Honestly the comments are a good example on how difficult it is to sell to developers and why startup ideas that target developers are dangerous to bootstrap.
Developers have high incomes, but are quite frankly, extremely cheap. And I actually mean cheap and not frugal. They will spend 40 hours/week for months to save $5/mo. There's basically no logic apart from that developers have a poor concept of time and money and are spending averse (again, cheap.)
In this case, this tool is $30/mo, or about $360 / year, what is that, 3 dinners for 2 people in a year? The tool may save the developer, let's say 3-4 hours / week and at 52 * 3 or about 156 hours of savings a year. At even 30 an hour, it's saved the developer $4,680, or at 60/hour, close to $10,000, but I can guarantee that 99% of developers will not spend $30/month to make their lives easier.
My only recommendation is try to sell this product to businesses and maybe offer them a deal based on the amount of developers they have. So sell it do a dev shop with 10 developers at $20/developer / per month. Businesses understand the time/money tradeoff and are not cheap.
Developers, my only word of advice, is seriously.. stop being so cheap and spend some money to make your lives easier.
No. Monthly subscriptions suck. Every company wants to "tax" me monthly for something that's feature complete. The ones I already pay, I do so very begrudgingly. There's simply too many SaaS products out there.
Let's go back to perpetual licenses. And I'll gladly pay for upgraded versions, or not if the upgrade isn't worthwhile. When it's not SaaS, I also get to control what version I'm using. The product doesn't own me, I get to own the product.
> They will spend 40 hours/week for months to save $5/mo. There's basically no logic apart from that developers have a poor concept of time and money and are spending averse (again, cheap.)
To slightly counter. I am a developer with a high-ish (average for the industry, i suppose) income. I love paying for my tools. HOWEVER, i expect you'd call me cheap.
Why? Well because i am very averse to subscriptions, and i think this is primarily due to being a developer and being around this culture. This culture which is flooded with startups all wanting X$ per seat, user, etc. I've seen these things scale excessively on loop. It's not 1 $5 sub. It's the 20 tools all vying for subscriptions, tiers of subscriptions, etc.
I happily pay for things i can buy that improve my DX or productivity. However subs have to be exceptionally good to justify because they're in competition, in my head, with every other sub i already manage. Even if it doesn't make sense to have X and Y products "compete" because they're not even remotely related - they are in my head. They're in the list of subscriptions which i obsessively prune because this industry has left me feeling like i need to.
It’s actually incredible how cheap we are. I catch myself doing it, and what makes it even more ridiculous is how much I won’t even think twice about spending on other things that are just hobbies. Why does my brain think it’s fine to spend hundreds of dollars on a microphone or a lens or even a plugin that is actually also software, but $50 for a tool that will help me with my 40 hour a week job is out of the question.
A bit more on topic though, I don’t really see this as a tool aimed at developers. Watching the demo on the site, this isn’t really how I interact with css at all. I don’t need a color wheel or draggable sliders with ultra fine resolution. The real utility, for me, of a tool like this, would be if you could set up essentially an internal style guide that would limit the possible options for all of the values to retain consistency. Then it would be great for finishing touches, sitting beside a designer or something.
I don't think developers in general are cheap, it's that they are employed somewhere and therefore it doesn't benefit THEM to save time, it benefits their employer. It may even be detrimental to the developer as it put higher expectations on the developer to produce more if the suddenly perform better at a specific task..
> In this case, this tool is $30/mo, or about $360 / year, what is that, 3 dinners for 2 people in a year? The tool may save the developer, let's say 3-4 hours / week and at 52 * 3 or about 156 hours of savings a year.
I think you're being unnecessarily harsh.
I can afford lots of things; I don't run out and buy them though.
So this tool might save you maybe 4 hours a week (I cannot really see it saving 4 hours a week, but lets go with your numbers here).
That is not "4 extra hours I get to spend sleeping". It is not "4 extra hours I get to spend with my kids". It is not "4 extra hours I use on my hobbies". It's "4 extra hours that my employee gets from me".
> At even 30 an hour, it's saved the developer $4,680, or at 60/hour, close to $10,000,
Nonsense. It's saved the company $10k. It's saved the developer exactly $0.
> My only recommendation is try to sell this product to businesses
I agree. Businesses get the savings from any tool they purchase for employee use, not employees, so they are more willing to shell out for productivity tools.
> Developers, my only word of advice, is seriously.. stop being so cheap and spend some money to make your lives easier.
Well, it seems to be working for them, isn't it? And you're being awfully judgemental about what other people find value in.
This tool, which you say will save 4 hours a week, costs $30/m. ChatGPT 3.5 saves me much more than 4 hours a week, and costs $0/m. Copilot costs $10/m, and saves me more than 4 hours per week.
Git (and things like gitea, etc) provide orders of magnitude more value than this, and you can find someone to provide a hosting plan for it for less than $10/m.
It's all about value delivered, which you seem to be missing. It's a purely rational and economic decision.
I can afford office 365, but I find myself getting by without that subscription. If I purchased every single devtool subscription, the monthly cost would exceed about half my salary, and all the benefits go to my employer.
Unless all your work involves CSS I doubt it saves 3-4 hours / week. Also, saving 3 hours of work doesn't mean you get paid for 3 hours more. It's also a dependency that's not guaranteed to exist as long as the default browser dev tools or available on every machine.
Maybe this should have a slightly different audience than developers, namely UX designers, technical product managers (semi-technical folks who know about html and css), etc. so that they can play around with their products, produce prototypes based on the actual product, share design specifications more easily etc.
For example, I am a semi-technical product manager, meaning I know enough about coding to be able to make whatever simple UI changes I want, but leave actual development of the products to the professionals. I would use this tool and maybe recommend to my business paying for it if it genuinely saves some time over making the same changes in dev tools.
For example, the ability to prototype a new UI feature "inside" my existing products, and then share the prototype with someone would be extremely valuable to me. Currently I use the "edit as html" tool in dev tools and then apply some styling to the new elements. Of course, if I hit refresh by mistake, I would lose my changes. Has happened before!
I understand your point but $30 more per month to have a web inspector that is slightly nicer in some way but also much more limited in many other ways is expensive. Monthly subscriptions adds up and not everyone has too much money.
People don't like subscriptions. And for entirely rational reasons, even if they can't articulate them. If you insist on selling subscriptions for people, they will treat it as predatory pricing (because for them it is) and will antagonize you.
Companies, on the other hand, just love subscriptions. Also for entirely rational reasons.
Now, if you insist on ignoring that fundamental difference, it's a "you" problem, not with your public.
Subscriptions have ruined software development by introducing a ton of external SaaS dependencies.
For example, I have Java projects that are old enough to use the pre-subscription versions of IntelliJ IDEA. I can still install (ex:) IDEA v8, check out the project, and work on it immediately. That took some work because the Gradle wrapper needs to pull Gradle from a local server, I made a build task to pull in a project JDK, all the dependency artifacts need to be available locally, etc..
When I set that stuff up, I thought development environments would evolve to do that kind of thing automatically. For example, using a modern analogy, I run 'docker compose run dev' and get a project specific development environment that's from an exact point in time, even if it's 10+ years old.
Instead, we got subscriptions where I need to deal with a ton of continually changing SaaS dependencies that could disappear tomorrow. If you let a project idle for a year there's a decent chance it won't work when you go back to it.
I also disagree with the mentality that costs (to me) should be judged by how much value I get while being completely divorced from the costs (to them) of operating. By that logic, you should sign your entire paycheck over to the grocery store, right?
I don't have a problem with ongoing costs if they're providing value to me, but I'm not willing to pay forever, even when I'm idle, for someone else to control part of my workflow. The loss of control alone is a bad deal.
The introduction of the iPhone in 2008 is about the time I think things started changing. We went from developers that were concerned about maintaining control of their workflows, build systems, distribution, etc. to a new group of developers that are happy to become dependent on rent seeking SaaS middlemen while telling everyone else they're getting good value.
Even Jetbrains is turning their products into something you can't rely on via Jetbrains Space. If a critical mass of developers buy into that, I'd be willing to bet the standalone editors get dropped at some point.
* This tool may increase my time spent rather than save time. I need to spend time to find out. So I don’t buy every one of the million tools because I am too cheap. I don’t have time to evaluate all of them.
* I have no way of cashing in saved time anyway
* Developers can affect spending decisions at work worth $1000s to one SaaS at the expense of another or in addition. If we can save a hire through $50k/y in SaaS bills we will.
I have a theory that a lot of us became developers after being poor teenagers who downloaded warez for $0 in the olden days.
For that reason, where software is concerned, for us the distance between $0 and $1 is even wider than the already wide distance it is for the general population.
> stop being so cheap and spend some money to make your lives easier.
How many times have you been sold on the idea that X tool is gonna make life easier without any tradeoffs only to be disappointed? It’s happened so many times to me, I’ve lost count.
Developers understand the inherent complexity involved with adding dependencies because we are paid to understand and manage that complexity in our jobs.
I pay for lots of software as an engineer, but I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve purchased a subscription that only did 80% of what I needed, which ultimately led me to churn as a customer.
> The tool may save the developer, let's say 3-4 hours / week
Seriously? Half a day a week?? As a professional FE dev there is no way this would save me 4hrs a week, every week. The existing dev tools are familiar, and while not perfect, get the job done. This tool is sugar on top of that, I can't see how it would save me so much time.
I think regular folk, and non front-end engineers could find it easier and more approachable than dev tools, but I can see why target audience engineers won't put up $30/m for it.
