[skeletron]

Many of the reviews of the Android app are quite critical of the trial and payment model, for example:

> CAUTION: After the free trial period (7 days), they will charge for an annual subscription ($102.95 US). This is OPT OUT, not opt in. In other reviews they say they will offer a refund (I will update when/if I get one) but for an app for people with executive function issues, an opt out format seems shady. Either way, I won't be purchasing this for my loved one with the opt out format for payment.

> They exploit the same vulnerability of the patients, they aim to cure! They take you in confidence and then charge you after the trial ends. ADHD folks forget things all the time and it's a challenge for them. An email reminder is not going to cut it. We have thousands of emails in our inbox. This is profiteering from the mental disability of others. Stay away. A pro-rata charge is a fairer policy for ADHD folks. Any ADHD book will be more useful for what is presented in this app anyway.

> Requires payment to be set up to use free trial... Seems a bit predatory on a mental health app for ADHD brains... We tend to forget things like canceling memberships. And of course they only tell you once you have wasted time making an account. SMH

> Why do you need a credit card to do a 7 day free trial? Why don't you take my card number if I want to continue after the 7 days? What if I forget to cancel, and forget to request refund? I see what you did there

Sounds like they're all making some very relevant points about the app payment model potentially exploiting the ADHD deficit in executive functioning, and the tendency of people with ADHD to unintentionally forget things like subscriptions and bill payments. How do you respond to these critiques?

[sebisaacsinflow]

Thanks for highlighting this - we're trying to figure out what the best model is for our community. A lot of other apps follow a similar model, we allow people to cancel anytime and have refunded everyone that has forgotten to cancel. Some people also like having the subscription because it is a pay per use model rather than putting everyone under the same one-off bundle. We're working on extending the free trial / moving to a freemium model. Would love any suggestions on how to improve this.

[skeletron]

Thanks, I appreciate your response on this, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on the following two points specifically:

- Why have you chosen to make users opt out of a subscription when the free trial ends, rather than letting them opt in?

- Why is the annual payment option pushed so hard, in favour of the monthly payment option?

I'm reiterating this because promoting an opt-in, monthly payment model (thus giving more opportunities for any unintentional ongoing payments to be noticed by the payer) seems to me to be the kindest approach to subscriptions for users with ADHD, and a model that would be most empathetic to their condition.

[anonymoushn]

> we allow people to cancel anytime and have refunded everyone that has forgotten to cancel

Probably not, because your users are people who will forget to cancel and then forget to tell you about that.

> Some people also like having the subscription because it is a pay per use model

What does this mean? It sounds like users are complaining that if they download the app and don't use it it charges them $100.

> Would love any suggestions on how to improve this.

Howabout when the free trial ends, at that time the user has to approve a charge before continuing to use the app.

[shadowoflight]

Just gonna jump on the bandwagon here and say that, as somebody who suffers from ADHD, with all due respect, that is 100% USDA certified horseshit.

At the very least, bill monthly and make the trial not auto-renew at full price. And, since the target market is people with executive dysfunction, I'd love to see your team go the extra mile and default to pushing notifications the week before and day before a user's subscription renews, giving them ample time to cancel if it doesn't fit their budget this month.

[skinkestek]

Generally supportive of you guys but want to pick even more.

> A lot of other apps follow a similar model, we allow people to cancel anytime and have refunded everyone that has forgotten to cancel.

Many ADHD people also forget or are too embarrassed to do that.

Life hack that works for some: at least on iOS and in my region one can subscribe, immediately unsubscribe and continue to use a product during its free trial period without risking getting trapped.

[dtomd12]

I think the easiest solution is to stop providing access after the free trial until they opt-in to a subscription. That way there’s no surprise charge if they forget.

[MrRiddle]

Charging for monthly instead of yearly after trial ends is something you can push to production in half an hour. Don't try to weasel out in front of technical audience. Liar.

[Ozzie_osman]

I don't know the founders and have not tried the product, but I'm building a business in the consumer subscription space so I'll post a few things that might clarify why they could end up with this model even with good intentions. I'll also add that I don't know much about the science/behavior of folks with ADHD, so I won't try to talk about that piece at all.

First, the app stores are pretty prescriptive about how you handle introductory trials on subscriptions (especially Apple), which means you are usually stuck with "start trial + opt-out" as the only viable model if you're billing through the App Store.

