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
This! Hammer hits nail squarely on the head.
This is the model I prefer so I’m glad Michael is going down this path. I see it as the only middle road path.
The only thing I will ever rent is the roof over my head.
Dev's should just make abandon ware - they will all be abandoned in the near future anyway.
OR make XXX app V1.0 then XXX app v2.0 etc - then the punter can abandon updating when they see fit.
I'm a bit torn at all this subscription stuff especially since the apps on the iPad for me are more like a 'hobby' that doesn't generate any actual income.
Subscription is ok (Spotify, Netflix etc) when new content is added all the time.
For an app to even be remotely successful as a 'subscription thing' a clearly laid out feature roadmap (preferably public) with solid release-schedule is a must! (Continuous weekly or bi-weekly bug-fixes and monthly or bi-monthly feature updates as an example). I do get that it's impossible and inhumane to expect this from a one-person show...
App Subscriptions are nothing more than 'Software as a Service' and a BIG F-U if one forgets to pay the subscription one month, say bye bye to to content you've creates with that app especially if the file format is proprietary...
I have no doubts Loopy Pro will be an awesome app but it will take a year or two for it to mature and eventually replace the likes of AUM, apeMatrix, Cubasis, NS2, BM3 etc. etc. If that's even the intention
Cheers!
Only some people.
A few weeks ago I bought your wonderful "Hammerhead" app after seeing Doug's classic jamming video. If it was subscription I would not have bought Hammerhead because I already have a folder full of drum apps. But for AU$13 it was great value for a fantastic app.
But I expect at some time it will not work on iOS 17 or 18 or whatever. Then I will be happy to buy whatever new app you have made to replace it. I don't expect a lifetime of freebies.
Not sure if this sheds any light on the subject but at least it is a good plug for your app :-)
I think the Wotja / Noatikl model of pricing is quite reasonable. Pay a set price and have free updates for the year, then when the year is up, you still have the app, but it receives no more upgrades. A new version is then released with some enhancements which you can purchase again to have free updates for the year. Those that wish to continue paying and supporting development have the opportunity to do so, and those that only want a one off payment still have the super capable app they bought, which they can continue to use indefinitely (at least, until a new IOS version breaks compatibility..). This way, you still feel like you 'own' the app, but it doesn't prohibit the dev from profitable continued development.
I would be happy to support such a business model with apps like these which seemingly have the depth and development demands as a modern DAW. Drambo, Atom 2, Loopy Pro, Nano Studio 2 - all apps I wouldn't think twice about paying for once a year.
edit: thinking about it more - I'd be happy to do this for all apps I use. If that meant that they would continue to be developed, I'd be happy to buy a new and improved version of Gauss (for example) at the end of the year. I hardly use all of my apps, so its not like I'd need to renew my whole catalog. I find there's really only a handful of apps that I end up using 95% of the time anyway. Supporting the devs that make my favorite tools would be an honor, not a burden in that case.
Of course, if apps don't get upgraded or improved over time, I wouldn't want to subscribe to this sales model. In such a case, a one time payment seems suitable.
edit again: I see this is more or less what Michael was getting at in his first response in regards to Ableton, DAW and major VST sales models. It's the best way forward imo, but how to implement it with IOS seems to be the hurdle.
>
Glad you're apparently not planning you go that way. There are other models to collect repeat revenues, and as many others here, I'd also be happy to repeatedly buy good stuff from you - but not rent the same good stuff.
I think you probably have a better understanding now as to why subscription seems like a bad idea for that vocal cohort
This seems to be based on the (imho false) argument that there's nothing else outside these two extreme options. But there is, as described in the comments above. It is possible to reject rentware and at the same time be willing to pay developers for new versions/functions etc. I would gladly pay for a next version of NS2 with audio tracks, and I would also buy Piano motifs again if the unstoppable dev actually wanted to take a bit of money for the amazing work he keeps putting in, etc.
I don't think it's anywhere near that simple, but explaining my thoughts on this would quickly devolve into an essay length post and I don't want to derail what is a good thread!
I don't expect free upgrades, however I do expect free bug fixes for the current functionality. So if I pay for new features I expect free bug fixes for those features.
Just adding my voice again in support for this model.
Some apps, such as Drambo, I just wish I could pay for again lol. It feels like too much of a bargain and doesn't sit right with me knowing how much the dev puts in.
Subscription for access to content is fine, but not for access to features imho.
I like the Ampify model where you get the app for free.
You can then subscribe and get the PRO features and regular new content.
If you no longer want the regular content but like the app you can purchase the individual PRO features you like, or the whole lot as a pack, and stop the subscription so you still have access to the pro features.