Edit: If this tool could demonstrably show a 3-4hr a week time saving go and show it to managers, they'll snap it up. Fact is corps are cheaper than ICs at the coal face. This is if you class "cheap" as being extremely efficient with your resources.
Just because engineers are well paid doesn't mean they should stop being efficient with their income. I'd rather spend $30 a month on lunch than on another magic tool.
Spending money is one thing. I don’t think most devs are opposed to doing that, especially for things that are central to your work. But I’m hard-pressed to see how a browser extension that will improve but not demonstrable change how browser dev tools work is worth $30 a month. This reminds me of Mighty, the $30 a month web browser that promised to be a lot faster and better (it ran off of cloud servers), but was absolutely not worth $30 a month (and I tried it and gave it an honest shot and it wasn’t). Mighty failed and now I think is trying to pivot to some sort of AI generative art thing.
Pricing too high will kill your business the same way pricing too low will. It has nothing to do with people being cheap, it has to do with value proposition, especially relative to other tools.
I’m responding to this more because of the change to Kaleidoscope (MacOS diff tool) from one-time to subscription pricing.
I have paid for Kaleidoscope at least four times and each time was more expensive (I think the total I spent was about US$300—probably closer to CA$450). I justified it because it was the best-in-class Mac-assed Mac app for its purpose and it really did and does save me time or frustration.
I’d have happily paid another US$150 (~CA$200 today) for an upgrade to Kaleidoscope 4. I’m just not sure that I want to pay a variable amount per month amounting to US$96 (~CA$115) annually, because I already have subscriptions that I’m paying for which I don’t use enough (WebSequenceDiagrams is a good example; I happily pay, because when I need it I really need it and there’s nothing quite as good IMO).
I know it’s hard, but subscriptions are the wrong choice most of the time, unless you can review and manage them in one place like you can with the Apple App Store. Because otherwise, you have to trust the company to not only (a) keep the subscription price fair without surprise increases but also (b) not use Adobe-level or NYT-level dark patterns for cancellation.
I’m not cheap, but I am far more price sensitive to subscriptions than I am to one-off purchases. The bar for getting me to subscribe rather than buy is ten to twenty times higher, and most subscription software isn’t that much better.
> Developers have high incomes, but are quite frankly, extremely cheap. And I actually mean cheap and not frugal. They will spend 40 hours/week for months to save $5/mo
Personal anecdote:
Long time ago when still working in a physical office building, the co-workers and me would each amass significant amounts of empty returnable bottles by the end of each week on one's desk. This irked me because it looked rather unprofessional, cost desk- or foot space and came with recurrent noise of someone knocking over the whole assortment.
I then bought me a potato sack to just place my bottles in it in order to give the place a more hipsteresque feel and to give me more dignity carrying those bottles away.
So what do you think my high income comrades did? Yes, they did buy potato sacks as well... after studying customer reviews for multiple potato sacks on Amazon for a week (Goes without saying that they bought them all regardless of the week-long study effort to try them out and send the "non-performant" ones back to get refunded).
I'd like to point out that developers are likely exposed to more subscription costs than most average people. This or that tool is $5/m, hosting is $80 (or you run your own server, of which the electricity usage is constant), GitHub is $5-$15/m, Jet brains is close to $20.
Calling us cheap I think overlooks the enormity of tools and businesses that chose this model and calculated that they're the only ones doing it. Subscription costs are charged whether you use the tool or not, and if you stop subscribing you lose any previous versions you've paid for. It's a uniquely grimey model.
Or perhaps I don't want to get fleeced and/or locked in to a model where if I stop paying, I lose access to an offline program that costs the app developer NOTHING extra for my use
On the other hand there are thousands of things that will make my life easier and you're right I will not spend 30,000 dollars a month to make my life easier.
At any rate I'm not sure if I think this thing would actually make my life easier. Arguments:
1. For all the whining CSS is actually one of the easiest parts of the stack, when there is a CSS bug it is generally something like - a thing is slightly off position on this screen size or the color is a bit wrong not it is possible to access another customer's account if you know what day they signed up and their email (not real bug that I've ever encountered)
2. I'm relatively good at CSS so probably this will produce worse CSS than I would do myself - although nowadays the libraries that are most popular tend to hide the 'complexity' of CSS in a JavaScript layer that produces the actual crap CSS for you so whatever.
3. I have to click and point on things etc. I hate that. That makes things slower for me. I write text in files. quick.
This is actually probably not for a developer - but for a designer who can have a design view of what the developer did and tweak a few things with this tool, hopefully make a PR and so forth.
Yes it should be bought by a company because then - tax deductible and designer is using with developer so on team.
It's actually $180/year (works out to $15/month), not $360/year
And I was definitely interested in trying it out; however, I don't see a free trial.
Also, does it make you more money if you have an employer? There's a good chance your employer will pay you the same whether or not you use this tool.
If it saves the employer money or makes you more productive, then the employer should pay for it right?
But as a developer, I'd usually have to be the one advocating for it, then the employer would have to assess and approve the expense. All so I can start using a tool that costs money, which I won't be able to take with me to a different employer.
When I'm assessing the tools I might invest my time in, I generally prefer tools which are portable. The only way something like CSS Pro makes sense to me, is if I'm self-employed or freelancing; in that case I can either raise my rates or bill the same amount while working a bit less. But even for freelancers, many wouldn't consider it without a trial.
> $360 / year, what is that, 3 dinners for 2 people in a year
Nice of you to assume we're all cheap, when many of us are scraping by and have to be pretty cautious where we spend our money. $360 US is nearly what I spend on food in a month.
edit: I tried playing with it in the page, and it's incredibly limiting. Tailwind and hot reloading make things so much easier faster. With this tool, I can't really position elements, I can't add new DOM nodes and delete others. Or I couldn't figure out how to anyway. This is definitely not the tool for me, but might be useful for a non-technical designer who is just starting to learn CSS or doesn't know CSS
> Developers have high incomes, but are quite frankly, extremely cheap.
That also comes down to many it being difficult for some organizations to purchase software on for their devs, either as a policy of the organization or the software not making this simple. Some companies make this a laborious approval process but then some vendors will make it nearly impossible to pay in bulk, or have easy delegated payment options. Developer tools oughta be as easy as possible to get your employer to pay for given how much of a force-multiplier a good dev tool can be for them.
The problem is not a single subscription. The problem is that today everything is a subscription. So you end up paying 600 euros per month from 20 subscriptions of "just 30 euros" and if you don't pay attention, you can even pay more.
I have no idea what you do (and what startup idea you tried before and got burned) but your generalization is not accurate. You can also say that developers are extremely particular about what they want to pay for. Developers spend hours to automate something that takes 5 minutes every week is because it's fun. Obviously my previous two statements don't apply to every developer, hence the generalization is wrong. Some are cheap, some are particular, and some are even more particular. Just like every other field I suppose, who would've thought!
You act like 3 dinners for 2 people in a year is nothing.
Some of us only eat out once a week because we have debts, or we have children, or we live in an expensive place. Some people eat out even less than that.
Would I sacrifice ~6% of my meals out for this tool that (no disrespect to the developer, is a glorified color palette picker)? Definitely not, and it's not a matter of being "cheap."
Not to mention, I think you're grossly overestimating how much time a tool like this would save. If I truly spend 200 hours a year picking colors, I likely would memorize a few by that point.
It’s long been this way, even in the days when we had to (gasp) spend money for compilers. I remember feeling like the typical user on Usenet back in the day would rather smelt sand to make a microchip than spend money on computer stuff.
It’s also why I spend my own money on subscriptions to IntelliJ and CLion. I spend a lot of time in those tools and it’s worth it to me to pay to see them advance. Likewise, I just signed up to pay for Mimestream email because that’s something else that I always use.
> The tool may save the developer, let's say 3-4 hours / week
This is the main flaw in your argument. For any developer who will actually save 3-4 hours a week with this tool, there are a thousand developers who will only save 3-4 hours a year.
As a potential user, how do you know which group you’ll be on?
And as business, how do you make the decision to only target one in a thousand potential users?
I'd be very surprised there's any developer that spends more than 4 hrs per week to tweak CSS to begin with, I just don't see the savings that you outlined.
I also think that you might be misunderstanding developers, we'll pay for lots of things to save time, but not when we either don't need it or can do it ourselves. I wrote my own cron jobs that saved countless hours - I don't need to buy that.
If you're starting your own project, sure. But most people are paid hourly or salary and not paid based on completion of tasks, so I don't really care if it saves me hours at work - I'll be given more work to do. If the company is paying for it, I'd be happy to use it, but then your cost-effectiveness comparison goes out the window.
After subscribing to absolutely everything and wondering where your paycheck is going every pay period, you sort of learn to just stop subscribing to anything at all. It's not cheap, you just learn the hard way you'll just make your paycheck evaporate otherwise.
1000% agree. Don’t sell to devs, always sell to their employers. I now see how keeping your price hidden could be beneficial. The person you’re selling to isn’t the person who should be interested in the price!
You should talk to real estate, especially commercial real estate people. They are just as cheap, even though a commission could be $100k net or a new deal could yield $1M in profit in the next 5 years
It’s not about being cheap, it’s about not wanting a company to own your workflow and not wanting to limit your knowledge and skill to a proprietary product.
I have opened myself up for more subscription services over the last couple of years. I freelance. My income is generally 'high', but irregular. Monthly subscriptions aren't irregular.
Having a need for a tool for 2 months on a project, then... maybe needing it 4 months from now means I have to keep subscribing to the service even when I don't use it. I've kept things around at $30/month for months longer than I needed to because there wasn't a good way to export the data, then reimport it later if I needed it again in that tool. Taking time to determine the impact of stopping a subscription isn't always simple.
