I feel this. A few years ago, I made a joke app which got a bit famous on campus back when I was in school, and the process of getting it on the Play store was literally harder than writing the darn thing. Nowadays, it even got removed from the Play store for some reason. I couldn't imagine running an app for a living where you have to deal with absentee/abusive parents like Google and Apple just to put bread on the table.
Cool app and congrats on the users! 400 ain't nothin' to scoff at :)
"And there are all these stupid requirements. I need at least X screenshots, and they have to be this exact resolution blah blah blah. On top of that, it took so long to get approved. My ADHD brain really suffered waiting for the gratification."
I would hate to browse a store where the products didn't have at least X screenshots with at least X resolution, etc etc. The process for getting into the store shouldn't be easy and the quality bar should be high. I pay Apple to uphold this bar by any means necessary.
I have seen this view lot from apple users. And I really feel sad that no body gives the enough credit to dev community because of whom you're getting these apps in first place, not from Apple directly (And I am sure, if they do, heck they will charge you like hell).
Please understand it is mutual platform for apple/google, devs and consumers. Now days, Apple and consumers has not much to lose as they have enough apps but dev's life is becoming difficult day by day - apple/google account charges, huge margin-cut over in-app-payments, rejection without any proper reason, no immediate support, bad apis and documentation. I am happy I quit professional mobile app making for good.
> I pay Apple to uphold this bar by any means necessary.
I wish you could pay devs instead of Apple to held this bar high.
There are thousands and thousands of apps to sift through. It’s good that iOS helps filter out the shit where devs can’t be bothered to do basic user friendly things like providing screenshots, etc.
My point is app developers rightly care about their total income, not about the per-capita income from a tiny slice of the userbase.
* In the United States of America
Many American app makers hit a ceiling when they try to expand internationally and they discover that for the rest of the world, Android is both dominant, and more profitable.
Let’s be honest, the majority of the apps charge in-app for every fart. At the dawn of the app stores you could find a ton of free apps and games from hobbyists, but now it’s all about squeezing money. And the guy in the article didn’t have to publish the app in the first place, could have uploaded the app to the phone directly through the dev tools.
Apple/Google take 30 % of that fart, so you guess what they get at end.
> At the dawn of the app stores you could find a ton of free apps and games from hobbyists, it’s all about squeezing money.
Well apple charge you $100 per year to upload app, are you kidding ? Plus they don't let you have another store. Everything should must go thr' their wall, so no chance to avoid charge.
> And the guy in the article didn’t have to publish the app in the first place, could have uploaded the app to the phone directly through the dev tools.
How many phones he can upload it honestly ?
Anyway, the point I am tring to say is, Apple/Google are not valuing dev community as they used to and devs are taken granted for. They should care devs as they care for consumers PR as it is mutual platform
IIRC Apple charged you 100$ as early as in 2013, that's when I bought a subscription myself for the first time. But the app landscape was much different back then and it didn't stop hobby developers from publishing.
But, part of writing things for myself is wanting to share them with friends should they ask. And that requires either a $100 fee, or walking each friend through the process of requesting a developer license in order to run an unpublished app. The fee is a pittance for anybody doing large development, but was far more than college-me wanted to spend on an entrance fee to a language.
I mean, it's about making money, App Store is not a public good. If developers feel there's a better opportunity they can pursue other platform, but it seems like Google and Apple succeed at making the money-making developers happy. What else should matter to a public company?
Typically 15% now.
Only because of the (still ongoing) anti-trust lawsuit against them.
Many years ago, I got excited when I got a Nokia phone which supported Java ME. Finally, here was my chance to put some useful stuff on _MY_ phone I thought. Then I learned what I needed to get a single copy of something on a single phone (after signing up for the dev program). I don't remember the details, but, clearly, the point was you needed to be a part of an international conglomerate if you wanted to be able to ship awful clones of 80s 8-bit games.
The messed up nightmare "mobile computing" was going to devolve into became apparent to me then. Nothing one can do about it. You either use the stuff everyone else is using or your are "out". Still, I had expected to be able to attach a cable and copy a blob from _MY_ computer to _MY_ phone.
I know this is about app stores. Well, in this case, I expect to be able to put a blob somewhere and point people to it for them to install if they so choose.
And, no, web pages that try to act like apps don't really count.
