Most active commenters
  • liendolucas(4)
  • maccard(4)
  • gruez(3)

←back to thread

Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

(petapixel.com)
553 points bookofjoe | 14 comments | 11 Apr 25 14:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
55555 ◴[12 Apr 25 03:33 UTC] No.43661106[source]▶
Adobe runs what must be one of the largest deceptive rebills. The vast majority of users signing up for a monthly plan do not realize that it is actually an "annual plan, billed monthly" and thus that if they cancel after one month (for example) they'll be billed for the remaining 11 immediately. I honestly don't know how they haven't faced FTC action for this, as it's been their primary model for 5-10 years now.
replies(18): >>43661156 #>>43661248 #>>43661256 #>>43661324 #>>43662187 #>>43662338 #>>43662375 #>>43662399 #>>43663387 #>>43664265 #>>43664914 #>>43666795 #>>43667004 #>>43667057 #>>43667496 #>>43667852 #>>43667988 #>>43668119 #
sanswork ◴[12 Apr 25 04:03 UTC] No.43661256[source]▶
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.

replies(3): >>43662262 #>>43662459 #>>43662460 #
InsideOutSanta ◴[12 Apr 25 07:43 UTC] No.43662262[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>43662904 #>>43663399 #
1. liendolucas ◴[12 Apr 25 09:43 UTC] No.43662904[source]▶
Fee application for cancelling a subscription service should be absolutely illegal.
replies(1): >>43663391 #
2. maccard ◴[12 Apr 25 11:12 UTC] No.43663391[source]▶
It’s a fee for cancelling an annual subscription that you agreed to.
replies(2): >>43663582 #>>43667234 #
3. liendolucas ◴[12 Apr 25 11:47 UTC] No.43663582[source]▶
That's exactly why it should be illegal: so people don't have to agree to an abusive and money thirsty contract.
replies(2): >>43663699 #>>43664365 #
4. maccard ◴[12 Apr 25 12:09 UTC] No.43663699{3}[source]▶
They have the option right next to that for a monthly only option.
replies(1): >>43663886 #
5. maccard ◴[12 Apr 25 12:53 UTC] No.43663945{5}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>43664111 #
6. buttercraft ◴[12 Apr 25 13:16 UTC] No.43664111{6}[source]▶
The implication is they can't be trusted
replies(1): >>43664698 #
7. gruez ◴[12 Apr 25 13:51 UTC] No.43664365{3}[source]▶
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?
replies(1): >>43665837 #
8. maccard ◴[12 Apr 25 14:30 UTC] No.43664698{7}[source]▶
Honestly, that should be your default stance with any agreement with a company.
replies(1): >>43665697 #
9. buttercraft ◴[12 Apr 25 16:17 UTC] No.43665697{8}[source]▶
Okay, but you can also take the company's well-deserved reputation into account when deciding whether to do business with them.
10. liendolucas ◴[12 Apr 25 16:30 UTC] No.43665837{4}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43666173 #
11. gruez ◴[12 Apr 25 17:06 UTC] No.43666173{5}[source]▶
>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™.

replies(1): >>43667374 #
12. fc417fc802 ◴[12 Apr 25 19:25 UTC] No.43667234[source]▶
Failure to disclose the exact amount of the fee up front should invalidate it.
13. liendolucas ◴[12 Apr 25 19:41 UTC] No.43667374{6}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43668282 #
14. gruez ◴[12 Apr 25 22:09 UTC] No.43668282{7}[source]▶
>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.