You can then still purchase individual content packs as and when you want to.
How long do you expect to get free bug fixes though? That's an important question.
The dev himself confirmed this on his forum. You might have your own theory but essentially it's just armchair speculation. It's easy to theorise why something has gone wrong, but only the dev has any insight into the actual realities of the marketplace.
How about as long as the hardware it was released on?
So that an app released now might expect free updates as long as an M1 chip could still be updated to the latest version of iOS.
IMHO that's rather unrealistic as an expectation. I mean it does happen in real life with some apps so it's not unheard of
, but to expect a 5eur and 1500eur product to offer the same length of support is not realistic.
This is my view too, I like to think the apps I buy outright will not break with foreseeable OS updates.
I also buy based on the features of V1 with no expectations of further development other than bug fixes.
And am happily surprised when the dev exceeds expectations.
I think that depends on the price.
As someone replied, I expect it to work with the supported OS version. But I yes, it is a very important and difficult question.
Definitely a no to subscription here too, but paying for each update version is definitely a good model from my perspective.
Do subscriptions have to be month to month on the App Store? Is there an option for once every year?
For many apps there are. They’re usually hidden behind a more options dialog. Which leads to yearly and in some cases lifetime fee.
The thing with subscriptions is that there'd be a feeling of "wasted" money if the app was only used a few times in a month .. and secondly, as it was said in a comment above, not having access to the content I've created if happens that I cannot afford paying the subscription one month.
I think the IAPs model, having 2 or 3 different options, with more IAPs for new features is best.
My vote goes for NO subscriptions, at least not in the AppStore IAP format. I think its reasonable to charge for major version x.0 upgrades by releasing new apps in the AppStore.
I don’t know Wotja but this is what FabFilter also does, correct? If Loopy Pro is like that I’ll be happy.
The only downside I see to this is that 3 - 4 versions down the line, the dev will need to continue to upgrade the 1.x and 2.x and 3.x versions just to keep the those older versions compliant with changes in the annual iOS updates. Seems like significant maintenance work that provides no additional income to the dev.
I won't do subscriptions... My rational is influenced by all the lawsuits involving claims of deceptive marketing, difficulty canceling, failure to disclose terms upfront.
I feel subscriptions are primarily used in predatory ways. Such as free trials that end in automatic subscriptions. No option provided for purchasing only a single block of time. Subscription terms (contracts) that expressly say if Subscriber fails to provide payment info for subscription, subscription will continue and Subscriber agrees to pay legal fees associated with debt collection.
This continuation of a delinquent account model is a crime IMO. Imagine getting in a car accident, being in a coma, and having subscriptions accruing debt because you are incapable of canceling, even after your credit card expires.
I much rather buy the next version of an app, such as I bought Atom 1, and then I bought Atom 2... I bought Xequence 1 and then Xequence 2.
The IAP model creates a ton of overhead for the developer and over time would result in super-messy IAPs. Think long-term. If you have owned something like Ableton for 10 or 15 years, think aof all the IAPs that would entail.
There is an implied notion in a lot of what people have written that it is normal for everyone to buy every app that is good -- that we all have a right that developers should cater to to have every app we desire.
There is literally no way for that model to work and developers to be able to be compensated reasonably.
People list all the reasons why they might not be able to afford getting Loopy Pro if it becomes more expensive to them -- and they would apply the same reasoning to every other app they like -- even if they don't use the often.
There are lots of desktop apps and plugins that my neighbor who runs a small studio would like. But, he doesn't buy them. In every category, he gives a lot of thought to whether a particular app will contribute to his bottom line enough for him to invest in it. He doesn't have every DAW and every great synth plugin or every great reverb. So, he does his research and gets what he thinks will suit his needs the best. He has a few reverbs not 10.
In a way, if everyone who wants an app can afford to buy the app and not regret it even if they rarely use it that is a clear indication that the app is underpriced.
I think a lot of folks here have the notion that the pricing model is right if they can get whatever app they want when that really is a sign that the pricing model is wrong -- for an app of serious quality that requires real time to develop and maintain.
The pricing model is right when two things are true: the developer receives reasonable compensation for their time and effort (i.e. compensated as if this were being done for a living by a person with specialized skills and years and years of experience) and the people that will actually use it can afford it, and people that would only use it a few times decide that it is too expensive.
It isn't clear if that can happen on iOS at this time -- the App store model (as Michael noted) makes it impossible to implement the model that has developer over many decades for desktop software: free or time-limited demo mode, ability to directly contact customers to offer them discounts on major new releases (which folks is a subscription model by a different name), ability to offer special discounts to certain classes of users.
