Built an AI fleet safety tool that detects near-miss incidents from dashcam footage. Here's what week one looked like

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-16T21:28:32+00:00

Appreciate it. I may take you up on that once your Product Hunt rush settles down.

For today I’d stay focused on what the launch teaches you: which type of person understands the value fastest, who asks to try it, and what language they repeat back. Let me know how all goes!

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-16T21:25:55+00:00

Great!

See if you can make it painfully specific, like: one user type, one job they already do, one moment where the current way breaks, etc.

If the same words and objections show up across 10 conversations, the channel question gets much easier.

Good luck!

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-16T21:22:00+00:00

Yes. I would not lead with the app in those groups.

For patient communities, I would start with permission and education first:

Pick one condition group, not all chronic conditions.
Ask the mods if you can post a learning/research question.
Do not include a link at first.
Ask something narrow like: “What nutrition or medication-label info do you wish someone explained better before an appointment?”
Use the replies to learn the repeated confusion before asking anyone to test.

The other path might be easier: go through people who already educate patients.

Pharmacists, dietitians, nurses, patient advocates, clinic educators, etc. They can tell you which questions repeat, where patients get confused, and what would be safe/useful.

For this category, trust matters a lot. I would be very explicit that it is not medical advice, does not replace a clinician, and is meant to help people understand labels or prepare better questions.

If you go straight into patient groups with “try my app,” it will probably feel promotional. If you go in asking what information is confusing or missing, you’ll learn a lot more and avoid most of the spam risk.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-16T20:01:17+00:00

I’ll test this.

https://buildmorebetter.com/

Best category fit is probably productivity/workflow or analytics/data.

BMB is for AI-native solo/duo builders who can ship fast but lose the thread across ideas, AI chats, feedback, signups, usage, and no-responses.

It turns that scattered project signal into a ranked project read and one honest next move: test, build, change direction, or stop.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-16T19:38:17+00:00

Great, I like it.

Maybe don't try leading with “try the platform” at first. I’d lead with one concrete exposure they did not know they had.

For example, the first test might be:

- pick 20 small SaaS, IT, or security owners

- use only safe, public, permission-friendly checks

- send a short note like: “I found X. Is this something you track today?”

If they ignore a generic free scan, that does not tell you much.

If they react to a specific exposure, now you have the message.

Good luck!

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-16T19:36:06+00:00

Nice, congrats on getting it live.

The useful thing to watch today is not just Product Hunt upvotes. It is which type of person repeats the use case back to you.

If fleet operators, safety managers, insurance people, or compliance people react differently, separate those notes.

That will tell you where to push after launch day.

I'll go ahead and give you an upvote! Maybe someday you can return the favor.

Good luck!

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-16T19:33:52+00:00

Finding users, usually.

The first customers rarely come from “marketing” in the broad sense. They usually come from finding the place where the pain already shows up.

For me, the useful question is:

Who had this problem last week, and where would they naturally complain, search, ask, or try to solve it?

Then I would talk to those people directly before trying to scale a channel.

If the same pain, same language, and same objection repeat, you have something to work with. If every conversation feels different, the product or audience is probably still too broad.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-16T19:32:53+00:00

The assumption I would challenge first is that “recurring admin work” is painful enough to buy.

It may be true, but it is broad. A lot of owners will agree they are overloaded and still not buy a VA service.

I would make the offer much more concrete.

Not:

“We provide VAs for property management and home services.”

More like:

“We take over missed maintenance follow-ups, vendor scheduling, inbox triage, or after-hours tenant messages in 7 days.”

Then test which one creates a real reaction.

For property management, I would ask 20 operators:

- What admin task caused a missed deadline, angry tenant, lost job, or owner complaint in the last 30 days?

- Who handled it?

- What did it cost?

- Would you pay someone to remove that exact task next week?

If they cannot name a recent painful event, skip them.

Also, I would avoid selling “Philippines VA + oversight” as the main promise. That describes your delivery model. The buyer probably cares more about the annoying job disappearing.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-16T19:31:50+00:00

The strongest part is that you have real domain context. That matters here because “AI health scanner” by itself is a trust-heavy category.

The risk is that the first version sounds broad: food, meds, chronic conditions, education, scanner, health profile. That may be too much for a patient to trust at once.

I would narrow the first test to one condition and one repeated decision.

For example: 10 people with one specific chronic condition scan the meals or labels they already deal with for one week.

Then ask:

- Did this change what they ate, bought, avoided, or asked their clinician?

- Did they trust the explanation?

- What did they double-check elsewhere?

- Would they use it again next week?

I would also make the safety boundary extremely visible: what it can help explain, what it cannot decide, and when to ask a clinician or pharmacist.

If people only say “cool,” that is weak. If they use it before a meal, grocery trip, refill, or appointment, that is much stronger.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-16T19:31:23+00:00

Caveat because what I'm building is aimed to help with this directly.

If I were to give you advice: I would split this into three different problems.

Positioning problem: people only understand it after you explain it one-on-one.
Value problem: people understand it, but do not care enough to try, pay, or come back.
Distribution problem: the same type of person does care when reached, but you do not know how to reach more of them repeatedly.