Second, behavioral/commitment theory often shows that for apps or really any behavior change that requires some effort, a longer time commitment/investment gets people to actually invest the effort they need to actually get value out of the product. If you let people pay for a month, they won't actually put in any effort and then at the end of the month they'll be like "I'm not getting any value here" and they'll just cancel. They won't put in the effort to build the habits. So most wellness apps/products (from meditation/fitness apps to gym memberships) end up with some sort of free trial period, followed by an annual commitment (and if there's a monthly option, it's at a steep hike from the annual one).

Finally, when you're early on in the life of your startup, you're mostly trying to get to product-market fit and see whether people are willing to use / pay for what you've built. You just choose a pricing period/plan that makes sense, focus on the product, then when you get the product where you want, you go back and experiment with finding the ideal pricing plan for you and your users.

That said, it's clear in this case that this model may not be great for the target audience (in fact, even for neurotypicals, canceling subscriptions and such is still a challenge to manage). And obviously the app creators could have put more thought into it.

We ended up with an opt-out free trial plan as per Apple's rules on iOS, with a monthly plan where the yearly plan is a 25% discount if you choose it, and several reminders before the trial converts to paid. We also allow users to do a standard opt-in plan if they're not signing up through iOS (ie only need to put credit card after trial expires). We offer refunds where we can for people who got billed but didn't intend to, but Apple has to process those refunds too.

[smsm42]

Please do not confuse people liking subscription and people that forget about the day when the trial ends and get charged (a non-trivial sum of over $100) against their wishes. People that like subscription certainly can use subscription, and giving them such an option is a smart move. A sneaky and underhanded move is to charge those that did not explicitly express the desire to have the subscription, but just forgot to cancel in time. Refunding after people vocally complain is fixing half of the problem. Not doing opt-out charging would be the other half.

I know many providers do not dare to give up on opt-out trials, since it brings them money. It is scary to trust your future clients - maybe they won't buy after all? But if you don't trust them, why would they trust you?

[mStreamTeam]

The best model for your community is free and open source.

Your current model of opt-in subscriptions makes it clear you're looking for the best model for your bank account

[yummypaint]

I can assure you that absolutely no-one "likes" being charged a full years subscription in advance.

We're working on extending the free trial / moving to a freemium model.

Please. You aren't spaceX "working on" your next engine, or AMD "working on" the next processor architecture. All you have to do to end the unethical behavior is flip a few bits in a database. Don't pretend it's some kind of grand technical challenge.

You're luring in people who are trying to improve their mental health and tricking them out of their money. The product isn't even technically innovative. No idea why YC is compromising its brand like this.

[SyzygistSix]

"but for an app for people with executive function issues, an opt out format seems shady" is so dead on. What an enormous red flag.

Might as well come right out and say that they understand ADHD and plan to use its drawbacks to make money from people. Considering how desperate a lot of people are for treatment, this sounds like a great monetary investment for people with no conscience.

This may be a bit harsh. I'm a bit salty as navigating the process to get treatment for ADHD is a continual reminder that most services are tilted towards providing services to already well-functioning people. I probably will try it, after all you did just remind me to cancel my free Prime membership, even though it was right there in bold on my day planner a week ago.

[djbusby]

Argg! I also have a thing I forgot to cancel last month! Did you get your Prime one done? I'm doing mine right now.

Edit: done! Thanks.

[mStreamTeam]

As someone with ADHD, I can confirm this model is super predatory.

I cancel all my credit cards every year just to get rid of all opt-in charges on regular basis

[throwanem]

Billing an entire annual subscription up front, as opposed to monthly, seems especially questionable. What if the therapy doesn't work? What if it's so badly implemented that it can't work? You're still out a hundred bucks just the same, and that's just in the first year.

edit: There is also a monthly subscription option, in the Apple app store at least. It's $22 a month - so over twice as much as the annual. This does not give me to think the product here is less sketchy. And the Psy.D founder, Sachs, is a pretty blatant self-promoter of the sort endemic to the ADD/ADHD "coaching" space, if unusually well qualified by that standard: https://sachscenter.com/adult-child-psychiatrist-psychologis...

