> 7 days free trial.
> New users can enjoy a 1-day free trial of Frondly Premium
> 7 days free trial.
> New users can enjoy a 1-day free trial of Frondly Premium
Companion planting, pests, common diseases and treatments tend to be other questions that we get ( as master gardeners )
Free users can create a lot of support tickets. This could be good or bad.
Free users may never convert to paying, which isn’t ideal for bootstrapped ML business with expensive cloud costs.
Though I think there is something interesting you are exploring here —- I imagine this is backed by an LLM API? If that’s the case, I would naively assume that I can get similar information using my chat gpt subscription directly — personally that’s where I find myself going for many of the random questions that come up in my life these days.
That brings up a couple of interesting questions that I would be curious to hear the results over time on (not that you have any obligation to share) 1) is there a wide audience that finds a value in this that don’t otherwise have access to ChatGPT/claude/whatever llm — and value this enough to pay just for this sort of ‘niche’ AI product? Or 2) alternatively — is the prompting/fine tuning/curation of the ai content you are providing better than what a naive LLM user could do on their own in a casual chat, that paying for this directly in addition to an LLM service would be worth it?
What makes yours different?
A better pricing schema for this, that also combat today's subscription fatigue, would be to sell X amount of plant scans. Like you can sell 10, 30 or 60 in different pricing scales. Pay once, the already scanned plants stay there in the users library. At least, I would find that pricing to be much more realistic and fair, and I suspect plenty of potential users are in the same boat as me. I will be able to personally scan the aforementioned 8 plants today, and 2 new plants in the long run, and it will feel great and fair.
Especially with saplings they may not show the characteristics of the mature plant well but you can use context clues like if the parent tree is next to it.
"Personalized care instructions" - An LLM responding in a seemingly personalized way but with generic instructions is the average LLM chat experience. How is this different?
Any idea how this compares? For me personally, the other stuff is useless, I can Google care and such later. I'm after the most accurate, point - shoot - ID app out there.
As a casual user of LLMs (Gemini, ChatGPT) with multimodal capabilities, I've snapped a few pictures of random insects/plants and gotten pretty good identification out of the box.
The first thing you should do is point out how deep your moat is, and what makes it different. Your site says its uses AI and an internal database. I would give some clear examples then of how your product has better accuracy then any of the widely accessible LLMs already in use.
It’s been better in every single way.
As with their live text (ocr on an image), subject selection (remove background) etc, there are probably slightly better implementations in dedicated apps, but for most casual uses the built in is likely more than sufficient.
Usually when she's looking up how to care for a particular plant she uses Kagi to exclude websites with a large userbase in the United States. She prefers websites that are UK/Ireland based, or to a lesser degree, Northern European (using Google translate). Why? Because of subtle differences in plant naming, species etc and wildly different climate. She finds advise from U.S. based sites to be extremely questionable here, and you might waste a whole year trying to grow something before you realise that the advice doesn't work here.
But hey, every British band in the 60s and 70s wanted to break into America because they're are hundreds of millions of English speaking people living in a single TV nation. It makes sense for you to focus your efforts there. And whatever AI is behind your app is likely to have been trained on commercial plants in the US.
I am not going over that budget (despite not being poor, it's more of a principle) and 7$/month is too much.
I totally understand that subscriptions are nice for the seller side. But for me as a consumer, they are not in the majority of cases.
Edit: I can't even delete my account? This app seems just super sketchy now. My impression is that it's either a scam or build by someone lacking the necessary experience and skills.
I say Western as the training data is skewed by common species and usually they’re a bit geographically limited (for example BirdNET works best if you use a localised model).
Also if you use these free services, you can contribute natural training data which is valuable - even for well represented species.
--- Jfkgjfkckfu Eurufjc cnsudjf si deleted. --
I will set 7 days trial without payment, from what i got from feedback
Would second the opinions in the comments that I'd need to know if this is going to be useful to me before I signed up to anything.
Thanks for highlighting this, it really helps guide where I can take the app!
When I've used the built in lookup it also shows me other examples of the species it identifies the plant as.
As many others here stated, there are free trustworthy alternatives like PlantNet and iNaturalist. For now, even Google Lens is more reliable… until Google gets flooded with bad data and AI generated images of plants.
$3 seems like a better entry point for a product to test the market. Equivalent to a cup of coffee in most cities.