| 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. |
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.