Honest question: does integrating with this API require more code than just using Sharp directly? Especially now that anyone can ask an AI to write the watermarking script for them.

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 call + ZIP) - no-code / Zapier / Make users

Not targeting solo devs who like writing image pipelines. More for agencies, no-code users, and apps that want “watermarking as a service.”

Genuinely curious if “Sharp as a Service” is a clearer framing — or if this just isn’t painful enough to justify an API.

I think these types of projects are really great for developers to exercise their end-to-end skills -- developing all pieces of the product. Kudos for launching it!

As someone who's done this before, the value is all in that experience and finding those gaps that you didn't know existed.

One important gap I originally didn't know about was needing a market for my product idea. I thought just because I had a clever idea that it would sell! Turns out that's not the case most of the time.

And in this case, I don't think there's a market for no-code solutions that simultaneously require HTTP API integration (that's not no-code, that's low-code), when there is a really simple low-code solution that doesn't require a network round-trip.

Again, kudos on completing the exercise of releasing something! It's a step most developers don't take, and absolutely worth the experience no matter where it goes.

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 this. I guess I should kill it and build something else. Way more valuable than "this project should be cool :))"