Perhaps it's less of a surprise than I initially found it that the account posting this Launch HN has thus far had nothing further to say.

also edit: Sachs is a Psy.D, not an MD. Granted, this does entitle him to "Dr." as a term of address, just as would a doctorate in physics, ancient history, or underwater basket-weaving. But, just as with any of those, it doesn't qualify him as a doctor in the generally understood sense. Again, this gives one reasonably to question, and the questions thus raised are ones for which well-prepared founders may reasonably be expected to provide compelling answers.

[Justin_K]

Also, as someone without ADHD, I can also say this model is predatory. Nobody should have to remember to put in a request to not be charged after a trial.

[ivank]

Canceling a credit card does not cancel your obligation to pay a vendor unless you also terminate your plan with them. Some of them will try to collect, especially if you had a contract.

[anchpop]

I tried this to get out of my gym membership and they sent the bill to collections. Luckily I called them and they didn't make me pay it. They did ban me from the gym however

[toqy]

If you aren't doing so already, you should look into if your card has virtual cards. Capital One for example does. I think it would make your current process easier.

[weisk]

There are nowadays plenty of e-banking solutions which provide you with virtual cards, which you can create and destroy on the fly and at 0 cost. It is really wonderful for this kind of scenario. Vivid is the one I've been using, I couldnt be happier with it. Theres also N26 allowing this, and Im not sure but, Skrill, Transferwise, Revolut,...

[zarkov99]

Try Privacy.com that should help you manage your subscriptions a lot better.

[101008]

This is so shady and I "could" understand it coming from a random startup... but by a startup backed by YC? And that it gets it own Launch HN thread (while others startups had to do it in the batch posts?). This is no the first time in the last months that something like this happened, unfortunately.

[oefrha]

YC (in)famously backed InstallMonetizer in W12.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711

[beaconstudios]

why do you think YCombinator isn't willing to exploit people? They're a VC accelerator, of course they are. Just because the profit motive doesn't always lead to immoral behaviour, doesn't mean that profit-motivated people aren't going to pursue immoral behaviour if it's profitable.

[what_is_orcas]

I mean, reading the description, it's hard not to get a little concerned: "a start up that's going to try to make money off of folks with ADHD" isn't a great starting place.

I think this is sort of a broader start-up problem. Some things shouldn't be monetized (period, but for the sake of the audience, I'll add: at least not as aggressively as is required for a start-up).

[predatoryyc]

It’s shameful for YC to invest in this and blast it onto the front page of HN. Unethical and gross. I wish this site was community driven and not used as an avenue for YC to promote their awful investments.

[rubylark]

Here's a counter argument: "a company making money off of folks with ____" describes the entirety of the Biomed industry. Every medical device is sold with the intention of helping people with medical issues, but they can't be free. The cost of development and production has to be covered by somebody (be that by the government, medical insurance, or private party). If it wasn't, the company making the device wouldn't have developed it in the first place.

[yololol]

I don't see anything wrong with it. Surely a lot of people with ADHD would be happy to pay for an app that helps them overcome their problem, and the monetary price most likely exceeds the benefit (assuming the method used by this app works as advertised). In fact the price is much cheaper than a regular visit to a therapist. The problem I see here is the current subscription model. If people are happy with the trial, and see results, they would be happy to subscribe for a monthly fee along with their Netflixes and Spotifys.

[bserge]

If it actually works, an app like this could be worth 10x the price.

Getting rid of all the time waste, all the stress of AD is worth a lot.

[brainwipe]

Given that executive dysfunction is one facet of ADHD/ADD, having opt-out is definitely preying on the users. Avoid.

[zafiro17]

Noom, a popular diet/weight-loss app, works on the same principle. I've used it. To start the free trial you need to prepare the payment mechanism. Then after X amount of days, the paid service automatically kicks in. I wasn't super-excited to discover I'd just committed a lot of money before I was ready or even fully committed to the app/service.

I suspect this is going to be the new trend for future apps, since it almost certainly delivers a higher number of paid users than other methods do.

[mrkurt]

It's fair to criticize this, but it's worth noting that this is how subscriptions work in Google / Apple app stores. You really can't do anything else.

[jnovek]

I have ADHD, so wearing my consumer hat for a moment, I guess I just don’t really care.