Honestly, if I find an app that I'd like to pay for, I do a quick google search to find their web app. If they have one, I pay for it there and use it on my phone.
If it's a game I actually enjoy, I might make a single in-app purchase for what I think the game is worth, usually around $5-10.
Presumably you're speaking from the Apple side of things, because the Play Store is a fragmented wasteland of low-effort/sometimes-malicious shovelware that barely functions.
To me that means that the hoops Google makes one jump through for app publishing are accomplishing next to nothing with regards to app quality.
Wait how does this differ from the appstore?
Search for WhatsApp? First result is an ad for Twitter and WhatsApp is the second result, half hidden (on an iPhone SE). Search for my bank? First result is another bank. Firefox? First result is Chrome. Doctolib (the app for taking covid vaccination appointments in France, and the main doctors appointment service in general)? Another one that's probably more or less a scam. Google Maps? You get an ad for Coyote.
It wouldn't be so bad if the ads didn't look almost exactly like real search results, and if the actual results were not hidden below the bottom of the screen.
The general quality of apps on the Google Play Store might be worse, but this behaviour never happens there. When you look for an app name, you get that app and not one of their competitors that paid more.
I don't think I've ever just gone "App Window Shopping"
Maybe other people do, though. I don't know.
Playing bad games is now part of my life experience, kinda like trying out bad movies.
I didn't install any game on my last two phones. I install only mandated apps (banking, car sharing, etc) and open source apps after I checked that they actually have a repository and they are not abandoned. I'm rather using F-Droid than the Play Store now.
For the discerning app downloader such as yourself, Play Store could have a tier of approval levels for apps. Toy apps and ones for friends like this could be rated lowest tier, and buyer beware.
Imagine if a website had to prove its value and CSS quality before getting a domain name.
> and they have to be this exact resolution
And your comment was:
> screenshots with at least X resolution
The problem isn't that Apple forces you to have a high quality screenshot, they require a handful of very specific pixel dimensions, don't tell you what device that corresponds to, so you have to spend way to much time trying to make screen shots on different devices with the simulator and it's annoying, especially if you don't do it often.
Also, they don't actually check if the screenshot is a real screenshot or of good quality. One time I just gave up and resized the screenshots to the required pixel dimensions and they accepted it.
You can't stop shitty apps by imposing more and more rules anyway.
I won't be surprised if this store actually became more popular than the Primary one.
That is assuming those rules are fair to a degree, not Anti Competitive and they do impose it for the quality and security as they say they do. All of which I will strongly support. But they dont. ScreenShots isn't even the tip of the Iceberg.
Now, please just let me publish an app not using the store. Me and other people like me prefer lower burden and lower quality. We won't mess up your perfect store, you don't even need to know we exist. Just let us enjoy our little world.
Yeah, no thanks.
View the app reviews in another region. The amount of spam is significantly lower (~0%) and it's mostly people complaining.
I pay the electric company to have a store where only approved toasters and microwaves are sold so as to keep quality high!
I pay my car company to ensure that only approved tires, windows, audio, windshield wiper fluid can be used.
This logic is not working.
Apple, and ABC corp, and any other companies can have app stores.
If you want to shop at the 'absurdly high standards store' that's totally fine, but otherwise it's anti-competitive.
There's no reason 'Person A' can't send an app to 'Person B' if they want.
It works on Mac, Windows, Android, Linux and everywhere else.
I don't know about the rest of the world, but where I live there is a tax-funded Safety and Chemicals Agency whose job is to keep dangerous and malicious physical products out of the market. There is no equivalent for software.
The problem is that CERT can only react to problems after they have happened. For physical products, you first have to meet CE standards to even get to the market. You can give the the label to your own product if you want to take the risk, but unlike software there is an official barrier to entry. I'm not sure if it's even possible to develop similar standards for software.
Good. That's why the quality is so high.
Android, Mac, Windows, Linux are reasonably safe platforms, there's zero reason why people can't chose to download the software they want.
Apple's 'it's the security' line is the most obvious giant lie, it's there to protect their control over the platform and that's that.
On top of that, it's completely unnecessary for the point you are trying to make.
1. The author could have offered an .apk outside the play store. Yes, friends would have had to enable side loading so that sucks but once enabled it's trivial to install .apks. This is no different than MacOS or Windows at some level. No similar option exist on iOS
2. The author could have used Progressive Web Apps and just skipped the store entirely on Android and send friends a link. Again, no similar option really exists on iOS.