I'm paying for 2 services that do something similar. Tried the second one that said "oh, we can import your data from the other service!". It can't, but I didn't try soon enough, and now I have setups in two services. My own fault for not trying soon enough, but taking time to manually move from svc 1 to 2 (or 2 to 1) will take a lot more than than any 'savings' I might get from these.
I've paid for jetbrains for years, and I pay for some hosting/cloud services (linode, DO, AWS, etc). I've paid for copilot. I've paid for some other IDE helper/services. I've got clients who pay for dropbox/similar.
Average of $25/month, but times... say 8 on average (monthly or yearly external services I use)... That's not nothing to me. I can live with it, but half of these I'm not using regularly, but am somewhat held hostage because cancelling the service will lose my data which I may want to use on another project in the near future. So.. I keep holding on to things I'm not using in the hopes that I'll "save 2 hours/week!" 4 months from now.
Some of these services don't play nicely with sharing - many bootstrapped services don't give me ways to share my account with someone else, or transfer my data to a client, for example. (some do, but not all). Even if I want that feature, and I'm a paying customer, if I'm in the minority, I won't get that feature.
I understand your sentiment about "stop being cheap" but... even once I got past that, and got comfortable paying for more services, it's not always a good ROI (short term, usually yes, long term... no).
"to make your lives easier". My life would be easier if I could use the service for a time, export all my data, cancel, then resume service by bringing my data in again later. OR... let me 'pause' monthly rebilling for a few months. An account 'freeze' feature - suspend service and billing for X months, Y times per year - would let me feel I'm getting more value when I need it. Yes, it would disrupt projected cash flow, but it would "make my life easier".
My gym lets me do this. I can 'freeze' my membership for up to 4 months at a time per calendar year. I've done it when I know I'm going to be out of town for a few weeks - no way I'm going to use for the next 6 weeks. I'll freeze for the next month, then resume.
the way you calculate savings is not really true in reality. even if I can now do my work 4 hours a week faster. I'm not immediately getting a pay bump, my boss just gives me 4hours of extra work.
It won't give me 4 hours a week back, because my boss still reserves my time for those 4 hours.
My household won't have an extra 30 euro a month to spend on those dinners. actually it will directly have 30 euro less to spend on dinners. so yeah all those considerations make me cautious paying for more subscriptions.
This is one of the more impressive and polished "Show HNs" I've seen recently. The landing page is superb, the tool is impressive and the ease of trying it out with the "Try on this page" is really great.
I think I'm inclined to agree on some of the other comments about pricing. It doesn't sit quite right in comparison to what I pay for other paid tools that I use daily.
I can see myself using something like this, and I don't mind paying for great software, but there is something about the $30/month entry price that just stops me considering it further. Maybe I need to actually use it to understand that it's worth this, but it's not clear enough to me coming to it cold.
One criticism. I clicked on the "Try on this page" to test it out, and after being initially impressed I clicked on "Try it Free" in the menu, assuming this was a link to see what free/trial options were available, but the link didn't do anything. It took several page refreshes and re-clicking this to realise that this was just doubling up the function of the "Try on this page" option and in fact there is no free trial available.
I think the comments criticising the pricing are wrong, you can't compare one generalist tool to another highly specialised tool. But on top of that comparing to Figma, Framer or other VC backed products is a mistake, these products are priced to capture market share and grow rabidly. They are clearly underpriced. I may be wrong but CSS Pro looks like a small bootstrapped product, pricing for market growth doesn't need to be the strategy. This is priced for sustainable development and supporting the developer on a small niche product.
If a developer/designer is using this 1 day in 5 then they can justify the subscription.
To those suggesting this shouldn't be a subscription, keep in mind that CSS is going through a period of rapid improvements, this enables them to add support for new features without having to either eat the cost on a sold product or charge for upgrades multiple times a year.
VC backed business setting low prices for rapid growth has unfortunately damaged the ability for small indie developers to price their products sustainably.
On the subscription side, I think it's an issue as it moves the control away from the consumer when doing those upgrades. With the older, one-time purchase upgrade model, which has since fallen out of favour; I could evaluate once a year whether the updated product was worth the additional cost. With a subscription model, there's a chance I could end up funding the development of features that I neither want nor need.
Many investor backed businesses also might increase their pricing over the years. At the moment you reach enough users, especially users which are highly dependent on you, you increase the prices to make shareholders happy.
This is unfortunately a very common strategy, and I rather pay for indie developer bit more than a tech company with a large amount of investors.
This looks great and I’m not against charging for tools — I’m not even against subscriptions (even tho they often annoy me personally), but the value prop here doesn’t seem to match $30 a month (or $15 if you do annual).
And it isn’t because I’m cheap — I spend lots of money on lots of stuff — or that I don’t value indie development (same), but this pricing puts this utility in the same class as things like Figma, the Adobe Suite, a lot of CMSes (Webflow, Craft, etc.) for a utility that might be useful, but doesn’t strike me as $360 a year (or even $180 a year) useful.
The value prop just isn’t here for me, even tho I like what this is trying to do. At $5 a month/$50 a year, I think you’d get more traction and much better volume than what you can get at $30 a month/$180 a year prepaid.
And I have to say, when I see prices this high, I’m hesitant to prepay from unknown companies because I don’t have any expectation about how long it will be in business or continue to update the product, because I don’t see how you get sustainable development at this price point. Figma and Adobe can charge what they charge because they’ve earned it and because those are tools where you feel like you get your money’s worth.
$30 a month for something that will improve but not fundamentally change the way I do web dev, I’m sorry but no.
Couldn't agree more. I have no problem paying for tools, especially when they will save me time.
That said, don't I need to know how to use devtools (chrome/ff/safari) to do my job in the first place? It feels like this product is trying to inject itself into a process that isn't super refined but works fine.
The real problem is the dependency it creates. If I only know how to do frontend work with handheld UI controls, then I have to use them and am locked into this product. It doesn't promote me learning the css rules or understanding how to actually fix things, so then I'm back to the devtools and why am I using this?
So prefixing that line with "javascript:" and putting it into a bookmark would let you use it on any site you wish, simply by clicking the bookmark. Without having to install an extension.
Would be a good alternative the author could offer imho.
Looks like this is meant for professional web developers to make their life easier. So it is not here to replace wix. So,
1. I am struggling to understand the value proposition of this. Demo is cool but most developers working in an organization will not use most of the features shown here. No, no rotation or fancy fonts or colors. The only thing they will do is to use the standard font or color. And most elements don't use any backgrounds, and if they do they use one of the three predefined colors as the background. Gradient color? Maybe once a year. You can already do spacing stuff and text modification in the chrome devtools. I know this tool seems to make it easier, but is it worth paying money for it? I just don't see myself or any medium/large organization (e.g. Microsoft) paying $30/month. Figma is expensive but that is a whole product by itself. It enables new workflow and is irreplaceable in many ways, but I don't see this tool being the same.
2. Demo does not seem to tackle one of the biggest pain points -- layout. Based on stackoverflow questions and their upvote numbers plus what I see in my company, many people (including new and experienced developers) have trouble handling various methods of layout and arranging items. That is where this tool could help -- if done correctly.
3. What if someone makes a similar, open-source tool that achieves 50% of this, or the core features that people actually use every day? Can this compete at all? I'll be surprised if something doesn't already exist today.
Basically, this is all interesting stuff but I can't see how it is a viable business if you charge $30/month.
You probably aren’t the target market, you’d typically ask the company you work for to pay for it or if you’re a freelancer and use dev tools daily for this CSS stuff (which I’ve personally done at various times in my career) you just factor it into your business expenses.
It’s not like a random person paying for Netflix. $30 is a reasonable ask.
> What if someone makes a similar, open-source tool that achieves 50% of this, or the core features that people actually use every day
In the video there’s a serious amount of functionality, that would take someone doing this as a hobby a very long time. And most OSS design-wise typically doesn’t look as good or polished (designers care about that). That’s usually the difference, the time/effort a commercial company can put in vs volunteer OSS teams.
The killer feature here would be hooking this up to Netlify/Vercel etc. and having a 2-way-write. Every time you update something in the CSSPro editor, your codebase is actually updated and the site is rebuilt in the background. This would let you essentially design in the browser and avoid the tedious copy/paste, rebuild, reload cycle.
This is what I’ve wanted for ages from browser dev tools. It’s now fairly standard to have hot refresh where the dev server uses websockets to control injecting changes and refreshing the browser when changes are made in the code files. I want to go the other way. If I tweak css in browser, have a way to write those changes back to the project. The real challenge would be traversing a change in browser css back to scss/less.
I wonder if there is a way to "export changes to git", such that you can download some sort of script (or apply some cherry-picked git changes) from an external source?
In this case, you would press "export changes to git" and then somehow apply them to your local repo, and bam, all the changes transferred without having to actually change any files.
One problem with this is that the changes in the browser are done on the distribution (bundled) files. Maybe using source-maps it could still be possible.
I was sceptical given the name "CSS Pro", but watching the video, this seems like an extremely polished product.
One note of interest to me was the real-time measurements of image contents, I'd be interested to know how this is being done and what model's returning image-coordinate data
This is jaw dropping amount of work TBH. Just curious how much time and effort that is. If it is an indie thing, it is too much work looking at that many tools within a tool.
This tool is for front-end devs who love tweaking front-end designs faster.
My tool is for back-end devs who don’t want anything to do with front-end, but want to build UI faster. https://www.snipcss.com
I’ve always wondered how CSSPro works at extracting/scoping CSS because that’s supposed to be a feature. But I’ve never been willing to pay $30/mon just to see how well a competitor works. Anyone who pays - do you think it recreates a carbon copy of any section of a website well?
