This could be bad for me as this might be the reason I want an iPad LOL

Then it's maybe bad at the right time: Next week is Black Friday

I would like to know what is the minimum processor needed to use the app. It would be great if older CPUs would also work, but with fewer voices. Does anyone know anything about this?

For everybody with a similar question:
"Will the A13 chip from the Apple iPad (9. Gen) be enough to run the coming IOS app?"

The gratifying answer from Niclas Fogwall (Support):
"Yes, it should work well for normal use."

Is there some kind of all purpose usb midi -> Lightning cable or does it depend on keyboard manufacturer? Would be nice to already have the cable when the iOS app comes.

You need a lightning camera connection kit. This wil give you a standard USB connector. You can plug in any keyboard with a class-compliant midi interface.

Key Fumbler wrote:

Irmin wrote:

I'd love to know timelines and price.

From the FAQ:
"May I install Pianoteq or Organteq on more than one computer?
Yes, you may install it on up to 3 computers of your own. You are not bound to any specific operating system, thus you may install e.g. a Windows version on the first computer, MacOS on the second and Linux on the third."

I imagine they will update this FAQ question to include iOS when that version is released.
IOW the same price for new customers or free to existing customers that haven't used all three slots up.

Will they increase the number licenses beyond 3 or create a different license tier for iOS?    I'm already using 3 installs on computers and for iOS alone I would want to install on my iPhone and an iPad.

Good questions.
Personally I don't think it would be fair to make you buy it all all over again, but that's not up to me of course.

Irmin wrote:

I'd love to know timelines and price.

From the FAQ:
"May I install Pianoteq or Organteq on more than one computer?
Yes, you may install it on up to 3 computers of your own. You are not bound to any specific operating system, thus you may install e.g. a Windows version on the first computer, MacOS on the second and Linux on the third."

I imagine they will update this FAQ question to include iOS when that version is released.
IOW the same price for new customers or free to existing customers that haven't used all three slots up.

Will they increase the number licenses beyond 3 or create a different license tier for iOS?    I'm already using 3 installs on computers and for iOS alone I would want to install on my iPhone and an iPad.

I expect the difference will be insignificant to the end users.

BarbaraRB wrote:

I still don't see a difference.  The Roland, Yamaha, and Casio apps are "crippled" unless you provide the necessary authorization.  There is absolutely nothing they can do without that.  So -- no different from PTQ requiring that you input your license number.  License number/authorization number = identical thing.  Buying a piano/buying PTQ = same thing, even if one is a solid object and the other is software. You may not see it that way -- we'll have to agree to disagree.

Let me be clear: I see your point and I agree with you in theory. I go even more and I say that the app stores are thieves, and they should charge much less than they do. But they don't do that, they are in charge and they do as they please, suggesting stuff that you don't want and hiding stuff you may want unless you search hard for them. The way they work for non-free app is how I described. If they didn't, they would not make any profit because everybody would do as you describe and avoid their hefty fees.

I don't know what kind of arrangements Apple and Google have made with companies like Roland, Casio, Yamaha or -- very soon -- PTQ.  It may be that there is some kind of payment involved which the companies factor into their cost of doing business and providing the app to their customers.  They haven't made that public.

I also have to say that there are many other examples of apps that don't fit in with your model.  I use Virtual Sheet Music, which has both Google and IOS apps.  VSM charges only about $37/year for membership (less after the first year).  Yet the app is free.  Some of what is on there is free for everyone; while downloading VSM's own scores is free for members.  Non-members pay.  And some scores, from publishers like Hal Leonard, always involve a fee -- less for VSM members, but still not free.  Clearly, there is some kind of payment arrangement between VSM and Google/Apple, but it is invisible to the customer.

I don't think the financial model for the app stores is as monolithic as you describe it to be.  They need to be flexible to accommodate different business structures/models.  But you and I have no way of knowing how they structure this.  It's proprietary information.