The situation to me is, Google provides one app store of many. A quick search for "Android App Stores" brings articles listing 10 or more alternate stores. The fact that the "Play Store" won't take your product is no different than your local supermarket not taking your product. As long as you can still reach your users directly or make your own store then it's all good from my POV. Google has made Android so all of that is possible. Same as Windows/Linux/MacOS
Apple on the other hand, it's the App store or GTFO.
I don't understand this. iOS has a browser, you can use web apps.
Let's not mince words now. Apple purposefully cripples Safari to make native apps more competitive because they get a cut of every sale and it boosts their claims about the AppStore too.
I also meant this to be a learning experience/just for my friends, so I totally feel that frustration!
I simply decided its not worth my time.
You just pulled that of a thin air. I mean, a latest Samsung fridge is a general-purpose computer as well, so...
> And they are the property of their owners, not of Apple.
You know what you're buying, so just stop buying it. Pinephone ships in April.
How is that ‘trying hard’ to look like a general purpose computer?
A more nitpick-proof way to phrase my point would be that an iphone is a general purpose computer controlled by Apple, and it tries very hard to look like a general purpose computer controlled by the person that bought it. The customers want to have their cake and eat it too; they want the power of a general purpose computer, and the security of a locked-down appliance. You can't have both, but Apple's size and popularity is a testament to how close they have managed to get.
Imagine if you pay for your coffee and while you're drinking it the waiter decides to take it back with no explanations given. Just randomly barging in on the service you paid for!
The guy in the article is complaining it's hard to publish an app since you need to upload enough high-res screenshots. I mean, yeah? Try "publishing" your backend on AWS, it's not a walk in the part either.
And then we didn't use it much, because our daughter was unstable when on the side, learned quickly to flip between back and belly positions, and between all the other things that involved taking her out of her crib, it turned out this whole piece of advice about rotating baby position makes no sense in the first place.
So here's to a clear problem and a clever solution colliding with harsh reality. :).
 - https://br.pinterest.com/pin/836684437002318403/
It’s not a recommendation that changes every few years.
Running across a doctor telling you to do anything other than back only sleeping is like running across a doctor telling you that vaccines cause autism. I’m sure it happens, but it’s very rare.
I'm hoping to make something for our anniversary that she'll actually enjoy :)
Meals. My wife likes me to make meals.
The only thing I haven’t figured out yet is that sometimes opening sites which are added to Home Screen yields a dedicated browser and sometimes it just opens a new tab in safari. This happens to hacker news as well resulting in having many open tabs at the end of the day.
<meta name="apple-mobile-web-app-capable" content="yes">
more info: https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ap...
And also, it's probably easier to sell something like this as an "app" than as a web site (ironically, I guess, thanks to those app stores that the poster is complaining about).
Take just a simple example: suppose P1 and P2 are both willing to watch films F1 and F2, but P1 would prefer to watch F1 and P2 would prefer to watch F2. But suppose P1 knows, because of an unguarded remark that P2 made, that P2 is willing to watch F1, but P1 has managed to keep quiet about their willingness to watch F2. Then P1 can "win" the negotiation by claiming that they are only willing to watch F1.
So this app needs to be upgraded to act as an agent on behalf of each user. Each user tells the app which films they are willing to watch and what their preferences are, and also what information they have managed to obtain about the preferences of the adversary (significant other). The two AI-powered agents then negotiate on behalf of the users, complete with bogus deadlines, threats to walk out and so on.
A premium version of the app could take account of other household duties, long-standing grievances and so on and use them as additional "bargaining chips".
Premise is essentially what you've mentioned: two AI agents negotiating a business.
Propose the problem to a market design economist on Twitter and they'll solve it for you just for fun (and maybe write a paper).
In my experience, this almost always happens when a web developer makes a native application. They ignore the platform conventions and interface guidelines and design it as if it’s a web application instead of designing a native application. So there’s a sign-up process because that’s the way it’s normally done for web applications.
The relevant part of Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines:
> Delay sign-in as long as possible. People often abandon apps when they're forced to sign in before doing anything useful. Give them a chance to fall in love with your app before making a commitment to it.