Just a suggestion on pricing: drop the lifetime option.
I've had a bunch of perpetual licenses I've acquired over a lifetime, and nearly every one of them have said "we have no record of you" after 5+ years. I know, I know...save the receipts and all that. But it's just frustrating.
Don't put yourself and your customer in a potentially problematic position of he-said-she-said. When you have recurring revenue with a more mature product (and a way to track those subscriptions that you won't end up scrapping), re-consider the perpetual license.
I’ll be the one suggesting to keep the option. I haven’t tried the product yet, but I would in general expect a perpetual life time license to be some sort of license key, that can be entered into the application and verified. So that I can keep it safe, and forever proof that I own a license, thus eliminating the problem mentioned here.
I think if I did webdev full time, the price would be easily justified.
OP: Consider hobbyists and generalist who aren’t full time. There might be a market segment for short term access for hobbyists or generalists.
I would be easily willing to pay $2/day to have this while redoing my personal website, but $30 seems steep for a short term use. Doing a daily price could work to bring in users by serving as a low-cost demo.
As someone with very little front end experience, mostly chugging through with chatgpt since blogspam is impossible to parse through, $30 bucks to make my site look good over the course of a month is a bargain if I just pay for the months I need.
This is fantastic. I've been using CSS Scan for years on an almost daily basis. It's so incredibly useful. Whenever I wanted to quickly see how a design was done, I'd hit the button and hover and get instant info that was quicker and easier than having to delve into the developer tools. The ability to quickly copy and paste with it is great. Now with all the extra features, it's a really great set of tools and removes the need for me to have separate tools for some of that functionality (including the super buggy eyedropper utilities I've been using). I did not even hesitate to buy it.
The product works offline. There should also be a perpetual license for the versions I've already paid for. Paying for products that are completely offline but still require subscription is ludicrous. Adobe justifies it by throwing in CC. Paying monthly for this makes no sense.
It's hard to see from the short quick demo videos on the site, but how does it handle rules? My workflow _always_ includes determining things like default margins, default paddings, default text sizes, and how they relate to each other.
So, I will say default `main div` margin will be 2rem. While default padding on those blocks will be 1rem, how will this help me visualise adjusting these? It looks like all I am doing is changing individual elements.
Looks very cool. Sadly, it is very expensive for our small startup though (we are already paying github, jira, confluence, google suite, figma, miro, adobe, etc.).
If you're looking to save a few dollars check out WikiJS as a confluence replacement (can import too), pretty, easier, works with OAuth out of the box, and you can self host on pretty much any instance.
Also, figma has figjams which is similar to Miro for many use cases.
This is a wonderful interface! Great UX, really landmark, effortless design! Reminds me of Bret Victor, and the top notch best products to come out of Apple and Google. You have produced something that big companies spend millions, thousands of developer and designer hours, and months to build. You are truly awesome! Thank you for inspiring the world with this awesome work!!! :) ;P xx ;p
Do you have a GitHub or place where we can see more of your work? Thank you for laboring in obscurity until you produced this magnum opus masterpiece. This guy is example of why you should never give up. :) ;p xx ;p
I don't think this is a devtools* replacement or a significant enough "game changer", this is just a different way to interact with CSS. Devtools reveals both the HTML & CSS (as well as the cascading rules that comprise what I'm seeing). Devtools let's me introspect & debug why what I'm seeing as it's happening with CSS in conjunction with HTML & possible HTML changes caused by JavaScript events or pointer-events, for example. I like that this tool could make looking at the parsed & rendered code in a browser window easy to "see" & maybe copy. But for a small part of what devtools does this really is expensive. More expensive than most other apps I use. More expensive than GPT+ plus. More than the cost of hosting my site on DigitalOcean or AWS.
If this were a truly must have app & I could get past the price, I'd enjoy it with the concern that most features could be incorporated into devtools directly, by browser makers or by other extensions that expand what devtools can do, although many features of this tool already can be achieved. In fact, I think that's the real missing feature in this service: it could be an web extension for augmenting CSS work devtools.
Lastly, what if the price started at $15/month and for every 250,000 (maybe less, maybe more) new users everyone's price was dropped by a $0.50/month but could never drop below $3/month. By the time the price hits $5/month there are at least 5 million subscribers ... (with no annual plans & no life time bananas plan) that seems pretty good.
* devtools is pretty awesome & pretty consistent in every browser.
This looks exceptional, keep it up. But like others the price is too much for me to afford. Would be great if this was open source but I can understand wanting to keep this closed source, given its quality.
Developers are very sensitive to their toolchain and don't want to learn a new one that may go away/get mismanaged. Also it's easier to justify the value prop if it's a once off and I can evaluate future versions. The single time price should be about a years worth of subscription. If you can't add enough features in a year to make it worth grabbing the next version then you're really saying something about your level of commitment to maintaining and improving the tool.
There's some neat things in here - the gradient editor showing the stops on the element is pretty nice.
But overall the design of this tool is very difficult for me to use. It's trying too hard to be pretty, at the expensive of utility. I found the Typography section to be really difficult to grok with a complete lack of labels and borders around text boxes. It's neat that you have the same flexbox controls that Webflow had in 2015, but the way those icons are laid out makes it so inscruitable.
Not only is it easy to use (IMO), but it's also more powerful than what design tools offered today, with new color spaces being one of my favorite features.
It is funny that they actually show gradient in the demo (and some very weird abd ridiculous examples). Serious websites rarely have any gradient background, and this part of the tool is easily replaceable -- there are lots of websites that help you create the CSS. I use gradient background maybe once a year, and I wouldn't even mind doing it by hand.
This is very cool. The gradient/bkg generator alone is very cool. But I think you’re trying to sell a design tool to developers, even highly proficient CSS developers, who have their _ways_. This is not a $30/month tool to those folks. This is a neat app to generate little parts of a website. Does not look like a daily driver, unless you’re cranking out a lot of unique CSS monthly.
> Copy the designs of your favorite websites, frameworks, or themes. Extract the HTML and CSS code of an element and all its children in seconds.
> Not the right element you're looking for? Precisely re-target any DOM element using your keyboard's arrow keys (▲ ▼).
The documentation talks about it a little bit but not much.
I am wondering if this feature is another cheapskate implementation that doesn't actually do what it says it does. How for example would this tool handle the Firebase[0] featured header?
The other features look OK, but I don't think I could justify the price though. If you want to charge for it so much, maybe change your pricing to a yearly license and then do updates, and simply restrict new updates to people who stop subscribing. Seems like a lot more reasonable approach and it also gives you a chance to really work on extending this product beyond what it currently does.
I would pay if you could show me the formula for how measurements are calculated.
The most common question I'm always asking myself is: Why is this like this? For many properties the browser can tell you which CSS selector "won" a property such as "font-family".
But for something like a width, the actual formula being applied is often hard to puzzle out. The browser will tell you its result but now how it arrived at that result.
For example, the element with id "pagespace" on this page. It has width that works out to some px depending on your screen width. But why that width specifically? I can personally figure it out by going up the DOM tree to see that each element is the full width of its parent (and that's how display: table-row, table-row-group and table all work) until we get to the "hnmain" element which is 85% width (of its parent). And then its parent is the body which has 8px margin all around. So the formula is something like: (screen-width - 8px * 2) * 0.85. But that took me how long to figure out manually?
For the pricing, consider adding tiers depending on the type of user. What you're asking for now is perfectly fine for companies. But for individual developers I think it's a bit steep.
Also a demo that you can test out in the wild for maybe a week or so would be interesting, or a generous 7 day refund policy.
I clicked the "try it on this page", and it's really cool! I don't really know web design so obviously there's parts I don't understand, but it's a hell of a lot easier than me trying to Google things for 2 hours, editing some text, and refreshing a page. Kudos!
This just .. doesn't seem that useful compared to the normal devtools. It is also noticeably laggy, based on the demo on your site, with pop-in/FOUC. Definitely not worth $30/m for me. That pricing just seems way unrealistic compared to the value proposition. Easy pass for me.
Does anyone know a good extension that just does the hover / inspect element for the CSS styles in a nice way like this app?
Seems much more convenient than diving into dev tools every time you want to quickly check an element’s property. 30/month is a bit excessive for just that one function.
Get the event.target and the style and then descend to the children. Put it formatted in the clipboard.
Then do it as a bookmarklet and deregister the click handler when you're done so you can continue interacting with the site
It's probably around 12 lines of modern js.
You can add a fancy graphical outline to know what you're selecting with a few more lines. Just make sure you draw it on top and don't modify the elements. Use a css filter to make it work on all elements.
It looks like you can only edit styles on individual elements.
I can see classes, but I don't see a way to change the class of an element, or to change the CSS properties of a class. I even tried applying different changes to the same class — larger font for one element, smaller font for another element with the same class — and CSS Pro is happy to give me contradicting CSS rules.
I have wanted something like this for years, and your take on it is way better than what I had in mind. I think the pricing is fine, I plan to pay for a month and see if it lives up to my hopes. Awesome job on the marketing page and demo video.
amazing tool -- too expensive for me -- but those that find it valuable I am sure will pay for it. There's no shame in asking for a relatively high price for a tool that is obviously very well crafted.
I'd say I'm the target market, and I don't have a hangup about subscriptions like other comments. I'm almost excited about this, but man, this feels painfully slow. Not like Salesforce slow. But death-by-a-thousand-cuts-everything-takes-500ms slow. "Retool" slow :)
If you could cut some of the animations, or use transforms instead of absolute positioning or something--whatever to improve performance--I'd be down to try it for a month.
