> On the other hand, this will open up treatment to people who can't pay the medical cartels.

This is making the big assumption that a generalized set of self-directed exercises with no one-on-one personalized customization or checkins is an adequate substitute for real medical care.

I am skeptical that it is an adequate substitute. And if someone is hungry and you sell them a picture of a cheeseburger, that isn't epic iterative progress, it's just exploitative and immoral. I don't see any strong evidence that their app is actually going to work.

People with ADHD aren't famously great at consistently self-motivating themselves to do daily tasks. What are the odds that this isn't just another $100 charge for them that they can feel guilty about at 2:00 in the morning? If the founders want to argue that this is more (or even just comparably) effective than actual therapy and medication when it can't even be used as a diagnostic tool, then they need much stronger evidence than they're showing.

And I don't think that's a problem that can be solved by iteration. If they weren't marketing their product as a substitute for therapy I wouldn't be as critical (although I would still think their pricing model was thoughtless). To market themselves as if they're doing something extraordinary when, from everything I can tell from their product pages, they aren't -- that's predatory.

Self-directed exercises from a startup are not a substitute for real CBT; if they were then insurance would pay for them.

None of what you’re saying makes sense. If the product is amazing people will continue paying and attrition will be low, annual or not.

Basically the model here is like a gym, where people buy things that they don’t use as much as the price implies or is simply ineffective.

Given that the customers are executive function impaired, seems shady.

> or is simply ineffective

And 7 days is really too short to notice a sustained effect.

This is a good point. There are a lot of reasons you might get a small boost of productivity after starting a new therapy approach.

7 days isn't enough time for the vast majority of people to know whether the app is doing anything at all for them.

"Spend a week playing with something new and interesting that you might just hyperfocus on, and then impulsively pay us for a year's access because this time you won't lose interest in two months" feels laser-targeted to prey on ADHD behaviors.

Indeed, but the same could be said about therapy, or anything really. Therapists don’t charge you a year up front as far as I know.

The problem isn’t the cost, it’s the way folks with ADHD are being charged.

The whole point here is to help folks who are having trouble remembering to do things. Regardless of the economics, the optics here make this seem like exploitation.

Making this opt-in avoids a dark pattern. Folks with ADHD are often impulsive and strike while the iron is hot—if this has value people will opt-in.

Why are we holding this new startup to a standard we don't hold anyone else? 6 months from now when they have their economics figured out, cool, they can run that test.

Generally, giving users a toggle to get reminded when a trial is about to run out will INCREASE conversion rates.

That depends on the business, and is part of a pretty standard set of experiments you run post-launch.

With your comments you're part HN is descending into a circular firing squad of virtue signaling. These guys shipped something that could help a lot of people, over time they can improve their onboarding flow, lower cost.

Is the most remarkable thing about a really cool CBT tool for ADHD really that they have a standard trial flow?

> Why are we holding this new startup to a standard we don't hold anyone else?

Most startups aren't offering medical care. Call it "virtue signaling" if you like that those which do come in for a likewise unusual degree of scrutiny, but do you think you're likely to convince anyone that way?

I won't quibble with your analysis of the unit economics involved, but I will say that's not on point - this isn't a question of CAC/LTV but rather one of perception and image. My impression of Launch HN posts is that they are intended in part to elicit this sort of analysis, and by that metric this one has succeeded quite well. It seems like these founders didn't know they had this problem to solve, and now - if they're paying attention, which I assume they are - they do know. In what way is that other than a win?

You’re missing my point—it’s a bad look regardless of the economics.

You can have a great business model, you can have a good product, but if you can’t operate without alienating the people you want to sell to you’re probably dead in the water.

> Is the most remarkable thing about a really cool CBT tool for ADHD really that they have a standard trial flow?

I don't know - the problem is that, as an adhd person, once I learn about their bad trial flow, I'm not continuing to learn anything else about it.

That's their problem, not mine.

I find it strange that you keep talking past the point people are making. The problem is opt-out, and nobody is holding this company to a different standard. People hate opt-out, and in this case it looks particularly predatory.

Your comments come off as entirely unempathetic. Not everything is about bottom line capitalism.

What kind of virtue signaling is congratulating a startup for their innovation before they've proven anything?

Also the word is "empathy" not "emphatic".

Don't even bother. This is just the predictable RW vice signalling which has to pop up in every thread. They can talk as much as they want about hardnosed capitalism, but you're not very good at hardnosed capitalism if you can't build a product which wins over your target market, and instead have to argue with said target market about why they should be fans of your product.

Appreciate the feedback and we're working on potential solutions to this. We do refund everybody who requests one and send reminder emails and notification within 2 days of the free trial ending.

This is a non-answer making it sound like this is some complex problem you're grappling with. Do the ethical thing and make it opt-in. Stop relying on distracted forgetful people to be so distracted and forgetful that they give you money.

What about folks who don't request a refund but don't use your product (as seems to be the issue that's getting discussed here)?

Fantastic to hear this--as the OP mentioned, having ADHD makes it hard to follow up on stuff like this.

The original announcement mentioned you folks have a neuro-diverse team, which I applaud and respect. I hope you really take advantage of this to dog-food your own product and on/offboarding processes to catch stuff like this going forward.

Keep at it! I'd love to see you succeed with this product.

Thank you so much - really appreciate <3