Please, if you’re building a native application, actually build a native application not a web application. Native applications run in different contexts with different constraints, you can’t just assume that what works well or is necessary for a web application makes sense for a native application. In particular, dumping new users into a registration screen just because you want to persist state is bad design for most native applications. Native applications don’t need that in the same way web applications do.
If you need to support remove users, then provide an "invite link" that you can text and it lets people download the app and then connect with you on the app. You don't need an account on a server for that.
To make money:
1. Show an affiliate link to watch the movie on Redbox  or another pay-per-view streaming service.
1. Show local theater showtimes with an affiliate link to buy the tickets .
Otherwise modern day Web Browsing on Smartphone is mentally incompatible with Apps usage.
When you have the web page / web application open, press the action button, then select Add to Home Screen.
Its also so that you can lookup and add your friends.
I understand the frustration, though. I'm working on a version with webhooks where you can just join a lobby and start swiping.
> Its also so that you can lookup and add your friends.
Right, but what about that requires me to type in three magic strings into three (wait, actually probably six?) input fields? Just associate the data on the server with some UUID that you store on my device. Inviting others could work by just sharing a link.
Thanks for the new perspective.
Now what happens if you switch phones or use multiple devices? The behaviour would be inconsistent. What if I build up a large amount of likes/dislikes? Would they be suddenly gone without way to export them?
Additionally, I actually would like it not to store data. Maybe I want to get the recommendation for a movie next time because I’m just not in the mood to watch that Horror movie right now.
Edit: this last bit is actually exactly what elliekelly write more eloquently.
I agree this is a likely reason, but I think it’s a cargo cult design that makes sense on the web, but is the wrong priorities for a trivial/frivolous mobile app like this.
I don’t know anything about Android, but with iOS this just isn’t an issue. Everything is backed up and when I get a new phone everything is restored automatically.
Even for the quite uncommon case where a poweruser is switching between iOS and Android, it’s not worth blocking the 99% users who just want to try the app as effortlessly as possible and will never end up in that situation. It would certainly be possible to convert an automatic anonymous user account to one that uses password-based login, for users who care a lot about the data in the app.
> "Let's use WeWatch!"
> "No, it would take too long. Let's just watch Space Jam."
I watch a lot of movies and honestly the swipe-approach would take way too long. My preferred way is to just scroll through a long list of movies (alphabetically) and pick one I want to watch. Or some of the movies in the list will remind me of a different movie I want to watch. Just movie titles, no images or anything else.
One thing you realize is that a lot of movies start with "The".
"Mummy, The", "Thing, The"
I think the right way to do it would be to swipe a few movies every few days, whenever you're wasting time on your phone anyway. That way you'd have a queue of matches ready to go on Friday night.
Storytelling is absolutely the way
'Some people, when confronted with a interpersonal relationship problem, think "I know, I'll use software". Now they have two problems.'
This is cute, but it's trying to solve a people problem with software.
>And there in the next room by the sofa sat a familiar suitcase, that of his psychiatrist Dr. Smile.
>Barefoot, he padded into the living room, and seated himself by the suitcase; he opened it, clicked switches, and turned on Dr. Smile. Meters began to register and the mechanism hummed. "Where am I?" Barney asked it. "And how far am I from New York?" That was the main point...
>The mechanism which was the portable extension of Dr. Smile, connected by micro-relay to the computer itself in the basement level of Barney's own conapt building in New York, the Renown 33, tinnily declared, "Ah, Mr. Bayerson." "Mayerson," Barney corrected, smoothing his hair with fingers that shook.
Are you afraid that you're so sane that you'll be shipped off to Mars? There's an app for that!
>The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch leaves its readers questioning their own sense of what constitutes “reality”. The novel begins by introducing one of the major characters, Barney Mayerson, a precog who works for Bulero and is trying to evade the draft (joining the colonists on Mars) through the use of Dr. Smile, a computerized psychiatrist he carries in his briefcase. The purpose of the psychiatrist is not, unlike the human version, to make one well, but to make one sick - sick enough for the short term, anyway, to evade being sent to Mars.
>The precog Roni Fugate spends the night with Barney, both knowing by their precognitive talents that they’d hit it off at some point in the future, so why wait until later for the inevitable? In the morning, Roni asks Barney if Dr. Smile has helped much yet, if he has made Barney “sick enough.” Barney doesn’t directly answer her, but asks the same question of Dr. Smile. He answers: “Unfortunately you’re still viable, Mr. Mayerson; you can handle ten Freuds of stress. Sorry. But we still have several days; we’ve just begun.”
genuinely is difficult to switch off coding brain isn't it? I'm fairly sure I now consciously use deterministic algorithms for the majority of my life decisions.