This does look really cool and its really responsive and definitely a very handy tool.
For me personally I wouldn't use it enough to justify the price tag. Depending on your business plan it might make sense to offer some kind of day/week pass. This would definitely interest me as I would be more of a infrequent user.
Looks really useful for non-technical people.
I don't think you are charging too much but I do think your pricing/market is misaligned.
If you're going to charge this amount you probably want to target product/design teams in mid to large enterprises, then charge by seat (with limited trial for up-sell).
This!! Really would like to be a customer on this, but as someone who edits pages like once a month maybe, it's hard to justify the price.. But you totally nailed the workflow as far as I can tell from the video. I always jump into the inspector to tweak, and it is never a good time.
This generally looks pretty cool, but on my machine, the "pick any color you need" demo doesn't work. As I mouse over the image, it seems to be generating completely random colors for each pixel, with no correlation to the color that's actually there.
Beautiful website, video, and product. I was also a bit shocked by the price. FWIW, as a hobbyist I wouldn’t subscribe unless it was $5/month or less but would pay $150 for a one-time perpetual license but I’m sure you’ll find your consumer as the pro level.
Personally, I find the cost a bit steep. Truth be told, I don't frequently tinker with CSS, maybe only a couple of times annually. A lifetime license for $39.99, however, would definitely be a deal I'd gladly snap up, no more, no less.
Im curious as to how a poor person would use something like this? All of these are creating the haves and the havenots in the coding world. The rich get richer.
Im a simple man, I see a monthly sub, and I move on.
Yeah I don't know where the pricing is coming from. $30/mo is like Creative Cloud levels and this is not comparable to the utility/functionality you'd get from even one of Adobe's tools.
I'd probably pull the trigger on this for $3-$5/mo.
Nice tool, but I don’t want to pay a subscription to use it. I appreciate the Lifetime license, but it’s far too expensive. I’ll pass. I wish you the best on this, though!
I recall reading about a very successful animator who needed to sketch out every frame because he had severe aphantasia and thus had general ideas about what he wanted things to look like but couldn't envision the actual result without a visual aid.
Having an "inner picture" is helpful but neither necessary nor sufficient to be a designer. You can have a good intuition even when you're physically incapable of having "inner pictures". But yes, the tool is probably less useful if you have a vivid imagination.
I was reading the uprising against the pricing, was expecting who knows what, these people are ridiculous to say the least, pitiful at average, you get paid who knows how much, but then 30dollars to do your job quicker are a nono, from a indie developer? Remembers me of the uprising of millions-dollars companies against docker, some people have no shame
To be honest, the pricing really does feel fair for what it offers. I just don't wanna spend money on a monthly subscription, and its too much of an unknown to throw 900$ at it.
rcconf|2 years ago
Developers have high incomes, but are quite frankly, extremely cheap. And I actually mean cheap and not frugal. They will spend 40 hours/week for months to save $5/mo. There's basically no logic apart from that developers have a poor concept of time and money and are spending averse (again, cheap.)
In this case, this tool is $30/mo, or about $360 / year, what is that, 3 dinners for 2 people in a year? The tool may save the developer, let's say 3-4 hours / week and at 52 * 3 or about 156 hours of savings a year. At even 30 an hour, it's saved the developer $4,680, or at 60/hour, close to $10,000, but I can guarantee that 99% of developers will not spend $30/month to make their lives easier.
My only recommendation is try to sell this product to businesses and maybe offer them a deal based on the amount of developers they have. So sell it do a dev shop with 10 developers at $20/developer / per month. Businesses understand the time/money tradeoff and are not cheap.
Developers, my only word of advice, is seriously.. stop being so cheap and spend some money to make your lives easier.
aceazzameen|2 years ago
Let's go back to perpetual licenses. And I'll gladly pay for upgraded versions, or not if the upgrade isn't worthwhile. When it's not SaaS, I also get to control what version I'm using. The product doesn't own me, I get to own the product.
unshavedyak|2 years ago
To slightly counter. I am a developer with a high-ish (average for the industry, i suppose) income. I love paying for my tools. HOWEVER, i expect you'd call me cheap.
Why? Well because i am very averse to subscriptions, and i think this is primarily due to being a developer and being around this culture. This culture which is flooded with startups all wanting X$ per seat, user, etc. I've seen these things scale excessively on loop. It's not 1 $5 sub. It's the 20 tools all vying for subscriptions, tiers of subscriptions, etc.
I happily pay for things i can buy that improve my DX or productivity. However subs have to be exceptionally good to justify because they're in competition, in my head, with every other sub i already manage. Even if it doesn't make sense to have X and Y products "compete" because they're not even remotely related - they are in my head. They're in the list of subscriptions which i obsessively prune because this industry has left me feeling like i need to.
I love "subs" like JetBrains though.
roblh|2 years ago
A bit more on topic though, I don’t really see this as a tool aimed at developers. Watching the demo on the site, this isn’t really how I interact with css at all. I don’t need a color wheel or draggable sliders with ultra fine resolution. The real utility, for me, of a tool like this, would be if you could set up essentially an internal style guide that would limit the possible options for all of the values to retain consistency. Then it would be great for finishing touches, sitting beside a designer or something.
tmikaeld|2 years ago
lelanthran|2 years ago
I think you're being unnecessarily harsh.
I can afford lots of things; I don't run out and buy them though.
So this tool might save you maybe 4 hours a week (I cannot really see it saving 4 hours a week, but lets go with your numbers here).
That is not "4 extra hours I get to spend sleeping". It is not "4 extra hours I get to spend with my kids". It is not "4 extra hours I use on my hobbies". It's "4 extra hours that my employee gets from me".
> At even 30 an hour, it's saved the developer $4,680, or at 60/hour, close to $10,000,
Nonsense. It's saved the company $10k. It's saved the developer exactly $0.
> My only recommendation is try to sell this product to businesses
I agree. Businesses get the savings from any tool they purchase for employee use, not employees, so they are more willing to shell out for productivity tools.
> Developers, my only word of advice, is seriously.. stop being so cheap and spend some money to make your lives easier.
Well, it seems to be working for them, isn't it? And you're being awfully judgemental about what other people find value in.
This tool, which you say will save 4 hours a week, costs $30/m. ChatGPT 3.5 saves me much more than 4 hours a week, and costs $0/m. Copilot costs $10/m, and saves me more than 4 hours per week.
Git (and things like gitea, etc) provide orders of magnitude more value than this, and you can find someone to provide a hosting plan for it for less than $10/m.
It's all about value delivered, which you seem to be missing. It's a purely rational and economic decision.
I can afford office 365, but I find myself getting by without that subscription. If I purchased every single devtool subscription, the monthly cost would exceed about half my salary, and all the benefits go to my employer.
sy7ar|2 years ago
globalise83|2 years ago
For example, I am a semi-technical product manager, meaning I know enough about coding to be able to make whatever simple UI changes I want, but leave actual development of the products to the professionals. I would use this tool and maybe recommend to my business paying for it if it genuinely saves some time over making the same changes in dev tools.
For example, the ability to prototype a new UI feature "inside" my existing products, and then share the prototype with someone would be extremely valuable to me. Currently I use the "edit as html" tool in dev tools and then apply some styling to the new elements. Of course, if I hit refresh by mistake, I would lose my changes. Has happened before!
ekianjo|2 years ago
30 USD here, 30 USD there, soon enough your bills go in the hundreds or thousands of dollars.
speedgoose|2 years ago
marcosdumay|2 years ago
Companies, on the other hand, just love subscriptions. Also for entirely rational reasons.
Now, if you insist on ignoring that fundamental difference, it's a "you" problem, not with your public.
donmcronald|2 years ago
For example, I have Java projects that are old enough to use the pre-subscription versions of IntelliJ IDEA. I can still install (ex:) IDEA v8, check out the project, and work on it immediately. That took some work because the Gradle wrapper needs to pull Gradle from a local server, I made a build task to pull in a project JDK, all the dependency artifacts need to be available locally, etc..
When I set that stuff up, I thought development environments would evolve to do that kind of thing automatically. For example, using a modern analogy, I run 'docker compose run dev' and get a project specific development environment that's from an exact point in time, even if it's 10+ years old.
Instead, we got subscriptions where I need to deal with a ton of continually changing SaaS dependencies that could disappear tomorrow. If you let a project idle for a year there's a decent chance it won't work when you go back to it.
I also disagree with the mentality that costs (to me) should be judged by how much value I get while being completely divorced from the costs (to them) of operating. By that logic, you should sign your entire paycheck over to the grocery store, right?
I don't have a problem with ongoing costs if they're providing value to me, but I'm not willing to pay forever, even when I'm idle, for someone else to control part of my workflow. The loss of control alone is a bad deal.
The introduction of the iPhone in 2008 is about the time I think things started changing. We went from developers that were concerned about maintaining control of their workflows, build systems, distribution, etc. to a new group of developers that are happy to become dependent on rent seeking SaaS middlemen while telling everyone else they're getting good value.
Even Jetbrains is turning their products into something you can't rely on via Jetbrains Space. If a critical mass of developers buy into that, I'd be willing to bet the standalone editors get dropped at some point.
last_responder|2 years ago
>but I can guarantee that 99% of developers will not spend $30/month to make their lives easier.
Your post is insulting and it really seems like it is an ad for this product.
quickthrower2|2 years ago
* I have no way of cashing in saved time anyway
* Developers can affect spending decisions at work worth $1000s to one SaaS at the expense of another or in addition. If we can save a hire through $50k/y in SaaS bills we will.
