[HN Gopher] Adobe tricks users into a 12 month contract ___________________________________________________________________ Adobe tricks users into a 12 month contract Author : zdw Score : 1137 points Date : 2022-02-05 15:45 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | ziml77 wrote: | Is it really a trick when it says right in the subscription term | selection that it's an annual subscription? | | I hate Adobe's insane subscription prices and the fact that they | don't give any reminders that your subscription is going to renew | is evil, but nothing seems wrong about the 1 year subscription. | | If anything, it's a courtesy[1] that they're letting you cancel | in the middle of the subscription term at all. Imagine if you | paid a lump sum for an annual subscription. Do you really expect | to get any portion of your money back if you cancel? The annual- | paid-monthly option is still an annual term, you just opted to | spread the payments out. It's similar to if you bought something | from a store using the store credit card to get 0% interest on | the purchase for 12 months. | | [1] A courtesy while they're fucking you over, but a courtesy | nonetheless. | dev_tty01 wrote: | >Do you really expect to get any portion of your money back if | you cancel? | | Yes I do. I stop using their app and service so I expect to | stop paying for their app and service. I have cancelled several | annual subscriptions from other vendors and they all refunded | the prorated balance. Sometimes there was a small cancellation | fee, but in all cases I received the vast majority of the | balance. | | Your analogy is flawed. In your example, I still have the thing | so of course I have to fully pay for it. In the software case, | the company can turn off the license and I no longer have it | available to me. Refusing to turn it off is just bad customer | relations policy. When you do rude crap like that you get | (deservedly) written up on HN and other sites. Plus, you | eliminate the possibility of a future customer relationship. It | is just ugly and stupid on their part. | gouggoug wrote: | My trick to avoid this has been to use single-use credit card | numbers that I generate via privacy.com. | | You can create credit card numbers and assign a spending limit to | them. Some service can detect that and will refuse the card, but | many don't. | | Once you're done signing-up, simply delete your generated credit | card. | drorco wrote: | It's one of the reasons for why I intentionally avoid Adobe, | despite often contemplating using their products. I wonder if | these kind of tactics are really worth their while, leaving stung | customers from ever coming back. | NelsonMinar wrote: | It's such a shame Adobe acts like this; they used to be a | reputable technology leader. These days most of their products | seem like scammy upsells. | filmgirlcw wrote: | They've done this for close to ten years (or however long | Creative Cloud has been around) and you have to be careful to | cancel before they renew you into another yearly contract. | | I swore I would never have a personal subscription again (and | just use the one I have at work for personal projects, which is | against TOS but prove it), but then they had a 50% off special | and I caved. I also set a calendar entry to remind me to cancel | before I get renewed for a second year. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | While I am sure this is not really a "dark" pattern, Adobe's | subscription terms definitely discouraged me from subscription | software generally. As soon as Affinity Photo was stable in | beta (March/April 2015 time) I cancelled my Photoshop Plan | subscription at the first opportunity. | oldstrangers wrote: | Graphic designer here: I got hired at an agency recently, signed | up using my company's account so I could save $50/m doing away | with my subscription and ran into this issue. Very fun. | | Anyways, the future isn't going to be kind to Adobe. Figma has | replaced a lot of my Adobe workflow, it's just infinitely a more | pleasant experience. Canva has replaced things that require 3 | different Adobe products to do. For serious video editing I'm | using DaVinci Resolve. InDesign kind of remains a necessity but I | can see Figma filling that gap too. That really just leaves | Lightroom and Photoshop that get a lot of use, and the things | they're necessary for are decreasing by the day. | bambax wrote: | Affinity products are really great. Not yet on par with Adobe's | but almost there for most tasks, and more than enough for | casual users. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | It is an interesting mix of things, actually. | | Some things are missing -- a JavaScript or AppleScript | interface for example. And small stuff like you can't reseed | the perlin noise generator in Photo. | | But some things are surprisingly better. | | Affinity Photo has live filter layers that work much better | than smart objects, it has a frequency separation tool that | is genuinely easier to use, it has proper blend curves that | are enormously powerful (sharpening just the highlights? | noise reduction just in the shadows?), and you can do things | like use Lab curves on an RGB image. | | Affinity Designer I know less well, but the symbol and | artboard support is astounding (bordering on what Sketch can | do), and small things like the rounded corners support is | amazing. Its one omission -- it doesn't have an autotrace. | | I am sure there are several things InDesign does that | Publisher can't, but Publisher's integration with Photo and | Designer is absolutely remarkable. | | This mix of missing features and improvements is exactly what | you should hope for in a competing app; they don't have quite | the same objectives in mind and they have started afresh | rather than chasing a feature set. | bambax wrote: | > _it doesn 't have an autotrace_ | | Yes, that's a problem. For that I still use CorelDraw. | schleck8 wrote: | I actually prefer Affinity over Adobe in many regards. The UI | is nicer with colored icons and everything i've ever needed | is there and very polished. | | Frequent updates for a single charge of 50 usd is just | amazing. | tasha0663 wrote: | I lack familiarity with Adobe, though sometimes