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
Yeah, that's generally true. Audio rendering – as in, the chain of processing that ends with sound coming out of a speaker somewhere – is typically one thread only, so only on one core. The audio system has a single high-priority thread which does the work of producing audio for each source and mixing it together, and it has a hard deadline for each render interval. Splitting out the work to multiple threads isn't feasible because the system just isn't designed to do that without running the risk of breaching those deadlines. It may not always be that way, especially for rendering across multiple apps in parallel, as far as I'm aware. But it's not that way right now.
Who knew what Apple had planned for the iPad 5 years ago. Being the first in a new market can be a good business strategy if a new market takes off. Unfortunately IMO, I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with the iPad. I love that I can play vintage synths and play with filters and Apps. But the file management, the interconnectivity, and complexity of how I can compose with those sounds, leaves me wanting. Perhaps if Apple had progressed toward making iPad more and more musician friendly, App sales would have gotten progressively better and better.
But here we(g) are today wondering if half the Apps we already own will even be useable in future iOS/iPadOs releases. For me that worry is a big deterrent to buying new apps. Now it seems many here (including myself) only want to buy AU-v3 Apps because the depreciation of IAA makes it too sketchy to make further investment in Apps that require IAA.
There's even a thread on here that demonstrated a concern that Apple might not fix an inability to play chords using onscreen keyboards in the comming iPadOs release.
I even have a plan to "freeze" my iPad on the last "usable" OS if some future update comes along that "bricks" a bunch of Apps that I currently enjoy.
These concerns are things that can suppress the sales of music Apps. They can also effect how much someone is willing to pay for an App, if they are generally worried about the future of iPad music creation.
Another element for me has been the "bugginess" of some of the Apps I've purchased. When I first bought Cubasis I could not get a track to freeze to the proper length. It's since been fixed, but that and other experiences have left me feeling differently about iOS Apps than the way I used to think about regular Mac Apps that generally worked well.
Do I want to sink $40 into an iOS App and be dissatisfied with it.... But when an App is $20 or less, gambling on it doesn't bother me as much.
Sure certain Apps are worth more than their price for what they can do. But as others have expressed, there is no way to trial an app to know if it's one you want. But in general I think it's the uncertainty of what Apple is going to do in the future regarding making iPad better or worse for music, that creates a sort of psychological barrier to spending a lot on an App. Uncertainty can be a powerful deterrent.
Ultimately, I think in order for iPad music Apps to become more lucrative. I think Apple will have to actually get behind the iPad as a serious tool for Musicians, acknowledge that music creation is a long term vision for iPad into the future, and they will be actively working to advance the iPad's capabilities as a music production tool into the future.
I agree, especially with the inability to reasonably trial an app first - as far as I know, there's still a ban on overt "trials" in apps; the free version has to do something useful in its own right, which can be really hard to do.
I think this is where subscriptions come in, because there's a very small initial investment, and you can drop out any time. It's a real shame people seem to go into such apoplexy whenever subscriptions are mentioned, because I reckon they're a good solution. 🤷♂️
Wow, awesome. Thanks for the explanation!
People want to "own" the app. Like you buy a guitar and "own" it forever.
Problem is, they end up "owning" an app that doesn't work on the latest iOS anymore because the developer went out of business due to a lack of ongoing income.
Yeah, there's a bit of a false analogy there!
I’ve never approached apoplexy over subscriptions, nor even really, emotions. But there’s a plain and simple hard stop fact. I just wouldn’t do it. Ever.
Because of the cost? No! Because I don’t want as badly as anyone for developers to be able to make a sustainable living? No!
It’s simply because I have dozens and dozens of apps and there’s just no way I want to manage that many moving parts to my finances. Imagine if purchasing clothes wasn’t an option. You had to separately rent each pair of shoes, pants, socks, undewear, each sweater, jacket ... and then had to decide each month whether you could afford to keep each piece and if it was still worth it. No thanks.
I just don’t think subscriptions are a good solution. I’d rather see higher pricing, trial periods, and paid upgrades.
But of course, this is all pointless prognostication. We, this tiny slice of this microscopic market segment, in Apple’s eyes, have no clout.. The market will find a solution, or decline until it does.
I just wanted to pop in to put perspective on one reason for the resistance to subscriptions in light of @michael’s post. Definitely not to stir a hornets nest!
Yeah, that's a good point, @wim. At least one-off purchases are set-and-forget. It's not an insurmountable problem, there's plenty of scope for solving that with the right UI tools, but...as you say, it's moot, 'cos it's probably not going to happen 😄
This would be less of a problem if subscription apps only charged me for the months in which I actually used them...
My biggest wish? I wish every single app had a “tip jar!”
Maybe we could generate a crypto ‘tap coin’ currency that could feedback and pay for our subscriptions the more we use the app?
I used to think this was an iOS thing as well until I started getting into VSTs. Desktop plugins can be bought for so cheap these days, as well. Really high quality plugins for under $30. When you add the hit that piracy has on desktop plugins it might even be worse than iOS.
Tough time for music dsp developers all round, I think.
What amazes me is how much effort a developer goes to in making an app and then they release it without any videos or an online manual or anything to encourage a person to buy it.
A large number of my apps have been bought only after watching a video by Doug. He deserved every penny he got in the old Apple referral scheme.
Yeah, developers are typically appalling at promoting their own stuff. Myself included, more often than not. That's the trouble with being indie...you tend to just do All the Things yourself. Jack of all trades...
I think subscriptions got their bad reputation with the invention of the perpetual self-renewing subscription. The one month free trial that ends with a perpetual self-renewing subscription. And the lengthy fine print service contract that no one bothers to read, that often cleverly devises a "specific ritual" be performed in a "specific order", to free oneself of the self-renewing obligation.