Alifatisk|2 years ago
I don’t own the product when subscribing, I am only leasing it for as long as I pay. I don’t like that, I prefer to own my products.
Everything is slowly turning into a subscription, sure this is only 30$ a month, but if all my products were subscription based, I would go bankrupt.
unsupp0rted|2 years ago
For that reason, where software is concerned, for us the distance between $0 and $1 is even wider than the already wide distance it is for the general population.
LapsangGuzzler|2 years ago
How many times have you been sold on the idea that X tool is gonna make life easier without any tradeoffs only to be disappointed? It’s happened so many times to me, I’ve lost count.
Developers understand the inherent complexity involved with adding dependencies because we are paid to understand and manage that complexity in our jobs.
I pay for lots of software as an engineer, but I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve purchased a subscription that only did 80% of what I needed, which ultimately led me to churn as a customer.
monkeynotes|2 years ago
Seriously? Half a day a week?? As a professional FE dev there is no way this would save me 4hrs a week, every week. The existing dev tools are familiar, and while not perfect, get the job done. This tool is sugar on top of that, I can't see how it would save me so much time.
I think regular folk, and non front-end engineers could find it easier and more approachable than dev tools, but I can see why target audience engineers won't put up $30/m for it.
Edit: If this tool could demonstrably show a 3-4hr a week time saving go and show it to managers, they'll snap it up. Fact is corps are cheaper than ICs at the coal face. This is if you class "cheap" as being extremely efficient with your resources.
Just because engineers are well paid doesn't mean they should stop being efficient with their income. I'd rather spend $30 a month on lunch than on another magic tool.
filmgirlcw|2 years ago
Pricing too high will kill your business the same way pricing too low will. It has nothing to do with people being cheap, it has to do with value proposition, especially relative to other tools.
halostatue|2 years ago
I have paid for Kaleidoscope at least four times and each time was more expensive (I think the total I spent was about US$300—probably closer to CA$450). I justified it because it was the best-in-class Mac-assed Mac app for its purpose and it really did and does save me time or frustration.
I’d have happily paid another US$150 (~CA$200 today) for an upgrade to Kaleidoscope 4. I’m just not sure that I want to pay a variable amount per month amounting to US$96 (~CA$115) annually, because I already have subscriptions that I’m paying for which I don’t use enough (WebSequenceDiagrams is a good example; I happily pay, because when I need it I really need it and there’s nothing quite as good IMO).
I know it’s hard, but subscriptions are the wrong choice most of the time, unless you can review and manage them in one place like you can with the Apple App Store. Because otherwise, you have to trust the company to not only (a) keep the subscription price fair without surprise increases but also (b) not use Adobe-level or NYT-level dark patterns for cancellation.
I’m not cheap, but I am far more price sensitive to subscriptions than I am to one-off purchases. The bar for getting me to subscribe rather than buy is ten to twenty times higher, and most subscription software isn’t that much better.
KomoD|2 years ago
We're not all making 100k+/yr, $30/mo is a significant amount.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
woodpanel|2 years ago
Personal anecdote:
Long time ago when still working in a physical office building, the co-workers and me would each amass significant amounts of empty returnable bottles by the end of each week on one's desk. This irked me because it looked rather unprofessional, cost desk- or foot space and came with recurrent noise of someone knocking over the whole assortment.
I then bought me a potato sack to just place my bottles in it in order to give the place a more hipsteresque feel and to give me more dignity carrying those bottles away.
So what do you think my high income comrades did? Yes, they did buy potato sacks as well... after studying customer reviews for multiple potato sacks on Amazon for a week (Goes without saying that they bought them all regardless of the week-long study effort to try them out and send the "non-performant" ones back to get refunded).
micromacrofoot|2 years ago
if I wanted to make my life easier I'd stop using emacs and arch linux
and no I won't
kodah|2 years ago
Calling us cheap I think overlooks the enormity of tools and businesses that chose this model and calculated that they're the only ones doing it. Subscription costs are charged whether you use the tool or not, and if you stop subscribing you lose any previous versions you've paid for. It's a uniquely grimey model.
monkey_monkey|2 years ago
sgallant|2 years ago
FWIW, if it were a 1-time price I would have paid probably $50 - $99 for that.
Here's a good interview with Adam Wathan from Tailwind about lifetime pricing:
https://hackersincorporated.com/episodes/lifetime-pricing-is...
Congrats on making it to the homepage of HN!
bryanrasmussen|2 years ago
At any rate I'm not sure if I think this thing would actually make my life easier. Arguments:
1. For all the whining CSS is actually one of the easiest parts of the stack, when there is a CSS bug it is generally something like - a thing is slightly off position on this screen size or the color is a bit wrong not it is possible to access another customer's account if you know what day they signed up and their email (not real bug that I've ever encountered)
2. I'm relatively good at CSS so probably this will produce worse CSS than I would do myself - although nowadays the libraries that are most popular tend to hide the 'complexity' of CSS in a JavaScript layer that produces the actual crap CSS for you so whatever.
3. I have to click and point on things etc. I hate that. That makes things slower for me. I write text in files. quick.
This is actually probably not for a developer - but for a designer who can have a design view of what the developer did and tweak a few things with this tool, hopefully make a PR and so forth.
Yes it should be bought by a company because then - tax deductible and designer is using with developer so on team.
sharemywin|2 years ago
If your a developer business owner(not hourly freelancer) than absolutely makes financial sense.
If your an hourly freelancer your customers probably aren't going to offer you more money for your time.
If you work for someone else they should pay for it.
If you are fixed bid or some variation on that then probably makes sense because your time is money.
pcthrowaway|2 years ago
And I was definitely interested in trying it out; however, I don't see a free trial.
Also, does it make you more money if you have an employer? There's a good chance your employer will pay you the same whether or not you use this tool.
If it saves the employer money or makes you more productive, then the employer should pay for it right?
But as a developer, I'd usually have to be the one advocating for it, then the employer would have to assess and approve the expense. All so I can start using a tool that costs money, which I won't be able to take with me to a different employer.
When I'm assessing the tools I might invest my time in, I generally prefer tools which are portable. The only way something like CSS Pro makes sense to me, is if I'm self-employed or freelancing; in that case I can either raise my rates or bill the same amount while working a bit less. But even for freelancers, many wouldn't consider it without a trial.
> $360 / year, what is that, 3 dinners for 2 people in a year
Nice of you to assume we're all cheap, when many of us are scraping by and have to be pretty cautious where we spend our money. $360 US is nearly what I spend on food in a month.
edit: I tried playing with it in the page, and it's incredibly limiting. Tailwind and hot reloading make things so much easier faster. With this tool, I can't really position elements, I can't add new DOM nodes and delete others. Or I couldn't figure out how to anyway. This is definitely not the tool for me, but might be useful for a non-technical designer who is just starting to learn CSS or doesn't know CSS
rrix2|2 years ago
That also comes down to many it being difficult for some organizations to purchase software on for their devs, either as a policy of the organization or the software not making this simple. Some companies make this a laborious approval process but then some vendors will make it nearly impossible to pay in bulk, or have easy delegated payment options. Developer tools oughta be as easy as possible to get your employer to pay for given how much of a force-multiplier a good dev tool can be for them.
recursive|2 years ago
Either that math is wrong, or we're eating different dinners.
tailspin2019|2 years ago
In this case, without a free trial, there is a much bigger gap to traverse to go from “not a customer” to “paying monthly”.
It’s also harder if you are not the one paying the bills and need to pitch/sell such a tool internally.
kwanbix|2 years ago
nawgz|2 years ago
Devs aren't cheap, tools like this are useless. "Don't write code - use our GUI!" has been a winning proposition almost never.
chillbill|2 years ago
CryptoBanker|2 years ago
Some of us only eat out once a week because we have debts, or we have children, or we live in an expensive place. Some people eat out even less than that.
Would I sacrifice ~6% of my meals out for this tool that (no disrespect to the developer, is a glorified color palette picker)? Definitely not, and it's not a matter of being "cheap."
Not to mention, I think you're grossly overestimating how much time a tool like this would save. If I truly spend 200 hours a year picking colors, I likely would memorize a few by that point.
dhosek|2 years ago
It’s also why I spend my own money on subscriptions to IntelliJ and CLion. I spend a lot of time in those tools and it’s worth it to me to pay to see them advance. Likewise, I just signed up to pay for Mimestream email because that’s something else that I always use.
hjkl0|2 years ago
This is the main flaw in your argument. For any developer who will actually save 3-4 hours a week with this tool, there are a thousand developers who will only save 3-4 hours a year.
As a potential user, how do you know which group you’ll be on?
And as business, how do you make the decision to only target one in a thousand potential users?
Aperocky|2 years ago
I also think that you might be misunderstanding developers, we'll pay for lots of things to save time, but not when we either don't need it or can do it ourselves. I wrote my own cron jobs that saved countless hours - I don't need to buy that.
squirtlebonflow|2 years ago
dubcanada|2 years ago
Just because developers in US in San Fran make $350k a year doesn't mean everyone does. And it's incredibly short sighted to assume that.
But ignoring all of that, your only recommendation is to sell it cheaper B2B... doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of keeping the $30 price?
rusl1|2 years ago
douglaswlance|2 years ago
Developers who spend their time commenting about how something is too expensives are cheap.
Apofis|2 years ago
ESTheComposer|2 years ago
pjmlp|2 years ago
I have a job to do and can't afford to create the computing world from scratch just to be cheappy.