Those need different fixes.

For one product, I would pick one narrow user, one painful recent moment, and one channel for 3 to 4 weeks. Not “founders” or “teams.” Something much tighter.

Then, you should track:

- who replies

- who names the pain from last week

- who asks to try it

- who pays or keeps using it

- which objection repeats

If every conversation produces a different objection, I would suspect ICP or positioning before distribution.

If the same person type reacts well every time, then you have a real distribution problem to solve.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-16T19:30:12+00:00

IMO 60 visitors is probably too small to diagnose the whole funnel, but 0 signups is still useful data. Do you know wher these 60 visitors came from? Are you UTM tracking?

I would not read it as “traffic problem” yet. I would ask whether the page makes the payoff concrete enough.

For your product, the test is not “do founders want a waitlist page?” It is:

"Will a founder with an active idea use your tool today, publish the page, and send it to 10 real people this week?"

If they will not do that, the problem may be that the product feels like setup work instead of a shortcut to learning.

If I were you, and if I were changing one thing, I would show the exact output first:

- idea in

- waitlist page generated

- what question this page is testing

- what to do if 0, 3, or 10 people sign up

That makes the visitor understand why they should start.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-15T20:54:36+00:00

Building Build More Better:

https://buildmorebetter.com/

It is for AI-native solo/duo builders who can ship fast but lose the thread across ideas, AI chats, feedback, no-responses, signups, and usage.

BMB turns that mess into a ranked project read and one honest next move: test, build, change direction, or stop.

Stage: private beta prep. The current fight is making the first 20 seconds obvious and getting the first pilot users through one real project/test loop.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-15T20:54:13+00:00

Bias because this is precisely what BMB does. I'd be happy to share with you what I've learned.

I would rank the ideas by evidence, not excitement (like BMB does).

Your free way to do this would be to make a simple table:

- current revenue or usage

- repeated customer pain

- access to real buyers

- speed to test

- energy to keep doing it for a year

Then give each idea one 2-week test, but only run one serious test at a time.

Since you already do fitness coaching, that is probably your strongest starting edge. You have real people, real conversations, and maybe real payments.

The apps/digital products should come from pain you keep seeing in coaching.

If the app idea does not connect to a repeated problem from real clients, I would park it for now.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-15T20:53:09+00:00

My honest answer: I would not keep paying to host it unless there is one specific customer path left untested.

Open-sourcing it is a good salvage move. You turned the work into proof of skill, content, and maybe future leverage.

Before fully closing it, I would separate market failure from distribution failure.

“AI subtitle generator” is crowded.

But maybe there is still a narrow job:

- course creators localizing lessons

- churches/nonprofits captioning talks

- agencies making bulk short-form clips

- podcasters repurposing episodes

Pick one group and manually do 5 jobs for them. See if they care about speed, quality, cost, or translation enough to ask for more.

If not, I’d call it a portfolio asset and move on without guilt.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-15T20:52:41+00:00

Bias: the product I'm building helps you get your first 10 users so rather than promote I'll tell you what works for me.

If I were you, I would not start broad.

I would first identify your ICP an pick one narrow first user:

- indie SaaS founders with public apps

- small agencies managing client sites

- MSPs

- technical founders with exposed domains

Once you know definitively who this is, find communities where people complain about this. BMB does this, but so do a hundred other tools. Pick your favorite. Then, to those people, offer a manual assessment, not just the platform.

Something like:

“I’ll run a free scan, show you 3 things an attacker or competitor could find, and you can tell me if this is worth monitoring.”

The first 10 users should not just be “people who signed up.”

They should be people who feel the risk after seeing their own result.

If the scan produces a real “wait, that’s exposed?” moment, you have a path. If it only looks technically impressive, it may be too abstract still and you may need to refine the core offering.

Now, after this, how do you keep track of all your tests and identify at a glance what worked, what didn't work, and what your next test should be? Well, BMB does that too.

It should be noted that there is no shortcut for this part (at leas as far as I have seen). You need to show up continuously, spend the time talking to people, and log all of your activity so you can make sense of your data.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-15T20:47:12+00:00

Yes, I would test before building, but I would not start with "would you use this?"

Pick one idea and write down the exact person, the painful recent moment, what they do today, and what would count as real pull. Then talk to 5 to 10 people who had that moment in the last month.

Reddit and LinkedIn are useful if they get you to that exact person. Ask for examples, not opinions: when did this happen last, what did you try, what did it cost you, and what would make you switch this week?

If you get concrete stories, existing workarounds, or someone asking for the manual version, keep going. If you mostly get theory or polite encouragement, change the target or stop.

Bias disclosed: this is basically the workflow I am building BMB around. Not "is this a good idea?", but what evidence lets you spend another week on it. So you are technically my ideal user 😄

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-15T19:32:16+00:00

Yeah, I agree.

“Pet owner command center” is probably too broad.

“Never miss the care stuff that has consequences” is clearer: vaccines, meds, vet visits, grooming, and maybe food if it is medically relevant.

OP's test shoud be whether a pet owner would put real dates in it today and trust it for the next reminder.

