[majkinetor]

They should have let us tried the tool without signing in, that is only natural. Why would I give you my time and my personal information because you claim you do something? It is deceptive and unfair to our time to ask me to sign in as the final step. Instantly closed. The new generation of developers should learn some manners.

[efskap]

These multi modal LLMs are too expensive to run for that

[4ndrewl]

The problem is that it's really easy to say 'blah blah our service can do xyz' but we know all too well that when using LLMs most often it doesn't live up to the hype (worse still you know different users will get different diagrams from the same source).

The 'trust us, give us your money, it'll work' model isn't viable given the current state-of-the-art of LLMs.

[matthewshere]

You are absolutely right, and thank you for the direct feedback. Forcing a sign-up before demonstrating value is a poor experience, and we're sorry.

It’s clear we got this part wrong initially. It was feedback exactly like yours that prompted us to fix this.

We have now added a no-login trial so you can test the tool without creating an account. We know we have to earn your trust, and this is a direct result of learning from our early users. Thank you for taking the time to help us get better.

[4ndrewl]

Thank you!

[MOARDONGZPLZ]

Are you saying they want to reduce the number of people trying it out with friction?

[matthewshere]

That's a fair question, but our goal is the exact opposite. We want as many users as possible to try the service.

The challenge was that the costs associated with the initial free trials went beyond what our team could sustain. The recent changes are our attempt to fine-tune our model to find a balance.

Our goal is to offer a service that is both accessible for users to try and financially sustainable for us to operate and improve long-term.

[matthewshere]

That is a completely fair criticism, and I am truly sorry. There's no good excuse for asking for personal information before demonstrating any value—it's disrespectful to your time.

We've learned from this and have now changed the flow to allow for a sign-up-free trial.

[chneu]

Yup. Same. Requiring my information is a non-starter. No matter how good your product is I won't sign in just to try it out.

[matthewshere]

Point taken. We apologize for the initial friction.

We've listened to the feedback and have now added a no-login trial. If you're still interested, we'd love for you to give it a try.

[zekrioca]

They are utilitarians, they do not care about manners.

I agree with your main point.

[matthewshere]

That's a sharp but insightful comment. We're sorry that our initial design gave you that impression.

Our intention was never to ignore "manners" for utility, but we see now how a forced sign-up does exactly that. We made a mistake.

We are committed to improving the user experience, and based on this feedback, we have now implemented a no-login trial. We'd welcome you to try it and see that we're serious about getting this right.

[geor9e]

They didn't even let my try it, after signing in. I hit the "insufficient credits" paywall on my first upload. So, having folks sign in served no purpose at all. Just an extra layer of customer-repellant.

[matthewshere]

That is a terrible experience, and we are sincerely sorry. You are completely right—having you sign up only to immediately hit a paywall is unacceptable, and we deeply apologize for wasting your time.

Your feedback highlighted a major flaw in our onboarding, and we've worked to fix it.

We have now introduced two changes:

You can try the product without logging in at all.

For users who do sign up, we now grant 5 free credits to ensure you can properly test the functionality.

We know we made a very poor first impression, but we hope this shows we are listening. If you're willing, we'd be grateful if you’d give it another chance.