I tested a voice journaling app idea on our own tool. The result was uncomfortable.
Someone on our team had an idea last week.
A voice retrospective app connects to your calendar, and at the end of each day asks "how did today go?" You talk for a few minutes, and it automatically organizes your reflection into structured notes.
Genuinely liked the idea. Felt useful. Felt like something people would actually open every night.
So we ran it through our own competitor research tool to validate it before spending any time building.
The analysis came back with something we didn't want to see.
The space is crowded Reflect, Notion AI, Day One, Rosebud, and a dozen smaller players. Most of them are free or $4/month. The ones trying to charge more are struggling with the same problem: people will use a journaling app for two weeks and then forget it exists.
The insight that stung: the pain isn't "I don't have a way to reflect." It's "I don't actually do it consistently." An app doesn't fix a behavior problem it just adds another app to ignore.
We shelved the idea. Maybe permanently.
The uncomfortable part isn't that the idea was bad. It's that without running this research first, we would have built it. I know we would have. It felt too right not to.
Has anyone here killed an idea that genuinely excited you, just because the research said the market wasn't there? How do you separate "this needs more validation" from "this is just not the right thing to build"?
A one-week feature took two months, mostly spent keeping three systems in sync
Your line nails it: "an app doesn't fix a behavior problem, it just adds another app to ignore."
Journaling apps are good at saving what you write. They don't solve the hard part: getting you to do it. Nothing reminds you, and the payoff comes too late to build a habit. Everyone makes reflection easier once you've opened the app. The drop-off happens before that.
The distinction I'd make is this: "needs validation" means you're not sure people want the result. "Not the right thing to build" means they want the result, but your product can't change the behavior behind it.
Voice journaling feels closer to the second category. Better input methods make journaling easier, but they don't necessarily make people journal.
So the opportunity probably isn't a better journal. It's whatever gets you to start. The calendar hook is the interesting part, not the voice recording.
Thanks for the reply! Ultimately, I think the real homework here isn't about figuring out how to make the journaling app easier to use, but rather shifting our focus toward how we can actually get people to want to write in a journal in the first place.
But really, what I want to discuss here goes beyond just the 'journaling app' example. We often get these sudden ideas out of everyday necessity or just completely out of the blue. The thing is, we can't exactly run to places like Indie Hackers or communities filled with fellow developers and indie founders every single day, asking them to validate our ideas for us.
That's exactly why our team made it possible to run market validation based on real, hallucination-free data, and even extract an MVP from it.
The difference between turning an idea into a 'good' service versus a 'great' one really highlights the importance of early market validation. How about your service? Are you guys on the path to building a good service, or a great one?
Yeah, exactly. The part I keep coming back to is that even solid validation tells you people want the outcome, but not whether your thing actually changes the behavior behind it. That only really shows up after you ship, in whether people stick around. So good vs great probably gets decided in the retention data more than at the validation stage.
Mine's live and free, a little Chrome extension called WorkflowGate that keeps distracting websites blocked until you finish the task you've been avoiding. I'm actually planning a proper post on it here in the next few days, would love your take when it's up. Still early on retention so I'm not calling it great yet, but that's the number I'm watching.
I completely relate to this. Even when a routine is interesting and genuinely useful, I often just forget or simply don't do it. It's the same with journaling for me. If you want to stick with it permanently, sometimes the full routine feels like too much, and it's better to just have a single entry like "the day went good."
But maybe shelfing it was wrong - this thing will find it's users. Same as journals
Thanks for the reply! Rather than pushing for an overnight change, I think the most ideal direction is to slowly become a service that users just naturally rely on, as if it’s always been right there exactly like the journaling app example you mentioned. How are things with your service?
When you shift the mindset from "Is this market full?" to "Is this market satisfied?", you stop competing on their terms and start competing on their shortcomings. Are you currently using this approach to refine the positioning for your upcoming sites, or are you looking to apply this logic to the Tamable strategy?
At first, we confidently thought, "We can still shake up this market!" But now, we're pivoting to target a niche, operating under the assumption that it might actually be a red ocean.
Ultimately, exactly like you said, you could say we're digging deeper and deeper into an even more niche segment of a niche market by going after our competitors' weaknesses. How about you?
I'd be careful not to confuse a crowded category with a dead opportunity.
The research seems to show people don't stick with journaling apps. But maybe the real question is whether this is actually a journaling app, or something else that happens to start with reflection.
Sometimes the insight isn't "don't build it"—it's "you're solving the right problem with the wrong framing."
Thanks for the reply!
Before taking a "saturated market" as a sign to just "stop building," I think it's better to look at it through the lens of opportunity. By validating the existing market, we can figure out what pain points are still out there and what kind of niche we might be able to tap into.
