Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 138 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
This analysis describes version 13.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 13.0, updated 2026-09-27.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
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.
Aggressive ad load
after installed l seem like I'v surrender my full right to have control. I not try to control the thing or the app but try to limit the ability of app at me me.By having permission to access privacy such internal storage ,gallery ,picture…
I don't understand why I should have to watch so many ads just to view my pictures and videos. Waste of time watching ads. this is an ad delivery system identifying as a video player.
Nothing but ads. And a completely pointless app since you can use your systems apps to watch videos super easy.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
not at all what I expected. it said it was a browser, all it wanted was access to my photos and videos, well hate to tell you, all the photos you got were clean, because Google has all the bad ones locked in aa password protected folder…
False advertising, it's a media player, it has no video library
DO NOT INSTALL !!! IT ONLY ALLOWS YOU TO WHAT YOUR OWN VIDEOS. The advert of FREE access to adult content is FALSE a LIE
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.