[dailykoder]

>The current cost for EndeavorRx is $99 for a 30 day prescription.

Why is everything subscription based nowadays? Even without a subscription $99 would seem a lot to me. I guess because something something server costs and update development? Or is it just plain greed?

PS: Programming is absolutely fantastic, too, when you have ADHD (an probably even if you don't have it). It also doesn't cost a dime and there is plenty of content available for free. Might give that one a shot! Works wonders for me

[close04]

> 30 day prescription

> Why is everything subscription based nowadays?

It's a prescription (written note from the doctor) but this looks like a long term regimen so you could call it a subscription too. The reason is almost definitely profit. As a game there's no reason for it to be this expensive. As a medical treatment I doubt the R&D justifies the cost.

[dailykoder]

Oh woopsie, Thanks for the clarification.

[renewiltord]

Pretty amusing. They make more money when you're worse at treating your ADHD since you'll be unable to actually cancel the subscription.

[eleveriven]

Is it like possible that they thought it through to take advantage of individuals with conditions like ADHD?

[caddemon]

It's meant for kids so parents would be the ones paying. Obviously they're trying to profit and it does seem a bit overpriced (though there are extra logistical costs for anything to be medically approved, so it's not comparable to a normal game). But I highly doubt there was any intent to take advantage of people here.

[TeMPOraL]

Yeah, merits of subscriptions in general aside, targeting subscriptions specifically to people with ADHD is a next level of underhanded business.

[poulpy123]

It's because it makes more money and is more stable than once time buy. And it's especially expensive because it's "medical": both because it is more expensive to have a medical stamps of approval (although I'm not sure here) and because people don't have many alternatives

[fleischhauf]

everything is subscription based, because companies have a continuous income stream (as opposed to one time large payment). With an continuous income stream you can plan better.

[richrichie]

Well, one time payment can be turned into an income stream by investing the amount in treasuries or a time deposit account. That is the whole purpose of existence of financial markets.

[eleveriven]

Yes, it is favored by companies for its ability to provide a steady flow of revenue. It makes financial planning and forecasting more reliable

[Draiken]

Come on... plan better?

It's almost always the simplest answer: they can get richer like that. I don't get why people try to rationalize greed so much. It's just that: greed.

[Wolfenstein98k]

People do things for reasons other than greed.

[Draiken]

People, yes. Corporations, no. It's literally their raison d'être.

[Wolfenstein98k]

Disagree. Profit is not the same as greed, and corporations regularly make decisions that are not profitably in the short or long term.

Look at the rise in DEI! As soon as rates went up, a lot of that started getting cut. That strongly suggests it was an unprofitable decision. So why was it made?

[Draiken]

Because it was a good marketing stunt and they believed it would increase profits in the long term by hiring/keeping people that cared about that. Also, I wouldn't discount the fact that there's a lot of cargo cult induced decisions everywhere. But as soon as profits get hit, companies will correct course.

I don't think companies are perfect at optimizing for their profits (thankfully), but profit is and will always be their only driver for decisions.

A good example is how Google seemingly spoiled their employees with benefits and high pay. Their objective was to hoard talent so they could continue to grow their profits. It's not because they are thinking of the well being of their employees. As soon as they weren't growing as much, they had mass layoffs.

The only way a company isn't optimizing for profits is if it's smaller with owners that personally want to prioritize something else at the cost of profits. Which, in theory, means they will go out of business at some point because of being undercut by their competitors that don't care.

Companies are abstract entities that only serve one purpose: to make profit. Every single action is towards this goal. They are NOT people. Even the people behind them make decisions that they would never do individually but, behind the facade of a "company decision", they nevertheless do.

> Profit is not the same as greed

Greed is defined as:

  An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth

For me that's basically the definition of a company's purpose. If companies only generated enough profits to survive, we wouldn't live in the world we live in today. Numbers must go up!

[halfcat]

Yes like fear

[eleveriven]

Digital therapeutics often require ongoing development

[romwell]

>Why is everything subscription based nowadays

It makes more money for the people who peddle it, duh!

>PS: Programming is absolutely fantastic, too, when you have ADHD

Probably why I got into it (though Turbo Pascal / Delphi compile times were much more amenable to providing the dopamine rush than C++ even today).

That said, getting a diagnosis and access to medication [1] worked wonders for making other aspects of work much easier.

There's much more to software engineering than just programming, especially with larger projects and larger teams. And hyperfocusing on code to find yourself in the office at 3AM on the reg can end up being detrimental to one's ability to deliver consistent results on schedule, as well as setting and meeting expectations (...plus: being on time, completing the small tedious tasks, doing paperwork, filling forms, submitting reports, documenting, logging, planning, testing, avoiding feature creep, writing proposals and design docs, doing code reviews, being on call, ...).

The joy of programming does make all of this worth bearing. But stimulant meds take a significant chunk of pain out of it.

Imagine needing to submit a trip reimbursement report, deciding to do it between 5 and 5:30PM on Tuesday, and doing it then, without it being a monumental effort, even though the deadline is on Friday.

That's the superpower that meds give (...the superpower that non-ADHD people are unaware of having, it seems).

But yeah, a higher-than-average proportion of programmers are neurodivergent for a reason :)

[1] https://romankogan.net/adhd#Medication

[wordofx]

Programming is not fantastic for ADHD. Especially when majority of people don’t have ADHD to begin with. They are looking for an excuse for their lack of ability to focus on a boring task.

It’s subscription and expensive because it’s another way to suck the money out of people who think they have ADHD.

[riehwvfbk]

We're sentient beings who have been co-opted into becoming part of an edit-run-debug cycle serving people who think they are changing the world. And if we opt out - we starve. Is it any wonder that some turn to drugs to cope with this reality?

[DontchaKnowit]

Damn thats real.

Reminds me of a joke I heard from a comedian, cant remember who - "soon we will just become the part of our home entertainment system that eats and shits"

[phito]

> Programming is not fantastic for ADHD. Especially when majority of people don’t have ADHD to begin with. They are looking for an excuse for their lack of ability to focus on a boring task.

An excuse, or an explanation?

I have ADHD and programming is and always has been fantastic for me, if the project is not boring.

[freilanzer]

> lack of ability to focus on a boring task.

Sounds somewhat like ADD alright.

[DontchaKnowit]

Sounds like being a nornal human

[freilanzer]

A normal human with ADD.

[DontchaKnowit]

No one is able to concentrate on something that bores them. Thats like, the definition of something being boring...

[freilanzer]

No, most people aren't able to enjoy boring things. They're still able to concentrate on them. ADD makes this an impossibility.