4 ms·

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 st

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
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.
- throwanem 5y ago
  That industry is also regulated and monitored to ensure that the interventions coming out of it are generally safe and effective. Is the same true here?
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > Every medical device is sold with the intention of helping people with medical issues, but they can't be free. Close, but a slight correction here: Every medical device is sold with the intention of maximising profit, but they can't do nothing or people wouldn't buy them. That more accurately portrays the priority.
- drgeorgesachs 5y ago
  So true.
bserge 5y ago
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.
- what_is_orcas 5y ago
  Sure, but then isn't this just a "disability tax"? (I'm aware that the word disability is antiquated and not perfect here, but for the sake of being concise, this is what I wrote). The need for this app is a problem. Insurance should cover the cost of treatment (and insurance should be affordable and available; for transparency: I'm pro medicare for all, here in the US). Start ups have a bad habit of taking a systemic problem and trying to monetize a solution to it. In reality, the effort being put into this should be put, instead, toward making systemic changes that would make this app unneccessary.
  - JohnBooty 5y ago
    Most of the folks on this thread seem to be objecting to the opt-out nature of their subscription service. I agree with them. On the other hand, you seem to be objecting to the very nature of money being charged for this app or any other healthcare service? It's gross, and I do not love this aspect of capitalism. I agree with you to that extent. But -- again, without ditching capitalism entirely -- what's the alternative? These folks are providing a service and that costs money. Aside from ditching capitalism entirely, what alternative is there to "charging $X to fix Y?" Literally anything amounts to a chronic or acute disability tax. The cost of asprin is a headache tax. And so on. The best capitalism has been able to do is roll these sorts of healthcare costs into insurance premiums, so we can share the cost collectively to an extent. Unfortunately I doubt an app like this is covered by any plan. The only other solution (within capitalism) I can imagine is if the creators of this app ran their company as a non-profit org. I have considered that in the past for a venture or two. But, the money would still need to come from somewhere.
    - what_is_orcas 5y ago
      You're right, I take a more aggressive stance on this sort of thing than others might. I'm also known to say "if you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage you can't afford to do business" of many retail/service environments. "But I need to make money, too" isn't an excuse. It wants to be, but it is not. I would agree that the biggest offender is the predatory model, but I would say that the way to do this _correctly_ is to do it free/OSS with a patreon. Let folks who use it pay what they think it's worth. The problem is that the incentive systems don't align. Someone elsewhere mentioned that this seemed to build dependency in its users (an anti-pattern in therapeutics (and elsewhere, but let's be specific to therapeutics for now)). With something like Patreon, the incentives are much closer aligned: the app _has_ to do good in order to well, because otherwise nobody will pay for it. Again, they (the developers) could also put their time & energy into enacting systemic change.
yololol 5y ago
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.

predatoryyc 5y ago

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 5y ago

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.

throwanem 5y ago
That industry is also regulated and monitored to ensure that the interventions coming out of it are generally safe and effective. Is the same true here?
beaconstudios 5y ago
> Every medical device is sold with the intention of helping people with medical issues, but they can't be free. Close, but a slight correction here: Every medical device is sold with the intention of maximising profit, but they can't do nothing or people wouldn't buy them. That more accurately portrays the priority.
drgeorgesachs 5y ago
So true.

bserge 5y ago

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.

what_is_orcas 5y ago
Sure, but then isn't this just a "disability tax"? (I'm aware that the word disability is antiquated and not perfect here, but for the sake of being concise, this is what I wrote). The need for this app is a problem. Insurance should cover the cost of treatment (and insurance should be affordable and available; for transparency: I'm pro medicare for all, here in the US). Start ups have a bad habit of taking a systemic problem and trying to monetize a solution to it. In reality, the effort being put into this should be put, instead, toward making systemic changes that would make this app unneccessary.
- JohnBooty 5y ago
  Most of the folks on this thread seem to be objecting to the opt-out nature of their subscription service. I agree with them. On the other hand, you seem to be objecting to the very nature of money being charged for this app or any other healthcare service? It's gross, and I do not love this aspect of capitalism. I agree with you to that extent. But -- again, without ditching capitalism entirely -- what's the alternative? These folks are providing a service and that costs money. Aside from ditching capitalism entirely, what alternative is there to "charging $X to fix Y?" Literally anything amounts to a chronic or acute disability tax. The cost of asprin is a headache tax. And so on. The best capitalism has been able to do is roll these sorts of healthcare costs into insurance premiums, so we can share the cost collectively to an extent. Unfortunately I doubt an app like this is covered by any plan. The only other solution (within capitalism) I can imagine is if the creators of this app ran their company as a non-profit org. I have considered that in the past for a venture or two. But, the money would still need to come from somewhere.
  - what_is_orcas 5y ago
    You're right, I take a more aggressive stance on this sort of thing than others might. I'm also known to say "if you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage you can't afford to do business" of many retail/service environments. "But I need to make money, too" isn't an excuse. It wants to be, but it is not. I would agree that the biggest offender is the predatory model, but I would say that the way to do this _correctly_ is to do it free/OSS with a patreon. Let folks who use it pay what they think it's worth. The problem is that the incentive systems don't align. Someone elsewhere mentioned that this seemed to build dependency in its users (an anti-pattern in therapeutics (and elsewhere, but let's be specific to therapeutics for now)). With something like Patreon, the incentives are much closer aligned: the app _has_ to do good in order to well, because otherwise nobody will pay for it. Again, they (the developers) could also put their time & energy into enacting systemic change.

yololol 5y ago

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.