macOS 26 finally added clipboard history. I still built ClipMinder.
macOS 26 finally added clipboard history, which is a great improvement. But using it made me notice how often I depend on clipboard history for more than short text snippets.
I regularly copy links, screenshots, rich text, file paths, and temporary pieces of information while switching between apps. I wanted a small tool that could keep these items searchable and make it clear what kind of content I was about to paste.
That is why I built ClipMinder. It is a local-first clipboard manager for Mac. Clipboard history stays on the device, with no cloud upload or subscription. It supports multiple interface languages and focuses on making copied content easy to find and reuse.
The built-in macOS feature is enough for many users. ClipMinder is for workflows that need longer, more searchable history and better handling of different clipboard formats.
I am still learning how to market a small Mac utility and would love feedback from other indie developers: how do you decide which features are worth adding without turning a focused utility into an unfocused productivity suite?
This is a useful positioning test: the OS feature may validate the behavior, but it also forces you to be extremely clear about the unsolved job. I’d put the contrast in the first 10 seconds: what does a person still fail to retrieve, organize, share, or trust after using the new native history?
If users can name that gap in their own words, the platform feature becomes your category education rather than your competitor. What workflow does ClipMinder make reliable that the new macOS feature leaves frustrating?
Use retrieval time as the feature gate. If a request reduces time-to-repaste or failed searches for links, screenshots, and file paths, add it. If it creates a new place to organize clips, skip it. Apple's native history defines the baseline; ClipMinder should only expand workflows it can measurably retrieve faster.
"Great point about API costs being unpredictable. I've been building a solution around this too – routing requests to more affordable models while keeping the same interface."
Positioning your utility as a local-first alternative for power users who need advanced history management—rather than competing head-on with the basic native macOS clipboard—is a smart angle. Native tools usually stick to standard plain text and short limits, so focusing on searchable rich text, file paths, and multi-language support gives ClipMinder a clear, specific use case.
To answer your question about avoiding feature creep: the best filter is to strictly prioritize features that reduce the time it takes a user to find and reuse something already in their history. If a requested feature shifts the tool away from passive, fast retrieval and starts turning it into a manual clipboard organizer or editor, it’s probably a sign to push back and keep the utility lightweight
I like the positioning. Rather than competing with the built-in clipboard history, you're focusing on workflows that need searchable history across more than just plain text.
I create independent first-time walkthroughs for early-stage SaaS and productivity tools. I install the product as a new user, document the onboarding experience, point out any friction or confusing moments, and record an honest talking-head walkthrough that founders can use for launch content and product improvements.
I think ClipMinder would be a good fit for this. If you're interested, I would be happy to give it a try and share my findings.
The interesting challenge isn't competing with Apple's clipboard history—it's becoming indispensable for workflows Apple has no incentive to optimize. I'd keep validating whether users adopt ClipMinder because it stores more clipboard history or because it becomes the fastest way to retrieve and reuse information across their daily work.