Likewise I want the folks that provide the tools I enjoy using, to also afford the same lifestyle I can enjoy having.
avighnay|2 years ago
demarq|2 years ago
eagleinparadise|2 years ago
miragecraft|2 years ago
lowercased|2 years ago
Having a need for a tool for 2 months on a project, then... maybe needing it 4 months from now means I have to keep subscribing to the service even when I don't use it. I've kept things around at $30/month for months longer than I needed to because there wasn't a good way to export the data, then reimport it later if I needed it again in that tool. Taking time to determine the impact of stopping a subscription isn't always simple.
I'm paying for 2 services that do something similar. Tried the second one that said "oh, we can import your data from the other service!". It can't, but I didn't try soon enough, and now I have setups in two services. My own fault for not trying soon enough, but taking time to manually move from svc 1 to 2 (or 2 to 1) will take a lot more than than any 'savings' I might get from these.
I've paid for jetbrains for years, and I pay for some hosting/cloud services (linode, DO, AWS, etc). I've paid for copilot. I've paid for some other IDE helper/services. I've got clients who pay for dropbox/similar.
Average of $25/month, but times... say 8 on average (monthly or yearly external services I use)... That's not nothing to me. I can live with it, but half of these I'm not using regularly, but am somewhat held hostage because cancelling the service will lose my data which I may want to use on another project in the near future. So.. I keep holding on to things I'm not using in the hopes that I'll "save 2 hours/week!" 4 months from now.
Some of these services don't play nicely with sharing - many bootstrapped services don't give me ways to share my account with someone else, or transfer my data to a client, for example. (some do, but not all). Even if I want that feature, and I'm a paying customer, if I'm in the minority, I won't get that feature.
I understand your sentiment about "stop being cheap" but... even once I got past that, and got comfortable paying for more services, it's not always a good ROI (short term, usually yes, long term... no).
"to make your lives easier". My life would be easier if I could use the service for a time, export all my data, cancel, then resume service by bringing my data in again later. OR... let me 'pause' monthly rebilling for a few months. An account 'freeze' feature - suspend service and billing for X months, Y times per year - would let me feel I'm getting more value when I need it. Yes, it would disrupt projected cash flow, but it would "make my life easier".
My gym lets me do this. I can 'freeze' my membership for up to 4 months at a time per calendar year. I've done it when I know I'm going to be out of town for a few weeks - no way I'm going to use for the next 6 weeks. I'll freeze for the next month, then resume.
interactivecode|2 years ago
It won't give me 4 hours a week back, because my boss still reserves my time for those 4 hours.
My household won't have an extra 30 euro a month to spend on those dinners. actually it will directly have 30 euro less to spend on dinners. so yeah all those considerations make me cautious paying for more subscriptions.
moneywoes|2 years ago
taskforcegemini|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
sammywater|2 years ago
[deleted]
tailspin2019|2 years ago
I think I'm inclined to agree on some of the other comments about pricing. It doesn't sit quite right in comparison to what I pay for other paid tools that I use daily.
I can see myself using something like this, and I don't mind paying for great software, but there is something about the $30/month entry price that just stops me considering it further. Maybe I need to actually use it to understand that it's worth this, but it's not clear enough to me coming to it cold.
One criticism. I clicked on the "Try on this page" to test it out, and after being initially impressed I clicked on "Try it Free" in the menu, assuming this was a link to see what free/trial options were available, but the link didn't do anything. It took several page refreshes and re-clicking this to realise that this was just doubling up the function of the "Try on this page" option and in fact there is no free trial available.
Overall though, seriously impressive work.
samwillis|2 years ago
If a developer/designer is using this 1 day in 5 then they can justify the subscription.
To those suggesting this shouldn't be a subscription, keep in mind that CSS is going through a period of rapid improvements, this enables them to add support for new features without having to either eat the cost on a sold product or charge for upgrades multiple times a year.
VC backed business setting low prices for rapid growth has unfortunately damaged the ability for small indie developers to price their products sustainably.
SlowAndCalm|2 years ago
nicce|2 years ago
This is unfortunately a very common strategy, and I rather pay for indie developer bit more than a tech company with a large amount of investors.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
filmgirlcw|2 years ago
And it isn’t because I’m cheap — I spend lots of money on lots of stuff — or that I don’t value indie development (same), but this pricing puts this utility in the same class as things like Figma, the Adobe Suite, a lot of CMSes (Webflow, Craft, etc.) for a utility that might be useful, but doesn’t strike me as $360 a year (or even $180 a year) useful.
The value prop just isn’t here for me, even tho I like what this is trying to do. At $5 a month/$50 a year, I think you’d get more traction and much better volume than what you can get at $30 a month/$180 a year prepaid.
And I have to say, when I see prices this high, I’m hesitant to prepay from unknown companies because I don’t have any expectation about how long it will be in business or continue to update the product, because I don’t see how you get sustainable development at this price point. Figma and Adobe can charge what they charge because they’ve earned it and because those are tools where you feel like you get your money’s worth.
$30 a month for something that will improve but not fundamentally change the way I do web dev, I’m sorry but no.
willtheperson|2 years ago
That said, don't I need to know how to use devtools (chrome/ff/safari) to do my job in the first place? It feels like this product is trying to inject itself into a process that isn't super refined but works fine.
The real problem is the dependency it creates. If I only know how to do frontend work with handheld UI controls, then I have to use them and am locked into this product. It doesn't promote me learning the css rules or understanding how to actually fix things, so then I'm back to the devtools and why am I using this?
TekMol|2 years ago
Looking at the code, you can indeed run it as a bookmarklet. I went to https://www.example.com and typed this in the browser console:
Boom! The tool is running.So prefixing that line with "javascript:" and putting it into a bookmark would let you use it on any site you wish, simply by clicking the bookmark. Without having to install an extension.
Would be a good alternative the author could offer imho.
evanreichard|2 years ago
However it may work as a UserScript depending on the UserScript engine.
o1y32|2 years ago
1. I am struggling to understand the value proposition of this. Demo is cool but most developers working in an organization will not use most of the features shown here. No, no rotation or fancy fonts or colors. The only thing they will do is to use the standard font or color. And most elements don't use any backgrounds, and if they do they use one of the three predefined colors as the background. Gradient color? Maybe once a year. You can already do spacing stuff and text modification in the chrome devtools. I know this tool seems to make it easier, but is it worth paying money for it? I just don't see myself or any medium/large organization (e.g. Microsoft) paying $30/month. Figma is expensive but that is a whole product by itself. It enables new workflow and is irreplaceable in many ways, but I don't see this tool being the same. 2. Demo does not seem to tackle one of the biggest pain points -- layout. Based on stackoverflow questions and their upvote numbers plus what I see in my company, many people (including new and experienced developers) have trouble handling various methods of layout and arranging items. That is where this tool could help -- if done correctly. 3. What if someone makes a similar, open-source tool that achieves 50% of this, or the core features that people actually use every day? Can this compete at all? I'll be surprised if something doesn't already exist today.
Basically, this is all interesting stuff but I can't see how it is a viable business if you charge $30/month.
dmix|2 years ago
It’s not like a random person paying for Netflix. $30 is a reasonable ask.
> What if someone makes a similar, open-source tool that achieves 50% of this, or the core features that people actually use every day
In the video there’s a serious amount of functionality, that would take someone doing this as a hobby a very long time. And most OSS design-wise typically doesn’t look as good or polished (designers care about that). That’s usually the difference, the time/effort a commercial company can put in vs volunteer OSS teams.
onion2k|2 years ago
Would you need to mount it locally with curlftpfs if you're on Linux?
kirillrogovoy|2 years ago
Not only does it provide means for visual editing (for Tailwind only), but it also saves all changes to your code.
Free and open source.
[1] https://impulse.dev/
newusertoday|2 years ago
aosaigh|2 years ago
shireboy|2 years ago
XCSme|2 years ago
In this case, you would press "export changes to git" and then somehow apply them to your local repo, and bam, all the changes transferred without having to actually change any files.
One problem with this is that the changes in the browser are done on the distribution (bundled) files. Maybe using source-maps it could still be possible.
JayStavis|2 years ago
Triplex has some of that 2-way sync for frontend to code: https://triplex.dev/docs/overview
ckolkey|2 years ago
tfsh|2 years ago
One note of interest to me was the real-time measurements of image contents, I'd be interested to know how this is being done and what model's returning image-coordinate data
wg0|2 years ago
ilrwbwrkhv|2 years ago
mrieck|2 years ago
My tool is for back-end devs who don’t want anything to do with front-end, but want to build UI faster. https://www.snipcss.com
I’ve always wondered how CSSPro works at extracting/scoping CSS because that’s supposed to be a feature. But I’ve never been willing to pay $30/mon just to see how well a competitor works. Anyone who pays - do you think it recreates a carbon copy of any section of a website well?
jroseattle|2 years ago
I've had a bunch of perpetual licenses I've acquired over a lifetime, and nearly every one of them have said "we have no record of you" after 5+ years. I know, I know...save the receipts and all that. But it's just frustrating.
Don't put yourself and your customer in a potentially problematic position of he-said-she-said. When you have recurring revenue with a more mature product (and a way to track those subscriptions that you won't end up scrapping), re-consider the perpetual license.
spyke112|2 years ago
bradreaves2|2 years ago
OP: Consider hobbyists and generalist who aren’t full time. There might be a market segment for short term access for hobbyists or generalists.
I would be easily willing to pay $2/day to have this while redoing my personal website, but $30 seems steep for a short term use. Doing a daily price could work to bring in users by serving as a low-cost demo.