First, wouldn't use my math apps for kids (Math Planet, Math Pop, Numbaland) bc she was against screen time. Then, for her, I made a math app that specifically doesn't involve screentime (adaptive practice where parents read out math problems) — and she still didn't use it. My kids like it, in any case: Factflow.io
One thing to be aware of since you're trying to monetize, don't be surprised if you see a cease and desist soon from the major studios and services for using their artwork. Netflix in particular is really strict here.
Best of luck, I love the project!
Very inspiring that someone from Google likes my product!
Honestly, I'd be excited if I got a cease and desist lol
It would nice to swipe on the descriptions.
It would be nice to see ratings from different site(IMDb, rotten tomatoes)
It'd be great to employ a magic link in email to sign in rather than needing a password and email confirmation. That'd help me get my non-techy friends using it quickly.
I think Apple's $100/yr is crazy, but I don't think Google's $25 is bad. If you plan to make any money at all on it, that's nothing.
Scrolling through the site, it feels like the site is constantly hiding information from me, and then spoon-feeding me bits that I don't care about. The text doesn't even show up until it's halfway up my screen, and then it's just a scroll or 2 from disappearing. Scroll too fast and it's really hard to read. Maybe you should animate the information leaving, instead of appearing. You definitely should provide more information in a readable form.
Let's take a look at what MSDN costs for a pro-level subscription (not even enterprise): "At the Professional subscription level, you pay a not-insignificant sum: $539 per year for an annual cloud subscription or $1,199 for the first year of a perpetual license subscription, with renewals costing $799 per year."
The developer toolkit which is used to build and test the apps (Android Studio or XCode) are free. The Microsoft comparison would be the $20 to publish in the Microsoft Store and Visual Studio Community which is free to build and test apps.
"MSDN" is a bundle of additional developer tools that you would use for a business (licensed Visual Studio, Azure DevOps, training, and support).
Yes Xcode and APIs like ARKit are free to develop (for obvious reasons), but Apple captures some of the costs at publish time (as it should be).
Here's a full list of stuff that the fee go towards supporting and developing: https://developer.apple.com/programs/whats-included/
This forces you to pay 100$ a year when you just wish to use your own hand made app on your own phone if you wish it to work longer then 1 week offline. While using app of someone else doesn't require that.
100$ per year x 4 years = 400$ to use your own app.
What makes you think that this is how it should be?
If the whole idea that one should pay for ability to program his own device seems logical to you then perhaps some monthly fee for using your fingers to control the phone would seem logical too? After all finger touches use many features of the phone that "are tremendously powerful and useful" too.
Free developer accounts must re-sign every 7 days
Paid developer accounts must re-sign every 1 year
This page is an excuse. There is no reason except greed and corporate accounting.
Yes. That page align with Apple Accounting. Since 2017 Apple has been putting iOS cost and development, SDK as part of their Services Strategy expenses.
In a sense Apple is now think you are buying iPhone just as Hardware ( with huge margins ), and you are paying for all the development of iOS, macOS through their Services Revenue coming from App Store and Google Search.
In Steve Jobs days Apple used to lump all those together as one product. But now you are basically renting the usage of iOS and Apple experience Hence from Apple's POV the user aren't even paying enough for the usage of iOS.
But there is another POV. One that includes rights of a person to be a human being rather then income source for some company. One of those rights should be ability to install whatever software you choose on your own computer without any artificial restrictions.
and building a competing ecosystem that is is Not Allowed!
iOS is the minority OS in every single market it operates in.
Try building a game for Nintendo Switch that doesn’t go through the Nintendo store and see how far that gets you.
I’m also a dev and have been doing mobile development for years btw. I’m no stranger to the needs of developers.
iOS is the majority in US and Japan, nearly half in many other countries. Not Minority in most Developed market.
In Japan it’s below 50% but close enough (45ish) and there’s a historical reason for that. Japanese adoption of iPhone is especially unique.
Everywhere else it’s well below 50%. In the EU it’s about 30% or so.