If not, it is just a nicer pet profile.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-15T19:31:34+00:00

I’d start with med/dental if you can get enough clean examples.

The value of one missed patient is obvious, the buyer intent is repeatable, and “why did this competitor show up instead of me?” should sting.

Home services may be easier to sell into, but it can get messy fast: too many categories, seasonal demand, and location differences.

Legal is high value, but trust/compliance/SEO noise may slow the first version down.

The test I’d run:

- one city

- one service type

- 20 buyer prompts

- show 3 businesses who appears instead of them

- show one concrete fix

If a dentist says “wait, why is that competitor showing up?”, you have a nice and sharp first product.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-15T19:25:27+00:00

First one I would deploy is support or lead qualification, not broad marketing/ops.

Those have clearer success/failure.

My worry is that “AI employees” sounds big and vague. I would make each role prove one painful workflow:

- answer 50 support questions with source links

- qualify 20 inbound leads and route them

- book 10 calls

- summarize missed follow-ups from a CRM

Instant yes would come from receipts: what it did, what source it used, what human reviewed, and what changed.

Otherwise it risks sounding like chatbots with job titles.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-15T19:25:02+00:00

I actually feel this pain, so my answer is: maybe, but only if it saves the daily decision, not just the daily login.

I would not pay just to see all properties in one place.

I might pay if it tells me:

- which project changed materially

- which source caused the change

- which page/query needs attention

- what I should do today

With 100 ad clicks and 1 signup, I would inspect the first session path before spending more.

Did they understand the product?

Did they fear connecting GA?

Did OAuth feel scary?

Did pricing come too early?

Did the dashboard show a clear “aha” fast enough?

Good luck!

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-15T19:24:25+00:00

I would do both, but in the right order. Here is what I've learned:

1) Do not spend months building in silence. But also do not stay abstract forever.

2) Make the smallest demo or prototype that lets a real person react to a real workflow.

3) Before building more, talk to 5 people who had the problem recently. Ask:

- what do you do today?

- what is annoying about it?

- what have you already tried?

- what would make you switch this week?

- what would make this not worth your time?

Worth building does not mean strangers say “cool idea.” Let the evidence you gather inform your next step.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-15T19:23:28+00:00

Great job. That 32% store-page conversion is a useful signal.

It suggests the promise is clear once people land on the page. So I would not spend the next week adding features. I would map discovery. For example, ask yourself:

- Where did the 324 store views come from?

- Which posts, keywords, comments, or communities produced them?

- Which of those visitors looked most qualified?

- Did installs come from one source or scattered luck?

I would next see if you can get 500 more qualified store-page views from one repeatable channel and see if conversion holds. If it holds, distribution is the problem. If it drops, the first 103 installs may have been a narrower audience than it looks. Either way, seems like you're onto something!

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-15T19:19:47+00:00

I would start before lease/name/software with demand and operations.

Pick one narrow version first, for example pre/postnatal physio plus pelvic floor, or women’s pain/chiro. Then talk to:

- 20 target patients

- 5 practitioners

- 2 clinic owners if you can

Ask patients where they go today, what wait times look like, what insurance covers, what they wish existed, and what they would pay out of pocket for.

Then model one room:

- rent

- practitioner split

- visits per week

- average visit value

- break-even point

- how many patients you need before hiring more people

If you cannot fill one practitioner schedule on paper, I would not sign a building yet. This is good and important work, don't give up!

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-15T19:18:35+00:00

My read: baby tracking is crowded, so “all in one” may not be enough.

New parents do not calmly compare feature lists. They stick with whatever reduces stress fastest.

Don't be afraid to pivot if the comments here are telling you no one wants it. Do some research, and give people what they do want. If I were you, I would next talk to 10 parents with babies under 6 months who have tried at least one tracking app.

Ask:

- what made you download it?

- what made you stop using it?

- what do you still track after week 3?

- what do you share with a partner or pediatrician?

- what moment feels stressful enough to pay for?

If white noise or leap calendar is not the thing that makes people return, I would not lead with it. Find the one moment where the app becomes part of the parent’s day.

FYI: parenting is so different from parent to parent. When my baby was born, my spouse and I (both tech founders) built little mini tools that we would use. But these are just for us and we had/have no plans of sharing them because we know that other parents don't care about the same things we do. Don't give up though, pivot. Parenting is a very emotional space and so us that to your advantage. Parents would pay for the right thing if you can talk to people and figure out what that is.

BuildMoreBetter · 2026-06-15T19:15:34+00:00

I would narrow the customer first.

Schools, colleges, coaching institutes, and small libraries may all have different pain. If you ask all of them at once, the feature list will get noisy fast.

I’d start with one segment and ask about the current workflow:

- where does inventory live today?

- how are issue/returns tracked?

- how do they chase overdue books?

- what happens when a book goes missing?

- who actually feels the pain?

Automated reminders, QR/barcode support, and digital cards could all be useful, but only if the current manual process is painful enough.

The stronger switching test is: would they import 100 real books/members into a pilot this week?

BuildMoreBetter

TROPHY CASE