Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

I just went back through the sign up process to check and it seems pretty obvious these days? I got three options at checkout annual billed monthly, monthly, annual.

I hate annual billed monthly but the wording isn't hidden.

I think it's still not great. The annual/monthly plan says:

>Annual, billed monthly

>US$22.99/mo

>Fee applies if you cancel after 14 days

There's a popup you can open with more information, but that just says:

>If you cancel after 14 days, your service will continue until the end of that month's billing period, and you will be charged an early termination fee.

It doesn't tell you anywhere what that fee is, and I can't find any link to a page with more information.

Because last year ...

> Adobe knowingly "trapped" customers into annual subscriptions, the FTC alleged.

> Adobe prioritized profits while spending years ignoring numerous complaints from users struggling to cancel costly subscriptions without incurring hefty hidden fees, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleged in a lawsuit Monday.

> According to the FTC, Adobe knew that canceling subscriptions was hard but determined that it would hurt revenue to make canceling any easier, so Adobe never changed the "convoluted" process. Even when the FTC launched a probe in 2022 specifically indicating that Adobe's practices may be illegal, Adobe did nothing to address the alleged harm to consumers, the FTC complaint noted. Adobe also "provides no refunds or only partial refunds to some subscribers who incur charges after an attempted, unsuccessful cancellation."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/06/ftc-sues-adobe-o...

Fee application for cancelling a subscription service should be absolutely illegal.

It’s a fee for cancelling an annual subscription that you agreed to.

It’s 50% of the remaining balance. I do agree that should be listed there.

That's exactly why it should be illegal: so people don't have to agree to an abusive and money thirsty contract.

They have the option right next to that for a monthly only option.

Nope.

I just think it’s insane to attack a company for something they’re not doing, with the implication they are still doing it.

The implication is they can't be trusted

Do you think multi-month agreements like car insurance or leases should also be illegal? Maybe if you leased a car but 3 months in you're not really feeling it, you should be able to cancel your lease without penalty?

Honestly, that should be your default stance with any agreement with a company.

Okay, but you can also take the company's well-deserved reputation into account when deciding whether to do business with them.

You're extrapolating to cases that are different to a subscription to a digital software service. Companies have slowly but steadily made us shift and put subscriptions in our heads because is the easiest way to make more money and strictly control their software. This is just as pushing ads everywhere is the easiest way to make money on almost every website. The ideal, most fair consumer approach is to charge the user by its daily usage. Why? Because companies are doing exactly the opposite, they are charging us for future usage for max profitability. Just log each day I have used the app and charge me fairly. It can be perfectly done. But the excuse obviously from their side would be that is too much complex to do that, right? BS.

>You're extrapolating to cases that are different to a subscription to a digital software service. Companies have slowly but steadily made us shift and put subscriptions in our heads because [...]

Sounds like you're less against the concept of "annual, billed monthly" or even the "dark patterns" that Adobe is using, and more against the fact that Photoshop is now behind a $30/month subscription rather than an one-time purchase price like in the Good Old Days™.

Failure to disclose the exact amount of the fee up front should invalidate it.

I'm against how all big companies have enshitified themselves and their products in every imaginable way to squeeze the last penny from its clients using bordeline consumer practices.

>I'm against how all big companies have enshitified [...]

"enshitified" is so vague that the statement almost a tautology. "Bad things are bad". Moreover the original claim was not that, but "unfair business practices". Uber cutting back on their generous coupons is arguably "enshittification" or whatever, but as much as I miss those discounted rides/takeouts, it'd be totally ludicrous to complain that yanking those coupons was some sort of "unfair business practice", as if uber had some sort of obligation to offer such coupons in perpetuity.