If you want the equivalent of app development on Windows (meaning little to no access to kernel sources and such, just a native UI), you can use the free version of Visual Studio without the MSDN license . The license allows commercial development even with the free community version.
You still need to pay +/- $20 to MS to publish apps to the MS Store, but because Windows isn't a walled garden and barely any Windows users are using the store anyway, you probably don't need to bother. If you do pay, it's not a subscription either; the costs are only made during registration. Just like with Google, this keeps down (but does not prevent) the creation of spam accounts.
For most app developers, the infrastructure you get in return isn't worth the $100 / year, because most apps don't get that many downloads at all. Hosting APK or IPA files can be done for one or two dollars per month for the first few hundred or even thousand users, and by extending the store ecosystem, you're also adding value to the platform itself.
For iOS you can argue that the manual testing of the application needs to be paid somehow, but the manual testing Apple performs don't benefit you as a developer in any way; they serve benefit the end user that downloads your apps, so those costs should be recouped from the user (as part of the iPhone sales price and the mandatory 15-30% cut Apple and Google will take).
If there was a way to build and publish applications without the subscriptions, the fee might be reasonable if Apple can defend the $99 / year. With the walled garden they've set up, there's no competitors, and therefore there will never be an alternative developer toolkit like those you can see for the Android ecosystem.
That sounds like marketing speak, straight from 1984.
The requirement to log in is a huge deterrent though - why not just use a UUID or something based on the phone?
Also, I don’t know if you can scrape a small synopsis and include it, along with the genre, underneath the film? I had no idea what the first 30-40 films that came up for me were.
BTW, you can click on the movie image and get more details. Sorry for the lack of onboarding.
Edit: While trying to sign in, the service required me to add a special character to my 32 character long alphanumeric password. Requiring the user to use x different kind of character types just annoys people and doesn't make your service more secure.
If you are tired of the duopoly, consider supporting GNU/Linux phones. They are not perfect yet, but for the HN audience can already be daily drivers.
Is there something about this that works significantly better as native?
I really do think there is a consensus opportunity, especially when there are infinite options in the digital world
I download the app. OK.
I enter email, a user name, have LastPass generate a password, paste that in, click on send verification email, click on the link in the email....
So I can sign in again, right? Nope. Somewhere in that process, the clipboard was voided, so I have lost that password...
...and there is no password recovery button on the sign-in page.
Sure, there is a resend validation email link, but as soon as I enter my email, it disappears under my keyboard, and I cannot access it - but it's not what I want, I want password reset.
True, I am irked beyond all reasonable belief because I was trying to do something quickly to find a movie for my GF and me, but to miss such a key point? No password reset on the main screen?
If you are going to send a verification email anyway, just skip setting the password until the person has verified their email, and INCLUDE A PASSWORD RESET LINK.
No contact us, nothing.
Nice idea, really bad execution so far.
p.s. Credits and kudos for learning new things !
You're missing out on life if you decide to stop trying because of your college experience.
On the other hand is there a part of tolerance where you embrace that your partner is not same as you, and that from time to time it would be nice to learn few things about her/him?
In article number of 500,000 movies has been mentioned, and if you use 3 sec of swiping that is really lot of seconds, and I do not think 3sec is enough to decide on some movies. But even with 3 sec that is 416 days of 1 hour swiping, or 208 weeks if you use only 2 movies a week (2hr). So, 4 years per person would take someone through the set, but what if you find out that you do not have any matching movies?
Personally I would rather watch 206 (2hrs) movies I do not like knowing a bit better person I love.
> On the other hand is there a part of tolerance where you embrace that your partner is not same as you, and that from time to time it would be nice to learn few things about her/him?
But if you actually want to accomplish that with any regularity, and not waste a ton of time on movies that one person has to tolerate and the other person only picked on a whim, you need to discuss the movie choices. Simply alternating is still a bad plan.
Yes, I think that's constructive. I don't say that what he's done is bad, but have a suggestion how he could have saved some trouble. Why the negative sentiment?
How about you just show me a list where I can mark what I like and then get a list at the end. Then just switch phones and see each other’s list. Instead of an exact match, you limit each other’s choice to 10 movies you just picked.
There’s an app you can get to solve this problem. It’s quite similar to your app.
I am definitely planning on making it a web app as well. I'm also trying to make it such that no sign-ups are required.
It shouldn't be too bad since I already have all the functionality written, it will just take a bit of tjme