We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 1.11.37 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.11.37, updated 2026-10-01.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 3
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Paywall blocks the basics
Can’t find free version — The ad said there was a free version but I sure can’t find it.
paywalled — you have to pay for everything. either a monthly subscription, or pay for each individual book,
Not with it — You’ll have to pay for everything nothing free on there other than free download and there is a set time for you to listen or read so not good for longer tasks if you listen while jogging or other activities
Hard to cancel
SCAM AND BERY HARD TO CANCEL! — Books are not that great and it is impossible to deactivate or delete the account. I thought I did once, I sent an email and everything but nope! The positive reviews on this app HAVE to be fake!
Cannot talk to. Real person — They charged my card that I had got a new one because I cannot cancel my subscription and they cannot find my account. The fact that I have to talk to someone that is AI is unrealistic when you have a legit…
App is garbage — The app crashes when trying to add correct pronunciation. Download doesn’t work. Subscription cancellation is almost impossible to do (had to go to the website). Do not trust the reviews over 4 stars, they are bot…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Bait and switch — I paid for a one year membership, and halfway in they changed the terms to say they can record everything I do here and if I don’t like it, my option is to stop using the app I’ve already paid to use. I’m a writer and…
Too Many Mistakes — I tried this app to read physical copies of books that I own. I took perfect, clear pictures of the pages in a brightly lit room. I was able to see and read the words on the page in the pictures I took without issue…
Bait and switch — WARNING” This app seemed really cool, but in reading about it, I could find nothing about it costing anything. I’m not opposed to paying for apps. But I do not like downloading and then in the middle of using it shut…
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.