I really appreciate your advice!
Absolutely. A crowded market often means there's proven demand, it just takes finding the gap that existing solutions aren't addressing.
I think your approach of using competitor research to identify unmet needs is the right one. Sometimes the best opportunities come from improving adoption, retention, or a specific workflow rather than creating something entirely new.
If you decide to revisit the idea and explore an MVP, I'd be happy to connect you with a professional developer who could help validate and build it efficiently.
Thanks for the reply!
Our team currently runs a side-project matchmaking service based in Korea with about 20,000 members. It turned out the pain points they were facing weren't just my own personal struggles. So, to target that exact niche, we developed Bunzee.ai an AI-powered tool that handles everything from market validation right down to extracting an MVP.
Sure, we've taken a few hits with two failed launches on Product Hunt, but honestly, it just became a great chance to reaffirm that there's a genuine demand for our idea.
I really appreciate your kindness. If we ever need a hand, I'll definitely let you know!
That's actually a really strong signal. Having access to a 20,000 member community means you're validating against real user pain rather than assumptions.
And honestly, I wouldn't view the Product Hunt launches as failures. If they helped you refine the problem, validate demand, and improve the product, that's progress most founders never get.
Wishing you and the team the best with Bunzee.ai. I'll be interested to see how it evolves.
Thank you. How is your service?
Thank you for asking!
I mainly help founders and startups with software development, from MVPs and AI integrations to full web and mobile applications. A lot of my work involves helping teams move from an idea or validation stage to something real users can actually test.
That's partly why your post resonated with me, I've seen teams spend months building before validating, so it's refreshing to see research being used early in the process.
What has been the biggest challenge for your team so far with Bunzee.ai?
I hit the same wall building DictaFlow, a hold-to-talk dictation app. The pattern is usually simple: people know what they should do, they just don't do it. With voice capture, the gap between actually using it and deleting it after 3 days usually comes down to whether the first step feels invisible. If opening an app and waiting is part of the flow, the habit dies right there. Curious, when your team was evaluating the voice journaling idea, did you spend any time on the capture UX, or was the debate mostly about the reflection and organization side?
Thanks for the reply! Ultimately, our team just wanted to run a little experiment. Whenever an idea like, "Wouldn't it be cool if this service existed?" popped up, we wanted to plug it into our market validation tool, Bunzee, just to see what kind of results it would spit out.
Since the whole point was early-stage validation testing the market impact and making sure the direction made sense before actually developing anything we didn't really dive into the nitty-gritty details like you mentioned.
That being said... if this idea had scored over 90 out of 100, we probably would have started building it right then and there!
This is actually a healthy signal, not a failure of the idea.
What you ran into isn’t really “crowded market = don’t build,” it’s more like “surface-level similarity = false signal.” Journaling/retrospective tools look saturated because they all target the same obvious job: capture reflection. But the real question is whether anyone has solved consistency, not collection.
And that’s the key distinction most research tools miss: markets can be crowded and still unsolved if the core behavior problem remains unchanged. In your case, you already identified the real constraint — not tooling, but habit formation.
So the decision isn’t necessarily “kill vs build,” it’s more like:
are you building a journaling app, or are you building a system that changes daily behavior?
Good ideas often feel “too right” early on because they solve the surface problem well. Strong ideas survive when you push past that and see whether they still make sense when you remove the excitement and focus only on sustained usage.
Killing ideas that feel good but don’t survive that test isn’t a loss — it’s usually what keeps teams from building the same product everyone else already abandoned in slightly different packaging.
Thanks for the great insight! A good idea might seem awesome at first, but if we overlook the user's actual pain points and brush off early market validation, it will just remain a 'good' idea rather than a 'great' one, exactly like you said.
One thing I'd be careful with:
The research seems to have answered whether people stick with journaling apps.
I'm less certain it answered whether the value of reflection has to come from a journaling app at all.
Those sound related, but they aren't necessarily the same question.
That's what caught my attention.
I couldn't agree with you more. It seems like they just couldn't convince users that the value of reflection has to come strictly from a journaling app. Plus, there are tons of similar services out there, but none of them have really managed to crack that problem either.
Actually, I think this is a perfect example of just how crucial early market validation iswhich is exactly what happens when you plug a spontaneous idea right into our service, Bunzee.
By analyzing real data to uncover our blind spots, I feel like Bunzee can really help us validate market trends, flows, and even future strategies that we hadn't even considered.
If you are curious about the detailed analysis, please check it out at https://bunzee.ai/ai/analysis/3d297f2c-1261-48c1-ace0-040765b89a95.
This comment was deleted 17 hours ago.