Comment by baron3dl
4 hours ago
First, I really love this idea, and I thank you for getting it into my head.
That said, if no AI is really important, I guess it's worth $29, though I can't tell if you used AI to build it or not from here.
Like, I just one-shot a script that does the same with Claude, after it listed 5 free projects that do the same, including one GUI. The whole thing took less time than writing this comment.
Now, if it were $2.99, I probably would have just paid you.
The website is clearly AI-written (along with the text), and the screenshot also looks quite like the styles that LLMs love
You're half right. The HTML and CSS are from a standard template that I imagine exists in just about every LLM's dataset, since they've scraped an internet's worth of them. I wrote (and rewrote and rewrote...) and edited every single word on the page, though.
My question is why not use IMAP?
That's what they used to do: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48708270
The OP had posted a detailed reply here as well, that they since deleted - I think because they didn't want to deal with all the pushback here.
No, I'm not afraid of pushback at all. I'm actually really glad I used IMAP.
Building on top of it let me solve a few major protocol headaches directly in the client:
The app filters out signature junk (like tiny social media and logo icons), pulls down just the raw attachments instead of downloading entire 20-year-old message threads, and handles thousands of images while gracefully managing Google's rate limits (to avoid connection drops).
It actually does use IMAP! The app connects directly to Google's IMAP servers via SSL straight from your machine.
I intentionally chose a local IMAP pipeline over the official Gmail API because of platform gatekeeping. To use the API for this, Google forces independent developers into a "Restricted Scope" tier, which requires an annual $15,000+ third-party security assessment.
Going the local IMAP route lets me bypass that completely while keeping user data 100% local and secure.
I don't like how somebody is flagging/downvoting all your comments. This is about your product; it's highly relevant, whatever somebody might think about it.
2 replies →
> Like, I just one-shot a script that does the same with Claude, after it listed 5 free projects that do the same, including one GUI. The whole thing took less time than writing this comment.
I'm assuming the author put in the effort to validate their program handles all kinds of pictures. With that assumption:
- how did *you* validate the one-shot script that Claude handed you works correctly?
- after all said and done, and getting it to work correctly, did you end up spending atleast $30 in time, effort and money?
I am curious how coding agents would affect the future of "micro apps" - apps/scripts that do one thing and just one thing very well.
It worked fist shot, and found 3k+ photos, which feels about right. Validated with Vibes. It's going to take more than $30 in time to look at them all, and it's 3k+ more photos than I had before. So, I'm satisfied.
For apps without a network-effect, or highly specialized domains, coding agents are driving a convergence of the cost of software toward the cost of tokens to generate it. OP should have MIT licensed this, collected his 15m, and moved on to the next idea.
The website is clearly vibecoded, and that makes me assume the app is also vibecoded. When I open the installer, Edge gives me a warning that the file is not safe. I know that just means the dev hasn't purchased a certificate, but it adds to the general feeling that this is a rushed project that asks 30 dollars for something that I can make with Gemini in about the time it took to write this comment.
I'm pretty sure the dev has good intentions, the app is safe, and it works... but I'm not going to find out because it's too much money and too risky.
It is a good idea, though. I'll check the comments for free, open-source alternatives, but if I don't find one, I'll probably just generate a script that does this when I get back home.
Thanks for the feedback! You're right, if you know how to write a script or prompt Claude, you can absolutely spin up a quick tool to scrape attachments in a few minutes.
That said, the $29 price point is for the execution and friction-removal. Turning a raw script into a compiled, code-signed desktop app that handles OS security gates (Mac Dev ID and Windows Smartscreen), dynamically manages Google rate limits, and a provides a beautiful UI for non-technical users takes a lot of effort.
For people who want to rescue their photos without opening a terminal - or who don't even know what a terminal is - this app is a huge win for them.