Show HN: Tinder, but to decide what to eat (whatdinner.com)
My girlfriend and I waste too much energy to decide what to eat. Every day, we would text each other, "what do we eat tonight" messages, and go over options and many times spend too much time on deciding. I am an indie dev and created this app to solve my own problem: decide with my girlfriend what to eat for dinner.
Initially, I created a simple app, in which we listed all the recipes we ever prepared, and it would propose randomly three of them. We would then choose together one of them. This app[0] turned into a tinder-like app, which would propose every day a set of recipes to my girlfriend and me - we would swipe and go for the first match.
If have some time, give it a try and feedback is very appreciated!
Cheers, Kiru
[0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/meal-planner-dinner-ideas/id64...
246 comments
[ 338 ms ] story [ 5497 ms ] thread:(
Unfortunately I’m not going to pay $20/year to make deciding on dinner slightly easier. Sorry. I understand why people want subscriptions for recurring revenue. But I hate having dozens and dozens of subscriptions for niche services.
If this was like a $10 one time purchase I might go for it.
That's not even considering the many subscriptions a developer has to pay, including to Apple.
I get that there is work behind it, there is work behind everything, and I get they are reoccurring. What you mention is still valid, but in the real world, sob story about costs to run something are not something the customer cares about.
It's not the customer's job to pay you forever bc Apple wants a developer license. It's the business's job to make sure it's sustainable with the costs that it has / has chosen to bear.
That's the backpressure on business models - they're not all viable. Just because you _could_ add in a bunch of servers and cloud costs and whatever, doesn't mean it's inherently justified.
The problem is more that it's gotten _so_ cheap to run, that charging each user a seemingly-nominal 5c/day fee doesn't feel bad to an average person for a chance at value. And at scale you get enough people who figure "ah it's not that much", and end up with massive profit margins. Profiting off the disparity between the individual choice and the aggregate.
Probably shouldn't subscribe then ...
If I subscribe to a magazine or a streaming service, I continually get new content. Apps that aren't doing that are basically price gouging customers.
If it’s not a price you’re willing to pay, that’s fine. But if someone else gets value out of it and thinks it’s a fair trade, that’s between them and the app creator.
Since we're apparently now doing Freshman Civics:
There are many sorts of transactions that someone would get value from and think are a fair trade, but are prohibited for one reason or another.
Even for those somewhat-antisocial transactions that aren't prohibited, there's no rule that says that you can't complain about how those transactions could be more pro-social.
Yeah, and there's also no rule that says that other people can't tell you to shut up.
Seems like a risk to the author. Keeping existing customers is typically easier than getting new ones.
probably everyone would end up going broke but i would love to see a simulation of it, if not a real experiment.
i know nickel transactions costs a dime to process, but if it was cheap we could have new ways of having new things.
That being said, OP should probably realize a lot of people don't pay for software--even in HN.
That's why OP needs to make sure the users are the product and find some way to sell the user data to advertisers.
OP should contact restaurants and allow them to place ads in the recommendations. He should also sell access to user data and allow restaurants and advertisers to target free users.
He can have a subscription tier that gives you privacy.
> There doesn't need to be any justification. If that's what OP wants to charge then that's reason enough.
Yep, makes sense.
> That being said, OP should probably realize a lot of people don't pay for software--even in HN.
Indeed. Maybe people pay even less on HN, seeing as many of us can hack together something for personal use.
> That's why OP needs to make sure the users are the product and find some way to sell the user data to advertisers.
Er…
> OP should contact restaurants and allow them to place ads in the recommendations. He should also sell access to user data and allow restaurants and advertisers to target free users.
Wait, what? This is app for eating at home, restaurants have nothing to do with it.
> He can have a subscription tier that gives you privacy.
Full-on dystopia.
A 1-year pricing option or 30-day trial with the option to pay up front for a year or a month, without it becoming a subscription is way more compelling to the user than signing up for a subscription that one then has to remember to cancel.
I personally subscribe to Amazon Prime and that's it. A service has to meet an incredibly high bar for me to consider a subscription, and I wouldn't have considered it with Amazon until after they had set up their global prime delivery infrastructure/network and video streaming service. I'm not going to give my credit card to a company that makes picking out a recipe slightly easier to keep on file, that's a ludicrous proposition.
In some cases, subscriptions are reasonable, such as when software would be a heavy burden on personal devices, like power-intensive language models, or when it needs to stay compliant with evolving legal requirements, like an accounting software or something.