If anyone says "UGH! I won't do a subscription ever!" they need to do some hard thinking about whether they think a developer should get compensated as a highly-skilled professional or not. It isn't all about convenience to us as consumers.
People that complain about the cost of subscription don't understand why the models came into place. In many ways, Adobe's model as annoying as I thought it was when they shifted, made the software more -- not less affordable -- to a large class of users. The cost of purchasing the software outright had become too much for small businesses that really only need the suites sporadically. I mostly used the software intensely for about 3 months every 12 to 18 months when a major piece of documentation needed to get done. While it might have seemed annoying to pay$75/month to use software that I was used to owning outright that was actually a lot cheaper than having to shell many hundreds of dollars every couple of years for software that I only really used a few months a year.
When people say "It sucks, it is so much more expensive than buying X outright", they should buy X. That's right, it sucks that we can't all have whatever tool we want. It also sucks to be a developer and not get paid a decent wage.
For the most part, if a non-subscription option doesn't pop-up to compete with something, it is an indication that the market may not really be there.
The reason there isn't a DAW on iOS that doesn't seem to be missing something critical its that so far the market and app-store economics don't support it. It isn't just Matt (NS2 developer saying this) -- pretty much every iOS developer I know that works on ambitious projects (or has aspirations to) says the same thing: it has become harder over the years to make enough money on iOS for them to devote so much time to it. There may be exceptions but there don't seem to be many.
Family Sharing matters to me. I don’t think IAPs participate in Family Sharing, and I don’t think subscriptions do either, I could be wrong.
Loopy HD was the gateway drug to get my daughter into recording her own music on an iPad. It would be a shame to cut off that kind of entry point.
I think charging for each major version will work. @Hmtx look at samplr. There was a period of 5 years without a new version but the app was working. New OS releases do not necessarily require an app update. What I would consider to be fair for a professional app would be a support period of 3-5 years where serious bugs are fixed and compatibility with new devices and OS releases is ensured. As a gut feeling I would say that it seems to be reasonable to charge 30-50 bucks for an average professional music app depending on the support period and complexity of the app. I remember that Lars from Steinberg wrote that they make profit with Cubasis, so a price tag in that range seems to cover it in the iPad music market. Free demo versions would be good.
I’ll buy the app whatever it’ll cost because there is so much to be thankful for in this case, also happy to pay for new features / maintenance, but subscription is out of question unfortunately.
This seems fair.
Honestly, I think @Michael would be mad to sell Loopy Pro for less than $50 and I'm not saying that because I'm rich!
I'd be happier about paying a higher initial price if subsequent versions had a reasonable discount for existing users. I think people are generally used to that. It's a shame the App store doesn't provide better off the peg solutions but I guess bundle discounts are a workable if clunky solution. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation to have older versions continually supported either.
At a higher initial price I think alternatives to one off payments would be a good idea, given the prices people are used to here. I don't know whether there is a mechanism for letting anyone who has payed a monthly subscription for say 12 months keep whatever version they're on if they choose to cancel payments but this I think would mitigate the general opposition to subscriptions. It's not really a subscription model in this case, more a spreading payment model and it would help those on a tighter budget jump on board. I wouldn't mind paying a monthly fee on these conditions. Perhaps there could be an added incentive to continue contributing, like after 5 years you get a free Loopy Pro T shirt. Who wouldn't want that?
There’s a very vocal hatred of subscriptions, but unless you’re fully-committed to using one version of one program and letting it dictate your hardware/OS upgrade cycle, it can be financially beneficial even for the amateur/hobbyist.
If Ableton had offered a $19.99/mo subscription model when I first started with it in 2013, it would have taken me over six years to match my current investment ($1,000 including a free upgrade from 8 to 9, several M4L instruments from the webshop, and a $300 paid upgrade to 10: ballpark $1,500, 6.25 years on a monthly subscription). Now subtract from that the year I spent almost-exclusively using Logic Pro, the five months I spent in Australia with only my iPad and an OP-Z, the many scattered months where sitting at my desk working in a DAW felt too much like work, and the $300 upgrade to 11 that I want but can’t currently justify — eight years down the line, a monthly subscription model would have given me access to more content AND saved me money.
It doesn’t make sense for individual instruments but for your primary working environment, the math doesn’t always work against the end user. And it gives the developer sustainable, predictable income while incentivizing regular updates and upgrades.
This is all moot because it seems like Michael has fully-vetoed a subscription model for Loopy Pro, of course.