Automate any tasks that require multiple entries of data in a browser

All into memory no less.

Just from that one error message we can infer the following issues:

1. Not using the built-in WP_Http class or related helper methods (wp_remote_get) that provide headers, timeouts, useragent, auth, etc.

2. Unserialising remote, untrusted PHP objects (!) (Why does Vimeo provide/encourage this?)

3. Not handling HTTP error response codes.

4. PHP errors are not hidden from users.

Yes, I wouldn't touch this. Any willing victims out there who can give us a review? ;)

As a browser extension, this is very possible to do securely (we support it for our extension pixiebrix.com):

1. APIs accessed authenticated via OAuth2, or via locally-managed credentials. (Browser extensions support this via https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...)

2. For data extraction and form fill, the data never leaves the user's browser

Yea I agree, this pricing model isn't very alluring. The tool could be useful, but the time you promise to save won't offset that monthly fee in real-world time. There's a sunk cost of time setting up the automation that subtracts from the time savings. Try to get rich a little slower and you might have better success.

Where do you find the pricing? I'm on mobile and can't see it anywhere.

I agree the pricing model could be improved and personally think simplification would be best change.

Imagine you have a single user subscribe who works inside a big company. They implement whatever process they needed and show a colleague who wants to do that too - either run the same process to build a new one. Your goal in this situation is to rapidly expand adoption inside that company and complex licensing will really slow you down. The second they need to place another order to get more access or sign a bigger cheque you will get dragged into sign offs and approvals and procurement and all kinds of wasted time.

"Land and Expand" is the right strategy for this type of solution and you should do everything you can to not slow down adoption. Your current pricing model is definitely limiting this and the initial plan of 350/mo is quite a jump up - that WILL require levels of sign off and approvals and slow you down.

Try this exercise - create personas for users of your service (power user who wants to automate EVERYTHING, administrators who will use it because its their job, end users, managers) and work what is important to them and what variables will increase or decrease the speed and volume of adoption.

I think pricing based on number of users alone would be easier to understand and not restrict growth. If one person gets really into your product and wants to automate 100 processes DO NOT GET IN THEIR WAY! Let that champion sing your praises and tell everyone that will listen how incredible your product is, because in a few months time when they roll those processes out they will come back for more user licenses. And if you select the right features into the higher plans they may well opt for a more expensive plan to meet the needs of security, billing, management, reporting etc

RPA has three types of users.

1. Web-first consumers too dumb to use more modern, structured interfaces, or migrate away from platforms that don't offer them.

2. Business units in large enterprise companies with dysfunctional IT that can't develop.

3. 40+ year old industries with a heritage of legacy computing systems, complex enough that migrations are measured in decades.

#1 doesn't have much money. #2 is eventually going to get their act together. And #3 is services-heavy, because they want you to support their kooky tech stack.

But essentially... if you can't fully support legacy Windows (mainframe + Java + Powerbuilder et al.), don't get in the game.

Which is a long way of saying it's winner-take-all, due to the volume of business required to amortize that custom Windows work over. UiPath realized this, which is why they pushed the pedal to the floor to goose growth.

(Also, Automation Anywhere's architecture and core tech is a kludged-together joke)

Per Damgaard Husted her with a clarification to this remark. First of all, I would like to thank you all for the valuable feedback that we have got from you for the last 24 hours. It means everything to us. This being said, I feel like this Patent comment is making us look dishonest. So here is the deal. I hold an AI patient that we are currently not using in the product as it is now because it is not AI-based. We mention that we hold an AI patient on the last part of the About us page, in a part where we outline general information on the founders' backgrounds. That's it; it is not a dominant part of our marketing material. Our plan is still to include AI in the application when it makes sense to do so.

I like discussions and critique, and almost all of what you have said in this forum is true, and your reflections are valuable learnings for us. Please don't take this remark as a signal that I am not open to feedback because that is what we are seeking, and I prefer the negative because that is where you learn the most.

Signed up, Google flagged the email as dangerous and the "Click here" validation email link wasn't there. :(

Downloaded the eml file from Google and opened it in Mail and I can see the link there. So, gmail really doesn't like you.

Eeek, vector icons (which would work perfectly fine as SVGs) rasterized into 1500px+ width PNG files!