A larger issue is Apple’s push for subscription-based software in almost everything, often to bolster its bottom line, while damaging the industry as a whole for the reasons mentioned.
Also subscription to a developer is a product for them, it has nothing to do with the product they create for others
If that intersection is unreachable in the first place, there is just no sense to mention maintenance costs.
Of course then there is the price of the subscription... But I'm talking about the model, not the cost.
'Pay for what you use' (micropayments?) seems under-explored outside of cloudhosting to me. Some small cost per meal solves the same problem while seeming more reasonable (or more obviously reasonable) to the consumer, doesn't it?
But why?
This is described as "a simple app, in which we listed all the recipes we ever prepared, and it would propose randomly three of them. We would then choose together one of them."
You could, if you chose to, built/architect that in a way that doesn't require a backend at all.
You can use deep link URIs to send a _lot_ of data in a link in an email (like literally gigabytes on iOS). Easily enough data to send each other newly added meals/recipes.
You could also encode recipes in QR Codes, so one person enters a new recipe and the other can scan a QR Code the app generates to grab it - you can get about 4kb into a high density QR Code that'll read reliably off a phone screen.
Use one of those to maintain the whole meal/recipe database on each device, no backend required.
Maybe use a date based PRNG so both ends will pick the same "three random recipes" every day.
Send messages between apps as emails with deep links in them, so one user can use the native iOS "share by email" widget to send a "hey, what do you want for dinner" email, with an app generated message with three deeplinks, one for each random choice. Recipient responds by tapping the deep link for their recipe choice, which opens their version of the app - and the app digs the data out off the deeplink URI to pres3ent a "share your choice" button that also uses the native iOS "share by email" widget to send the response back to the first user.
Tapping links in emails and sharing via email isn't as "nice" as an app with a centralised database and push notifications, but it also has zero ongoing cost to run and you know for sure the developer has no lever to enshittify the service, and has no user PII or usage data to sell to surveillance capitalists.
Hmmm, I wonder if you could do this entirely as a web app?
More than enough to pay for server costs.
i do wonder if for new products they should opt for a webapp instead which would negate the apple/google tax and it would allow android users to also try
Then I got hit with 753 ads and stopped laughing. But still pretty fun.
I might eat at a restaurant only once.
Another alternative would be you buy access for a block of time, but not an auto renewing subscription. Mullvad VPN works like this, I have to go into the app and re-up if I want to keep using it every month.
However I think this type of app should be a one time purchase anyway. Looks to me like it could work without any server / hosted infrastructure.
This idea that customers should need to pay for all of a business's business costs and overhead as the overhead happens is a new one, and an annoying one.
Generally anything physical you own, you're on the hook for maintaining. But software is different isn't it ? If you pay a lifetime fee for an app, are you expected to maintain it ?
I bet that if manufacturers were also on the hook for maintaining cars they'd sold indefinitely, we'd be on subscription fees there too.
Obviously, some apps have negligible maintenance so i'm not saying a subscription model is the best model for all cases, just that i don't think the analogy with cars fits exactly.
on the plus side everyone can use it on any device they would like.
One of the best features is to streamline the online ordering from the app.
It works very well.
Perfect.
some base price quote.
then, the more I use it, the cheaper it gets, or at least never "the more expensive it gets" (in this way we can get tiers, but it's not quoted as screw-you plan)
and, I stop using it, I stop paying
If the base price is attractive to try, put in my credit card and try. If I keep liking it, I keep using it, if I don't, I don't. It's what we all want, just give it to us.
But I have to admit, a food matching app with this approach would be strange since the person I am truing to match is know to me and possibly living in the same place.
I would personally open a chatGPT session and tell what I have eaten today or this week and should suggest from the history when I need it.
Honestly, an interesting idea. Finetune Llama on a bunch of nutrition info and it can help you find out what micros you’re missing and maybe even find recipes to help your macros
I miss when good apps were selling for $2 on the app stores.
Author of a $10 one time purchase app here. People have been acclimatized to paying rent on apps for so long that I routinely get emails asking for a cheaper monthly option, because $10 is too steep. :)
If you could execute this technically it's clearly a billion-dollar idea, but maybe the only people with the right connections to do it are Apple and Google.
If you're not VC funded, who gives a fuck how many users you have or how quickly you get more?