MSFT_Edging|2 years ago
vogon_laureate|2 years ago
Amazing work! Ignore the critics.
junon|2 years ago
poulpy123|2 years ago
nbzso|2 years ago
gnaman|2 years ago
onion2k|2 years ago
Y-bar|2 years ago
So, I will say default `main div` margin will be 2rem. While default padding on those blocks will be 1rem, how will this help me visualise adjusting these? It looks like all I am doing is changing individual elements.
kwanbix|2 years ago
asnyder|2 years ago
Also, figma has figjams which is similar to Miro for many use cases.
ilrwbwrkhv|2 years ago
graderjs|2 years ago
Do you have a GitHub or place where we can see more of your work? Thank you for laboring in obscurity until you produced this magnum opus masterpiece. This guy is example of why you should never give up. :) ;p xx ;p
ilrwbwrkhv|2 years ago
ppetty|2 years ago
If this were a truly must have app & I could get past the price, I'd enjoy it with the concern that most features could be incorporated into devtools directly, by browser makers or by other extensions that expand what devtools can do, although many features of this tool already can be achieved. In fact, I think that's the real missing feature in this service: it could be an web extension for augmenting CSS work devtools.
Lastly, what if the price started at $15/month and for every 250,000 (maybe less, maybe more) new users everyone's price was dropped by a $0.50/month but could never drop below $3/month. By the time the price hits $5/month there are at least 5 million subscribers ... (with no annual plans & no life time bananas plan) that seems pretty good.
* devtools is pretty awesome & pretty consistent in every browser.
(Oh, and I'm super cheap, too.)
theaussiestew|2 years ago
siliconc0w|2 years ago
madeofpalk|2 years ago
But overall the design of this tool is very difficult for me to use. It's trying too hard to be pretty, at the expensive of utility. I found the Typography section to be really difficult to grok with a complete lack of labels and borders around text boxes. It's neat that you have the same flexbox controls that Webflow had in 2015, but the way those icons are laid out makes it so inscruitable.
itsuka|2 years ago
Not only is it easy to use (IMO), but it's also more powerful than what design tools offered today, with new color spaces being one of my favorite features.
Intro: https://twitter.com/argyleink/status/1649124742463623169
o1y32|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
sangupta|2 years ago
* Ruler - Dimensions for Chrome * Assets - Easily get from network tab * Eyedropper - Digital color meter on MacOS * Custom CSS - Stylebot for Chrome
The only tool that I personally don't know is the color palette from the page - but then Eyedropper itself can do it.
And thus comes the question, why should I pay $30 per month for tools that are available for free to a developer?
kamikaz1k|2 years ago
low_tech_punk|2 years ago
efields|2 years ago
skilled|2 years ago
> Copy the designs of your favorite websites, frameworks, or themes. Extract the HTML and CSS code of an element and all its children in seconds.
> Not the right element you're looking for? Precisely re-target any DOM element using your keyboard's arrow keys (▲ ▼).
The documentation talks about it a little bit but not much.
I am wondering if this feature is another cheapskate implementation that doesn't actually do what it says it does. How for example would this tool handle the Firebase[0] featured header?
The other features look OK, but I don't think I could justify the price though. If you want to charge for it so much, maybe change your pricing to a yearly license and then do updates, and simply restrict new updates to people who stop subscribing. Seems like a lot more reasonable approach and it also gives you a chance to really work on extending this product beyond what it currently does.
[0]: https://firebase.blog/posts/2023/05/whats-new-at-google-io
hrdwdmrbl|2 years ago
The most common question I'm always asking myself is: Why is this like this? For many properties the browser can tell you which CSS selector "won" a property such as "font-family".
But for something like a width, the actual formula being applied is often hard to puzzle out. The browser will tell you its result but now how it arrived at that result.
For example, the element with id "pagespace" on this page. It has width that works out to some px depending on your screen width. But why that width specifically? I can personally figure it out by going up the DOM tree to see that each element is the full width of its parent (and that's how display: table-row, table-row-group and table all work) until we get to the "hnmain" element which is 85% width (of its parent). And then its parent is the body which has 8px margin all around. So the formula is something like: (screen-width - 8px * 2) * 0.85. But that took me how long to figure out manually?
Show your work!
smcleod|2 years ago
POiNTx|2 years ago
For the pricing, consider adding tiers depending on the type of user. What you're asking for now is perfectly fine for companies. But for individual developers I think it's a bit steep.
Also a demo that you can test out in the wild for maybe a week or so would be interesting, or a generous 7 day refund policy.
Good luck!
0xbadcafebee|2 years ago
IceDane|2 years ago
city17|2 years ago
Seems much more convenient than diving into dev tools every time you want to quickly check an element’s property. 30/month is a bit excessive for just that one function.
CharlesW|2 years ago
I think the same person makes CSS Scan ($95 lifetime): https://getcssscan.com/
kristopolous|2 years ago
Add an event listener on the entire document.body
Get the event.target and the style and then descend to the children. Put it formatted in the clipboard.
Then do it as a bookmarklet and deregister the click handler when you're done so you can continue interacting with the site
It's probably around 12 lines of modern js.
You can add a fancy graphical outline to know what you're selecting with a few more lines. Just make sure you draw it on top and don't modify the elements. Use a css filter to make it work on all elements.
Modern tooling is pretty great.
xkcd1963|2 years ago
- tackling of inconsistent browser behaviour and bugs on top of cross-browser compatibility
- RWD
- pixel perfect implementation of designs
- extending or replacing native input elements
And very little of it has to do with color gradient selectors or pixel to em conversion.
zestyping|2 years ago
It looks like you can only edit styles on individual elements.
I can see classes, but I don't see a way to change the class of an element, or to change the CSS properties of a class. I even tried applying different changes to the same class — larger font for one element, smaller font for another element with the same class — and CSS Pro is happy to give me contradicting CSS rules.
Example: https://imgur.com/a/qT1y95T
CSS with a separate rule for every element is unworkable. How is the exported CSS supposed to work?
jw1224|2 years ago
greggh|2 years ago
https://hymhub.github.io/css-to-tailwind/
umaar|2 years ago
HellsMaddy|2 years ago
AhmadIbrahim|2 years ago
qingcharles|2 years ago
But I echo the other voices concerning the pricing. Right now I have the entire Adobe product suite - everything they make - for only $25/month.
gigatexal|2 years ago
kwanbix|2 years ago
ta-run|2 years ago
PS: have h/w acceleration disabled.
revskill|2 years ago
- Build MVP
- Raise funding
- Build pricing structure
- Eventually die and open source anything for many reason. Pricing is one such reason.
Without free pricing tier, how can you get new users to play with your product ? (if it's not open source).
tuckerconnelly|2 years ago
If you could cut some of the animations, or use transforms instead of absolute positioning or something--whatever to improve performance--I'd be down to try it for a month.
abraham|2 years ago
rifty|2 years ago
brentis|2 years ago
onion2k|2 years ago
A web designer/developer in a decent, profitable company is probably getting paid $100k at least.
Assuming 250 working days a year with 8 hours a day of paid time, that's roughly $0.8/minute.
If this tool saves that person 90 seconds a day finding and tweaking things in a design then it's saving more than $30/month worth of their time.
It's quite cheap.
The fact Adobe charge waaaaaaay too little for PS is another matter entirely.
monkey_monkey|2 years ago
csmattryder|2 years ago
At the bottom of the pricing page. It's not a JetBrains type deal.
bilekas|2 years ago
For me personally I wouldn't use it enough to justify the price tag. Depending on your business plan it might make sense to offer some kind of day/week pass. This would definitely interest me as I would be more of a infrequent user.
freediver|2 years ago
danr4|2 years ago
If you're going to charge this amount you probably want to target product/design teams in mid to large enterprises, then charge by seat (with limited trial for up-sell).
gervwyk|2 years ago
I might just buy it anyway...
recursive|2 years ago
replwoacause|2 years ago
rylan-talerico|2 years ago
I agree with the concern expressed in other comments re: price, especially considering the lack of a free tier or trial.
The marketing site is great. Congrats on your launch!
syntex|2 years ago
russdpale|2 years ago
Im a simple man, I see a monthly sub, and I move on.
iguana_lawyer|2 years ago
pyrelight|2 years ago
I'd probably pull the trigger on this for $3-$5/mo.
leemcd56|2 years ago
davidguetta|2 years ago
zestyping|2 years ago
There's "Reset all changes" but Cmd-Z and Ctrl-Z do nothing. Is there a way to undo the last action?
Undo is essential functionality, IMO.
coxley|2 years ago
The price won't be for everyone — but you don't need everyone. :)
icholy|2 years ago
aldanor|2 years ago
lofaszvanitt|2 years ago
hnbad|2 years ago
Having an "inner picture" is helpful but neither necessary nor sufficient to be a designer. You can have a good intuition even when you're physically incapable of having "inner pictures". But yes, the tool is probably less useful if you have a vivid imagination.
hit8run|2 years ago
kwanbix|2 years ago
progx|2 years ago
sodimel|2 years ago
lnxg33k1|2 years ago
WolfOliver|2 years ago
canadianfella|2 years ago
[deleted]
ShadowBanThis01|2 years ago
Not even going to download it. Good luck though.
classified|2 years ago
masukomi|2 years ago
good luck.
Thonn|2 years ago
deserialized|2 years ago
jjdeveloper|2 years ago
beeburrt|2 years ago
That music in the video gives me anxiety
digitalsin|2 years ago
firecall|2 years ago
aidenbuis|2 years ago
itomato|2 years ago
hathym|2 years ago
iamsahebgiri|2 years ago
[deleted]
pokepim|2 years ago
[deleted]
T3RMINATED|2 years ago
[deleted]