s good enough for us. Good luck with whatever else you choose!”
I think this sort of model is what Auxy is going for.
Pretty much the vibe I get. Time and time again they’ve basically said “If you want X feature that we’re not considering at all then just use something else.”
I agree that there are downfalls to exponential growth. But that’s really not the point. Why did Auxy switch to subscription? To cater to their current customers? No. If Auxy was in the position they’re in and needed revenue growth, could they simply convert their base to subscription and call it a day? I could list a ton of companies that grew too far or fast and became unwieldy. And to be clear, my words were “Auxy satisfying their current customers is only part of the equation.” Auxy still needs more customers like the ones they have who don’t mind subscription and want to use Auxy the way Auxy is now. I highly doubt anyone at Auxy would disagree with that. I think Auxy’s model and attitude is clear. I’ve been on their forums. I like how direct they are about what Auxy is and isn’t. None of that changes anything.
If you were just stating that subscriptions are wrong for you, there would be no argument. When you say things like "You should not have to subscribe to tools," or that devs are trying to justify something that can't be justified, or that it makes no sense, or that it's not sustainable, then you get an argument. I do pay subscriptions for things, so I'm a consumer here telling businesses that it makes sense to me and, with the right app, can work well for the right users. If Auxy has customers now, then there are more potential customers out there. They don't need to satisfy everyone. As far as I can tell, it is a sustainable model but, if not, the market will make that decision.
wow, serato studio is like $114 bucks per year in perpetuity!!! either there are gold in them der hills or Serato is crazy.
no way, this is not sustainable, furthermore I shouldn't have to subscribe to tools like this, it's like they're just trying to justify something that can't be justified, it obviously makes no sense at least not to me because I don't pay subscriptions for things, I'm a consumer here telling businesses that this is not a good idea and though it might work well for some I wish they would allow a model that I could support, like .... how about let those who want to pay forever, and let those who don't want subscriptions pay a flat base fee for the software with the option to subscribe for updates but not cut off the software completely if we don't stick with the subscription, and allow us to continue to use what we've paid for.
win win for everyone imo
I have zero worries about an argument. But I was under the impression this was a debate. Maybe I’m wrong. But I definitely think we should be clear on what’s being said. I do not think you should have to subscribe to tools. ANY tool. That is not the same as telling a dev he should not be able to rent his app. Devs ARE trying to justify it with content. Nearly every single one in fact. Feel free to prove me wrong. I do NOT think it is sustainable. You as a consumer can say whatever you want. No one is debating that? If Auxy has customers now there are more potential customers out there? Why? That’s not really saying anything. Of course they don’t need to satisfy everyone. They need to satisfy people like me and you.
It seems like everyone wants to challenge this line of thinking so heavily and then say “the market will make that decision.” Yes. It will. I’m saying the same thing. We are stating our opinions on how it will play out based on our own desires/experiences/research.
You think no one should have to "subscribe to tools." You're welcome to feel that way, but what's the argument for it? Auxy is a lot about content. Most DAW/Music Studio apps include content and offer IAP's to buy more. Auxy delivers content as part of the subscription. No one I know of is suggesting that subscription apps should be less than that. Didn't I say I was talking about a regular centerpiece of production?
So Auxy is a subscription "tool" that includes good content. The only reservation I have about it is that, by iOS standards, it's expensive. I'd prefer the usual great deal of a production app like that costing very little. With a desktop app that would cost hundreds of dollars, I can find subscription preferable depending on the rental price. But I understand that Auxy is taking a route to try to get better support for their work. Sixty bucks a year, or less as needed, is doable.
Auxy will measure success on the subscriptions they get. That's the choice they made. Money talks. The company will look to keep and get more buyers by making the product as attractive as they can. We don't know how they're doing or will do. Even if they fail, that doesn't mean another company won't come along and try offering subscriptions, and possibly succeed with an even better product. I'm rooting for Auxy's success, so why let opinions against what they're doing go unchallenged? Devs are aware that many people don't like subscriptions or, if they don't know, they don't read forums. If Auxy is successful, it might encourage other apps like it to follow. You obviously don't like that prospect, so you try to condemn what they're doing. That's your right. I understand you are allowing devs to rent their apps, and me to support them. You can also tell me how I should or shouldn't be spending my money, but here we don't agree.
I’m honestly not even sure what you’re talking about anymore. I have explained exactly why you should not have to rent a tool using the hammer analogy.
“Auxy is a lot about content”
Yup. Before it was IAPs. Now it’s included in the sub. Name a company other than adobe who has not tried to justify their subscription with content. I am arguing that that know they cannot ask people to simply subscribe to a tool.
“Most DAWs include content.”
Yup it comes with the DAW. That’s how they sell you on buying their DAW. Either basic or souped up. Would they charge a sub for that one payload of content? No.
“No one I know of is suggesting that subscription apps should be less than that. Didn't I say I was talking about a regular centerpiece of production?”
You cannot suggest it because it doesn’t exist. That is my point. Every DAW has aimed to be a regular centerpiece of production. You know it’s the norm so why would you have to say it? I’m saying that people who want to use these tools and don’t need content are less inclined. I’m saying it’s probably not sustainable for this reason and a few others mentioned. That is my educated guess. You like paying a sub for content. Cool. Move on.
“The company will look to keep and get more buyers by making the product as attractive as they can.”
So they only need to satisfy their customers or do they also need more buyers? Which one is it?
“I'm rooting for Auxy's success, so why let opinions against what they're doing go unchallenged?”
I’m rooting for Auxy’s success as well. I stated that already. Honestly, you’re not doing a very good job of challenging opinions and I’m not sure why you’re so hung up on it. I’ve stated my reasoning as soundly as possible. The only way you’re able to “challenge” it is by misinterpreting it and arguing with your misinterpretation. Show me where I’ve misconstrued something you said and I’ll gladly correct myself.
“You obviously don't like that prospect, so you try to condemn what they're doing.”
See above.
Nice little write up care of Pete Kirn. Where the hell is Ashley Elsdon, btw??
https://cdm.link/2019/07/auxy-ableton-export-tweaks/
Yeah, the "hammer analogy" isn't much of an argument. Many businesses run on rented equipment, hardware, or regular payments for business-specific software. They don't rent a hammer for obvious reasons, like people don't rent a reverb or virtual synth app, etc. And then there's entertainment. What's a "tool" to you could just be entertainment to someone else, and they may choose to subscribe. Since Auxy is both a tool that is continuing to be developed, delivers updates on content, and is entertainment for many, there's no good argument I've seen against it being subscription, other than some people "just want a hammer." So go buy a hammer.
Peter said they are taking a hiatus from writing for now awhile back.
Ah boo!! I always enjoyed Ashley’s enthusiasm, Pete is a good writer too but maybe it’s my palmsounds fanboyism too. Ah well, here’s to hoping he comes back
It’s not? Let me try to explain....
Oh... looks like you actually understand it perfectly.
Okay, I see you're not talking about Auxy in a thread about that app. That's what had me confused. All the complaints were not directed at Auxy, but to something about other "tools" that are like a hammer. I'm not going to go back and review everything said, but that wasn't the impression I got.