I'll follow a | guide for Illustrator and translate it to Designer. | | Designer doesn't have: | | - Autotracing | | - Blob brush | | - The color theme picker switcher thing. | | Which I could see as being potentially important features for | someone in a rush. Other than that, what's really missing? Is | it just "you can do it but it takes more setup" kinds of | things? | [deleted] | teekert wrote: | They did something like this to me, 3 persons on the phone (all | English speaking) later some manager finally caved after me | repeatedly stating they were breaking Dutch law with 1 year | renewals (after one year it's always monthly if there is no new | approval, it was my 3rd year). | | I reported this to the relevant instances here, heard nothing | from it. | thewebcount wrote: | I just hit something like this with Amazon Prime. I haven't used | Amazon in a while and forgot that they push it very hard during | checkout. Well, they got me. I accidentally clicked on the wrong | button. I immediately realized my mistake and hit the back button | before the next page loaded. Too late. A second later an email | arrived letting me know my Prime account had been activated. | | I immediately went looking for the cancel link. It's not as | terrible as some. (You don't have to call them or anything.) But | it's still pretty bad. I didn't need to confirm even once that I | wanted the Prime subscription, but had to confirm 3 or 4 times I | want to cancel with a bunch of confusing options to only pause my | subscription, etc. I did eventually cancel, but I don't see how | this can be legal. If you accidentally press the wrong thing, | you're suddenly obligated to pay for something you didn't want, | but if you try to cancel, it's a bunch, "Are you sure? Are you | really sure?" nonsense. I don't think I was charged as it was | still during the 30 day "free" trial. | irrational wrote: | I cancelled an adobe subscription years ago. I still get constant | emails about renewing. I hate subscriptions so much. The only one | we have right now is Disney+ for the kids. | rectang wrote: | I want to watch _Get Back_, but the only way to see it is to | sign up for Disney+. It's not worth the agony of navigating a | subscription. | | The US legal environment and lack of consumer protections makes | it too difficult to spend money and get what you want in | return. It's incredibly hard to avoid getting ripped off by | technically-legal-but-predatory schemes. | CharlesW wrote: | > _I want to watch _Get Back_, but the only way to see it is | to sign up for Disney+. It 's not worth the agony of | navigating a subscription._ | | This is where the Apple ecosystem absolutely earns it's vig | with a consumer-friendly, self-service, no-hassle experience. | Subscribe for a month for 8 bucks and watch everything you | can, then unsubscribe. | rectang wrote: | Returning to the original topic, would this technique also | work for subscriptions to Adobe products purchased through | the App Store? | | I've considered getting Illustrator for my iPad Pro, but | have held off because of reticence about subscription | terms. | | (For what it's worth I used to work in graphic design and | prepress a while back and learned Illustrator, so it has a | familiarity advantage for me over worthy competitors like | Affinity Designer.) | jhawk28 wrote: | I ran into this the first time I tried out the new Lightroom | plan. The customer support rep waived the fee for me. I then used | LR6 until I upgraded to an M1 Mac Mini where I was forced to | upgrade. I don't think these subscription models provide good | incentives for software companies. I don't see LRCC has much | better than LR6. It has a few more features (that I've never | used), more camera support (haven't upgraded), and a recompile to | ARM64. | vero2 wrote: | I wonder what the dark patters programmers/coders' of hn- | community think about this? I really like to get their point of | view. | Ghostt8117 wrote: | I fell for this using Adobe stock photos. I did not see anywhere | that I signed up for a monthly plan as I was only getting free | credits to use. Well, a few months later and I noticed the | charges on my credit card bill. It took me a few hours but I was | able to get back all of my money. Not until after, though, the | representative on the phone cursed at me and told me I was an | idiot for not realizing what I signed up for. This was a few | years back and I no longer use any Adobe product and never will | again. | diamondage wrote: | Surely with the right data, we can quantify the exact effect of a | dark pattern. Once quantified. We can we bring a class action | suit against this kind of practice!? Once established as a | precedent, the existence of this kind of lawsuit would | universally improve web experience | annoyingnoob wrote: | Adobe licensing practices are pure evil. I've been in IT for over | 30 years. I was a fan of Adobe products for a very long time but | no longer. Even the supposedly stand-alone products require a | continuous connection to Adobe's cloud, which is not only a way | to verify licensing but to track users. | | There is a consistent pattern with companies that do advertising, | they go pure evil in the name of profit. See Roku and others. | DangitBobby wrote: | This is fraud, not a dark pattern. You are intentionally making | designs with the intent to deceive, knowing that if people | understood the terms they would not agree. Free trial? Actually | it's a minimum $150 obligation. I don't understand how companies | that do this aren't being fined or having people put in jail. