lembergs

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by lembergs 7mo ago

   Appreciate everyone's honest feedback here. The consensus is clear: watermarking isn't painful enough to justify an API, especially when Sharp + ChatGPT solves it in 10 minutes, and the no-code market I described doesn't a
2. 2.▲
   by lembergs 7mo ago

   uuugh :)) Thank you for eye opener :D You're right that the no-code angle has a gap — if someone's using Zapier they probably want a simple action that doesn't require API knowledge at all. Genuinely appreciate you pushing on
3. 3.▲
   by lembergs 7mo ago

   You're 100% right for your use case. FFMPEG locally will always be faster than shipping images over the network. But we're solving different problems. You're working with local files you already have. I'm targeting apps
4. 4.▲
   by lembergs 7mo ago

   Fair. If you’re a dev watermarking a few images, Sharp directly is the obvious choice. This exists for cases where Sharp is annoying, not hard: - offloading CPU-heavy image work from your servers - batch jobs (hundreds of images → one API c
5. 5.▲
   Watermark API – $0.01/image, 10x cheaper than Cloudinary(api-production-caa8.up.railway.app)

   4 points by lembergs 7mo ago|11 comments
6. 6.▲
   by lembergs 7mo ago

   I built a dead-simple watermarking API because existing solutions (Cloudinary, imgix) are overkill and expensive for developers who just need to slap a logo on images. - $0.01/image or $19/mo unlimited - 50 free images to test - 5