It’s their problem to figure out how to present their product to me in a compelling way that I am willing to pay for. I don’t open my wallet just because I feel bad for starving founders.

[eh9]

Why do you think you can’t do anything else? There’s different trial methods. Shorter subscription periods. OPT-in models.

[redmaverick]

>> After the free trial period (7 days), they will charge for an annual subscription ($102.95 US). This is OPT OUT, not opt in.

This is the norm right. I don't know ANY app that is OPT IN after the initial trial period is done. This is the Industry Standard.

[danShumway]

Industry Standard isn't marketed specifically to people with ADHD at the exclusion of everyone else. At the point where a product is targeted at people who struggle with this, and it's still not putting thought into how they'll react, something has gone very wrong.

Industry standards for media often don't included content warnings. However, if someone posts on HN that they're building a streaming service designed primarily for people with trauma, and they don't include content warnings in front of their shows, you'd probably have some questions -- because you expect them to know their audience. To me, this launch suggests that the founders either haven't spent much time thinking about how their process actually will work with their target audience or (much worse) that they did think about it and still decided that it would be OK.

It's just really tone-deaf to have a launch HN that spends all this time talking about how the intake process for people with ADHD is thoughtless or needlessly difficult, when their app's funding model is making the same mistakes and lacking the same affordances.

[chrsig]

yeah, this really undermines the credibility of the app. I really hope that they address this.

[mkr-hn]

I managed to put together a system to keep track of renewals, and still make sure to pre-cancel them so they won't renew without me meaning to. Too many services will take your money and shut you down if you cancel renewal before the end, and I won't touch any that do. They need to be very clear on how they handle this, or it's a hard pass for me.

[vineyardmike]

I would encourage everyone who feels strongly about this to feel empowered to use the App Store reporting system, or the Better Business Bureau complaint system to report exploit and manipulation by business.

https://www.bbb.org/file-a-complaint

[say_it_as_it_is]

Are you working on a competing product in the mental health space? You're clearly not a prospective patient and you don't have loved ones who you were evaluating this for. Your careful scrutiny exposes you.

[deeblering4]

FWIW this is how several diet apps work as well. Short initial free trial, followed by auto-charge lump sum subscription of 6-12mo.

Not my favorite model, but also probably not intentionally predatory towards a specific group of people.

From a business point of view it makes some sense. It extracts maximum money from customers in a niche that is inherently flakey (dieting, self-help, etc.). People often start off strong for a few weeks/months and flake out. Forcing a longer up-front commitment helps their bottom line, and possibly helps some customers stick with it since they already spent the money.

I'm not trying to defend it, but I do think it's a bit much to say it's intentionally predatory. From my view it's just app economy capitalism at work.

[krono]

The massive difference that you are overlooking, however, is the fact that ADHD Brains are neurologically and/or biochemically incapable of defense against this.

That inner voice telling you what to do or what not to do? ADHD brains have... well, let's just say "something else".. in its place.

[staticautomatic]

“Predatory” and “working for other apps” aren’t mutually exclusive.

[renewiltord]

Thanks for the warning. I'll stick to my prescription.

[joyeuse6701]

Presumably for the same reason opt-in is a problem too.

[weathawi]

maybe it's good to start putting service payments on blockchain to enable easier accounting, and not require ongoing payments.

[colinplamondon]

This is totally wrong. The economics of monthly billing are awful, and completely unworkable for a new startup. You have to do annual.

Cost of Install: $7.00, for something this specific Trial Start Rate: 20%, if paywalled like this app is Cost Per Trial: $35 Conversion to Trial: 40% Cost Per Subscriber: $87.50

If they charge you $10/month, they can't get into the black on a new customer for 9 months. They have to eat support costs that whole time. It just doesn't work, when you're starting out. You must charge annual.

Medical licensing cartels charge $500-800 PER MONTH. These guys are trying to charge $100 PER YEAR.

This is an order of magnitude more effective.

Said another way: if someone is too poor for this, they're fucked. They're definitely too poor for any other treatment option. On the other hand, this will open up treatment to people who can't pay the medical cartels.

That's amazing, iterative progress.

Let's give props to these guys for making epic iterative progress, not shit on them because they're not working for free.

[danShumway]

> 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.

[endisneigh]

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.

[d4mi3n]

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.