UK business hit by ‘daylight robbery’ 1500% price hike for invoicing software
Customers of the invoicing and timesheet app Harvest have reacted with fury after their bills rose by as much as 1500% following a change to the company's pricing structure. UK consultancy boss Richard Haldenby said his firm's monthly bill jumped from $130 to $2,110, calling the increase "daylight robbery", while another user in the US reported an annual charge rising from $2,800 to $23,000. The change follows Harvest's 2025 acquisition by Italian tech firm Bending Spoons, and has prompted accusations of poor transparency and a shift from growth towards aggressive monetisation.
Previously, businesses paid a flat monthly fee per user, allowing them to add or remove staff as needed. Under the new usage-based model, charges also depend on the number of active projects, clients and tasks, plus the revenue invoiced through the platform, making costs harder to predict in advance. Pricing expert Mark Peacock said Harvest had "completely failed at the transparency test", while consultant Damian Foks noted the move reflected a common pattern at Bending Spoons, which has previously raised prices sharply after acquiring firms including Evernote, WeTransfer and Vimeo. Haldenby was offered a discounted rate if paid upfront but said he still plans to switch providers, viewing the increase as unsustainable.
- Harvest app bills surged up to 1500% after Bending Spoons takeover.
- New usage-based pricing replaced simple per-user monthly fees.
- Experts call it a shift from growth to aggressive monetisation.
New here? Start with this
Harvest is an online tool businesses use to track staff time and send invoices. It is used by consultancies and other firms that bill clients for their work. Its Italian owner, Bending Spoons, bought the company in 2025.
Under Harvest’s earlier pricing, businesses paid a monthly fee for each user. The newer plan also takes account of projects, clients, tasks and the revenue invoiced through the app, so the bill can depend on how much a business uses it. This matters to firms budgeting for routine software costs, and can affect whether they stay with the service or move to another provider.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The flat per-user model fundamentally misaligned pricing with value delivered, particularly for businesses processing high invoice volumes. Usage-based pricing better reflects the actual value consumed by different customers and allows the service to be sustainably profitable; such pricing transitions necessarily involve adjustments for customers who were previously underpaying relative to their usage.
The case against
Customers made business decisions based on predictable pricing and face high switching costs; a 1500% increase through a sudden, opaque model change effectively breaks the implicit service contract. The lack of transparency, minimal communication, and Bending Spoons' documented pattern of aggressive pricing after acquisitions indicate financial extraction rather than fair value realignment, leaving customers with untenable options.