(In the USA anyway) These kinds of self-renewing subscriptions are lawful because they meet the standards of contract law, but that does not mean that they cannot be "lawfully predatory".
For a subscription services to become more popular, I think they should offer a choice to purchase periods of subscription service that will end the subscription on a preselected date. I rarely see such an option with subscriptions.
But if you want to get down to the root reason why subscriptions are more profitable, I thinks it's because if people were given the option to only purchase the amount of subscription time that they wanted, the end result profits might be close to an outright software sale.
I really think the only reason subscription are more profitable, may be because of those self-renewing contract stipulations.
I especially enjoy reading some of the self-renewing contracts which sometimes say if payment method fails, user will remain liable to pay unpaid subscription fees. Some of those contract are written in a way that they could perpetually continue an unpaid subscription and rack up a substantial debt. Person doesn't pay the bill... The account goes to collections, and the loss becomes a write off. Now the individual is receiving harassing phone calls from debt collectors while insisting that they actual did end the subscription by pressing the button on the web page. Well, that can be covered by a "we are not responsible for website malfunctions". So prove you pushed the button!
I also like the subscriptions that stipulate that a contract can only be ended in writing, by mailing a letter to some specific postal address.
These are some of the reasons why I think certain people may not be very fond of subscription services.
I would have signed up to watch Star Trek Discovery on CBS All Access, but I won't, because it's a self renewing subscription service.
I disagree. For me, auto-renewal is not an issue at all. I just don’t want to manage that many variable expenses, and I definitely don’t want to continually revisit whether to continue the expense. I would rather feel guilty once and get it over with than every single month.
It’s not like a newspaper or magazine where you would typically only have a few.
Nope. Auto-renewal ain’t the problem. For me anyway.
Yikes. That's rather horrific! I feel near apoplectic just hearing about it. Yeah, I think great care needs to be taken to avoid being predatory, or at least obnoxious.
I think subscriptions are reasonable, and even preferable, for more expensive apps that are major production tools. I don't need to "own" the app, but having to pay a buck here, and five bucks there, every month for every synth or utility would definitely cause me to significantly narrow and fine tune my selections---more like buying hardware. Is there a market to sustain many producers that would be offering subscriptions? The competition would be strong, which may be a good thing, but I enjoy the diversity I'm able to invest in with iOS because of one-time, relatively low cost purchases, like a paid trial to play with, then continue to use if usable.
The arguments that subscriptions are better for devs, better for keeping apps alive and improving, and also provide a trial period, seem sound to me, but if the subscription model really is the way to go for most apps, why don't we see more devs offering subs?
My issues are purely of the chicken/egg variety. Subscribe to what is here now in terms of general quality of app/support/faith in roadmaps/faith in sustainability of said devs/app(s)? No way! But subscribe in the future when things are... uh, the opposite? Heck yah! But I believe the road to that point will be paved in salty tears/forum posts.
“Apoplectic.” I just love that word! Gonna be using that one to annoy the wife and kids for some time now.
Flabbergasted was getting kinda old, even for me. Great word though!
😊
Yeah. It's a tricky one. I believe Focos (which, by the way, is one of the most spectacularly good apps I've ever seen) does it quite well, with a free download, then a subscription OR a one-off IAP. I might explore that in future if I can figure out how to do it without falling afoul of the app store trial rules. Can't quite remember how Focos does it.
Yeah:
Lifetime unlimited access $12.99
Monthly subscription $0.99
Yearly subscription $7.99
But aren't those all those unpleasant factors you've described... All actually the things that are caused by an auto-renewal subscription system?
I'm not a dev, but it seems to me iOS for music production relies mostly on either independent developers who love making apps regardless of the financial return, and larger companies who use the platform for promotion or to sell auxiliary products. I doubt many go into it with the idea that they're going to make loads of money from app sales. Sell cheap, and that's the market built and established---and due to enthusiastic coders, flooded. Higher prices can't compete. And who's going to be enthusiastic about a subscription when the full price for an app is about the cost of what would be a month or few rental? For those of us who enjoy using what's possible, and don't concern ourselves with whether iOS can match desktop performance or not, our good luck is getting some great tools for relatively little investment.
I guess the question is... Why can't that continue to be the case for years to come? I bought my first iPad years ago, and we had the same criticisms of the App Store then, and the same addictions and expectations where iOS users buy lots of inexpensive apps, whether they use them or not, and then complain that buying a hundred apps actually costs some money---but continue to buy. Has anything changed? Apple isn't motivated to change quickly or, in some ways, fundamentally, so we embrace what is or get out.
Sounds completely fair to me! Even if the costs were higher, at least the customers can pay how they like.
Yeah, I quite like it, as a customer. Especially for higher priced apps. $40 lifetime, $3 per month, $20 per year, something like that.
I’d be very happy with that for a truly great app...something like, say, Loopy Pro 😎
No. Sorry, I don’t know how to explain it better. It’s the fact of the multiple monthly costs, not whether it’s automatic or not. Nvm ... not important.
If musicians make almost no money (after expenses/gear etc) - and punters don't want to pay for music anymore,
then it is no surprise that IOS music apps are not profitable, and hence the race to the bottom continues....
( I feel sorry for these great app devs that put SO much time in, for such little return)
In my world, if I have to spend a shitload of time working out how to use an app (like BM3) with all of the bugs, and quirky workflows, not knowing if the app will ever evolve, then I would rather play a synth, or piano, or a guitar - or more importantly, use my DAW, where I know I can re load a session in 5 years time and know my VST's will work, and the DAW can read older sessions and boooom - it loads and plays back.
I have no faith in IOS apps being able to be used in even 12 months time...
I just want to make music, not immerse in learning a complex app that may be discontinued soon (er).
Creative insurance.
😊