I'm still working on it, curious but what feature may be most valuable for you? What do you think about personalised care instructions, and an interactive chat feature for each plant.
This looks cool! I would be a causal user of this, but $7 puts it out of my price range, even with a free trial.
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?
The de facto for Western plant species ID is Pl@ntNet/iNaturalist (free and citizen scientists will ID if there is uncertainty). Then you just look up care instructions? I would absolutely not trust ChatGPT.
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.
The problem with this is also in the case of fraud refunds. I have a site where the subscription was only 2€/m but I had to increase it because when customers asked for a refund via their bank I had to pay 16€ in fees.
I probably wouldn’t pay a monthly subscription (which may very well just mean I’m simply not part of your target audience, and that’s fine) — though if I could use something super simple like Apple Pay to buy a few scans for $1, I would probably do that.
A different product would be evaluated differently based on its usefulness and quality compared to free options.
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.
I think this idea is beautiful! I definitively would use it for some plants at home. But I'm not buying new plants each month, and even if I do, I don't know if I would use this for all of those. I have only 8 plants I would like to scan and forget, and the idea of subscribing throws me off, even if I can unsubscribe.
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.
Not to poopoo this, but there are multiple apps for this, some with master Gardeners behind them. Some that are straight up suggested by states for use, based on the input from their master Gardeners.
I have no idea what a master gardener is (a US thing I guess?) or why I would care if they endorse an app. But I have tried a couple of the top rated apps for this on Android and found them utterly terrible. I remember one result, I took a very clear photo of a bunch of bananas growing on a tree and got some kind of ferns as the answer. If this app can do better I expect there's a place in the world for it.
I assume they mean "a famous gardener". Here in the UK, there are at least two household names that present gardening shows, whose endorsement on such a product would be a huge pull.
Thanks for your input! Yes, there are many apps out there. Originally, I made it for a friend who was paying $20/month for GPT. I really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts!
I wanted to see how it looks and what exactly it does without reading too much. Since you're offering a free trial I went for that. It was annoying that I had to create an account first, but I can see how that might be necessary. But now the page is asking me to pay even though I just want the trial you advertised? That's just sketchy. Other obstacles: no PayPal. Maybe this app really is just a wrapper around an LLM chat and that's why you're not showing it?
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.
Thank you for your feedback. I’ve deleted your account, so there’s no need to worry about that. This is the first launch of the app, and I’m working on resolving all the issues quickly. I appreciate your patience and understanding!
---
Jfkgjfkckfu Eurufjc cnsudjf si deleted.
--
I will set 7 days trial without payment, from what i got from feedback
PlantNet has a ID feature that is based on the part of the plant, I.e leaf, flower, fruit etc that makes it much better at ID than just what you would get with Copilot or Gemini.
Companion planting, pests, common diseases and treatments tend to be other questions that we get ( as master gardeners )
You slapped together a wrapper around an LLM and are expecting to be able to charge $7 a month for it? Why?
"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?
Im kind of the target audience since I am trying to identify certain species of native trees in my new area for a forest garden project and am not very good at it yet. That said I’ve tried these ML apps and it didn’t outperform me googling so I kind of gave up.
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.
Can your LLM always detect that? You realize that foraging is a huge reason people do this, and bad directions have very real consequences. From a culinary perspective, does it matter? Is it a growing, potential edible (technically not a plant the way tomatoes are technically a fruit) thing on the ground?
Readit News
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?
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.
But a $7 subscription is far more than the utility I'd get from it.
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.
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.
What makes yours different?
https://floraincognita.de/
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.
--- Jfkgjfkckfu Eurufjc cnsudjf si deleted. --
I will set 7 days trial without payment, from what i got from feedback
Companion planting, pests, common diseases and treatments tend to be other questions that we get ( as master gardeners )
"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?
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.