Unless the cost of whatever backing online resources you need doesn't scale fairly closely with the number of users you have, the only thing number of users matters for is the size of the check you get at the end of the year, rather than the profit percentage from that check.
If you're creating an app to make money, then don't put all your eggs in a Tinder-for-dinner basket.
We did solve the problem in a much easier way though. We do have 40 recipes we usually cycle through. I wrote them in a spreadsheet and marked them based on who can cook them, if it's brunch, lunch or dinner, quick or elaborate, summery or wintery.
Then in another sheet I just create a list of those recipes/dishes picked randomly based on the day of the month.
If we start the discussion "what do we eat tonight", I can just open the spreadsheet. 99% of the time proposing the option for that day on the sheet gives us closure and we're done.
Also, what about that "who can cook them" column in that spreadsheet? Obviously there are personal prefs but you guys have the recipe stored, surely anyone can cook it.
In a very general sense, yes, but people have varying competencies/preferences in the kitchen.
Some people have more patience/precision for baking, some people don't think twice about handling raw meat, some people put in the time to learn fancy knife skills and can dice an onion in half the time...
I have found it works very well to divvy up the complicated cooking by skill/preference (though obviously everyone in the house can churn out a pasta dish if the need arises).
Having said that you have a point about handling raw meat.
For the "who can cook them" in the spreadsheet, I guess it's just a matter of what we're used to cook. I'm from Italy, she's from Malawi, I'm sure I could cook 'nsima and she could cook polenta.
We did solve the problem in a much easier way though. We do have 40 recipes we usually cycle through. I wrote them in a spreadsheet and marked them based on who can cook them, if it's brunch, lunch or dinner, quick or elaborate, summery or wintery.
Then in another sheet I just create a list of those recipes/dishes picked randomly based on the day of the month.
If we start the discussion "what do we eat tonight", I can just open the spreadsheet. 99% of the time proposing the option for that day on the sheet gives us closure and we're done.
You have a set of ingredients at home (or easily purchaseable)—an evolution of this app could have you tell the app "look, I want recipes that use any of these 45 different ingredients, what recipes have we never tried?" And it has access to some big database of possibilities.
Whoever was driving would mentally pick a place and start driving there. The other - before getting to the parking lot - could pick anywhere else and that’s where we would go instead.
We’ve been happily married 26 years now and still follow that same rule for choosing where to eat. ;-)
My wife absolutely hates seafood. So, if I don't want to pick I just start heading in the direction of somewhere like Red Lobster and she'll always think of something else rapidly.
She'll do the same to me with something like a vegetarian place.
What's hilarious is when one of us starts heading somewhere we think the other won't like and they don't change it. We end up eating there and usually have a great time anyway. I've learned to like eggplant that way, and she's started growing more fond of Thai food.
It's true also of deciding what to watch. I've spent 30+ minutes debating what to watch, only to realize we should be going to sleep in just another 15 mins so no we can't really watch anything anymore
So over the years my strategy has morphed to making the decision and taking responsibility for making it an enjoyable experience for both
This is something I've personally wanted to dive into the psychology of more.
Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed that - in the days of streaming and everything being on-demand - picking what to watch is actually very frustrating to me. Quite often, I'd much rather just browse "live" TV and stop on something I like.
I'd never think to myself "I feel like watching The Goonies". But if I'm flipping channels and The Goonies happens to be on - 20 minutes into it - I'll stop there and absolutely enjoy watching the rest of it.
I wonder why that is.
There is probably some research that directly taps into it, I did come across and adjacent research paper -
“ New contexts, old heuristics: How young people in India and the US trust online content in the age of generative AI”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.02522
The indication is that people consume content online in different modes based on their objectives. Perhaps the mode of consumption for food decisions / streaming decisions is part of the category where we dont want to work very hard to get to an answer.
e.g. (bad): "How about pizza tonight?" "I don't feel like pizza." "Ok then, burritos?" "No." "Soup?" > Frustration
vs (good): A: "How about pizza tonight?" B: "I'm not into pizza, but I could go for a burger." A: "I'm not feeling burgers, how about sushi?" > Continues until agreement
Turkinator, basically.
Also should consider what was selected last time - a bit of a predictive algorithm would be useful to start providing towards my likes a bit quicker.
Where are the restaurants in this?
About your girlfriend, she wants you to make a decision. That's why you're ending up in a recursive loop.
Good luck!