BarbaraRB wrote:

I still don't see a difference.  The Roland, Yamaha, and Casio apps are "crippled" unless you provide the necessary authorization.  There is absolutely nothing they can do without that.  So -- no different from PTQ requiring that you input your license number.  License number/authorization number = identical thing.  Buying a piano/buying PTQ = same thing, even if one is a solid object and the other is software. You may not see it that way -- we'll have to agree to disagree.

Let me be clear: I see your point and I agree with you in theory. I go even more and I say that the app stores are thieves, and they should charge much less than they do. But they don't do that, they are in charge and they do as they please, suggesting stuff that you don't want and hiding stuff you may want unless you search hard for them. The way they work for non-free app is how I described. If they didn't, they would not make any profit because everybody would do as you describe and avoid their hefty fees.

I don't know what kind of arrangements Apple and Google have made with companies like Roland, Casio, Yamaha or -- very soon -- PTQ.  It may be that there is some kind of payment involved which the companies factor into their cost of doing business and providing the app to their customers.  They haven't made that public.

I still don't see a difference.  The Roland, Yamaha, and Casio apps are "crippled" unless you provide the necessary authorization.  There is absolutely nothing they can do without that.  So -- no different from PTQ requiring that you input your license number.  License number/authorization number = identical thing.  Buying a piano/buying PTQ = same thing, even if one is a solid object and the other is software. You may not see it that way -- we'll have to agree to disagree.

Let me be clear: I see your point and I agree with you in theory. I go even more and I say that the app stores are thieves, and they should charge much less than they do. But they don't do that, they are in charge and they do as they please, suggesting stuff that you don't want and hiding stuff you may want unless you search hard for them. The way they work for non-free app is how I described. If they didn't, they would not make any profit because everybody would do as you describe and avoid their hefty fees.

BarbaraRB wrote:

I don't think it is different. The apps for the digital pianos are free, but you can't use them unless you buy the piano. The Pianoteq app will only work if you have a license, which is equivalent to the piano. Perhaps the piano mfrs pay something to Apple or Google. I don't know how that works. But I think the business model is comparable.

The piano is a physical object. Garmin does a similar thing, with a free app which is useless unless you buy one of their watch or other gadgets. But the app itself, while useless, it's not crippled. Same with piano manufacturers.

PTQ will need to be crippled until you buy a license, which is not a separate object. Huge difference.

Anybody can publish a free app on Apple or Google, paying only a one time registration fee of $25 (I've done that). The developer agreement to let you do that asks that you do not ask money to your users in any other way. If you do, you're out of the app store and your app is uninstalled from all your customer's devices. The piano manufacturers, Garmin and the likes are not asking money for their app. There is no "registration license" that you are purchasing. It might look the same to you but there is a huge legal difference.

I still don't see a difference.  The Roland, Yamaha, and Casio apps are "crippled" unless you provide the necessary authorization.  There is absolutely nothing they can do without that.  So -- no different from PTQ requiring that you input your license number.  License number/authorization number = identical thing.  Buying a piano/buying PTQ = same thing, even if one is a solid object and the other is software. You may not see it that way -- we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't think it is different. The apps for the digital pianos are free, but you can't use them unless you buy the piano. The Pianoteq app will only work if you have a license, which is equivalent to the piano. Perhaps the piano mfrs pay something to Apple or Google. I don't know how that works. But I think the business model is comparable.

The piano is a physical object. Garmin does a similar thing, with a free app which is useless unless you buy one of their watch or other gadgets. But the app itself, while useless, it's not crippled. Same with piano manufacturers.

PTQ will need to be crippled until you buy a license, which is not a separate object. Huge difference.

Anybody can publish a free app on Apple or Google, paying only a one time registration fee of $25 (I've done that). The developer agreement to let you do that asks that you do not ask money to your users in any other way. If you do, you're out of the app store and your app is uninstalled from all your customer's devices. The piano manufacturers, Garmin and the likes are not asking money for their app. There is no "registration license" that you are purchasing. It might look the same to you but there is a huge legal difference.