Pixore
Free in-browser image converter — no upload
Hey IH 👋 Every time I moved iPhone photos to a Windows PC I hit "unsupported file type" (HEIC strikes again), and every free converter I found wanted me to upload my personal photos to their server just to change a file format. Converting a family photo shouldn't mean handing it to a stranger's server. So I built Pixore — it converts HEIC/JPG/PNG/WebP entirely in your browser. Files never leave your device; you can verify in the network tab that nothing is uploaded. The part I think IH will find interesting: there's no backend. It's a static Astro site on Cloudflare Pages with one React island, and HEIC decoding is libheif compiled to WASM that runs on the user's own machine. So compute is basically $0 no matter how many people use it — which makes a genuinely free tier sustainable, with a planned paid tier for unlimited/large batches. Right now it's free, no sign-up, 9 converters, localized into 33 languages. Just launched, solo project. I'd love feedback on three things: 1. Which formats should I add next (AVIF? GIF? PDF → image)? 2. Does the "no upload / privacy" angle actually pull people in, or do most just want the fastest converter? 3. For freemium: is a 5-file free batch fair, or too stingy? Link: https://pixore.net — happy to answer anything about the build.
3 Comments
The client-side WASM approach is the part that stands out to me. "No upload" isn't just a privacy feature—it fundamentally changes the economics of the product. If compute scales with the user's device instead of your servers, offering a genuinely free tier becomes much more sustainable.
Exactly — that's the part that made me build it this way. The flip side is interesting too: since I'm not the one doing the compute, I can't monetize the usual converter way ("upload and we'll do the heavy lifting on our servers"). So the paid tier has to be about convenience and limits — bigger batches, larger files, dropping the 5-file cap — rather than "we own the infrastructure." Still honestly figuring out whether people will pay for convenience when the free tier already nails the core job.
The real constraint is the user's device: everything decodes in RAM, so a huge HEIC batch on a low-end phone can choke where a server tool wouldn't blink. Trade-offs everywhere.
Curious, since you clearly think about this: would you pay for a client-side tool, or does "free + private" set the expectation that it stays free forever?
That's exactly the implication I was thinking about.
I don't think the interesting decision is whether people will pay for convenience.
I think it's the business interpretation that question quietly commits you to, and I don't think I can do the reasoning behind it justice in a thread.
Happy to explain what I mean if it's useful. What's the best email to reach you on?