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | No, it's a free trial, because you can cancel it. And if you | look in the screenshots in the very tweets this item is about, | you can see that they tell you this up front, on the third | screenshot, including the date by which you can cancel to get a | full refund. | | It's not "fraud". Could it benefit from clearer language -- | there are some small tweaks they could do. | DangitBobby wrote: | Would you say the goal of the setup is to deceive the user | into paying for a much longer term than they would agree to | if they knew? | | To me, two things stand out. 1) The fact that they have a | "monthly price billed anually" could only be used for | deception. Either you bill monthly or annually. Telling me | how much per month is not helpful, it's deceptive. That's the | billing scheme in my head. I am thinking of monthly billing. | 2) The fact that they will charge you 50% of the full term no | matter how soon after you cancel. The subscription is | automatic and has near 0 marginal cost to Adobe. Clearly, the | goal is to suck money from the pockets of people who either | didn't find the software useful after all or didn't even | intend to buy a full year. | | Together, I see a clear intent to deceive with the goal of | financial gain. Fraud. The fact that you _can_ know what you | are signing up for is immaterial. They could and would make | it clearer if the goal wasn 't to deceive, and they wouldn't | charge you 50% on cancellation if the goal wasn't to profit | off of people who mistakenly paid for more than they need. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | It's an annual price, billed monthly. | | Quite a lot of things are like this -- for example, the TV | licence in the UK is a product that you buy for a year but | pay monthly. Our council tax is, too. | | I don't believe the subscription has near marginal cost -- | Adobe have a huge number of employees making hugely complex | products, and this is how they choose to amortise it, | instead of relying on people upgrading every three | versions. | | It's not fraud; that's just not the right word to use. | | Is subscription pricing consumer-hostile? I don't know. But | I do know that per-seat licensing of the prior Creative | Suite was a non-trivial expense for a lot of design firms. | | My main objection to Creative Cloud is that it's a one-or- | everything pricing model; that's the only thing I think | risks being anti-competitive given their market share. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | No, not at all. They may not be communicating well enough | with the word "annual", which people clearly don't seem to | grasp, and perhaps they should use "Yearly". | | The one thing I found frustrating when I cancelled after a | year is the relatively short window of time you have to | actually cancel; well, that and the slightly tiresome | retention process I was dropped into -- would you like a | free month instead? two months? (I half expected to be | offered a kitten). | | But generally Adobe think you want this software for the | longer term, not for a month, and economically they would | be hosed if people could just use, say, InDesign for a | couple of months, since a lot of InDesign tasks are annual | tasks (brochures, reports, catalogues). | josefrichter wrote: | Adobe is the dirtiest company in the industry. And some bugs in | their software remains unfixed for years. I refuse to touch | anything they produce. | ineedasername wrote: | I switched to Gimp and Inkscape a few years ago for exactly this | reason. | gregdoesit wrote: | I'm someone who tends to double check terms before I sign up for | any recurring billing... and somehow Adobe still got me with this | exact dark pattern. I thought I was paying for a monthly | subscription, only to be told I need to pay 50% of the remaining | annual charge AND lose access immediately if I cancel. | | I was convinced I signed up for what was a monthly plan... and | somehow Adobe hid the fact that this was an annual plan, paid | monthly (WTF??) | | This level of a dark pattern made me move away from all Adobe | products. Congrats on the additional revenue per user: it's also | a sure way to have churned users like me not return. | phgn wrote: | PS49.84/mo is way too expensive already, even without the | contract lock-in... | yoyopa wrote: | as a subscriber to CC, i was thinking of canceling after reading | this... but it seems it isn't a dark pattern at all? they | advertise two rates: one if you pay month-by-month, and one if | you pay for a 12-month term, billed monthly. An early termination | fee is common if a contract is ended early, no? | [deleted] | aceazzameen wrote: | I remember being extremely frustrated when I cancelled my long | term subscription a few years ago. I knew to cancel right before | the yearly billing date. But they had so many hoops to go through | on the website! Multiple times they were showing me free offers | to continuing using the software for a month or whatever. Of | course they were trying to trick me into a new subscription! The | buttons to actually complete the unsubscribe process were well | hidden next to the bold offers. I was pissed that they almost got | me. Never again Adobe. | jonplackett wrote: | The fact that this is legal is the real problem here. | | Also, anyone whining about Apple's AppStore lockdown on | subscriptions by in-app payment only (I know I have complained | about this myself) there is no better argument for why letting a | 3rd party manage subscriptions is a good thing. | pcurve wrote: | https://www.adobe.com/downloads.html | | Click the Start Free Trial and experience the flow for yourself. | | You're presented with 3 options, but it defaults to the 2nd | option. | | Instead of using more straightforward "Annual Subscription - | Billed monthly", it uses rather unusual "Yearly - Billed Monthly" | phrasing. | | The default selection makes it less likely that you're going to | read the fine print. | | You also don't get the Total Cost comparison between the 3 | options. | | 7 day free trial, but 14 day to cancel creates another | unnecessary disconnect intended to confuse. | | It's clear they 'optimized' the funnel towards maximum conversion | at the user's cost. | | Really scammy. They are riding on the coattail of their former | glory products that are slowly becoming irrelevant. | morsch wrote: | I think the language is pretty clear. The fact that there is a | much more expensive monthly option makes it even more obvious | that the "yearly" option is a year long commitment. Not sure | why you'd need to read the fine print. It also says "Fee | applies if you cancel after Feb 26" -- as long as that implies | that you can cancel without paying a fee until then, I think | that's pretty clear? Though seeing how many people feel tricked | by it, I may be missing something. | pcurve wrote: | I think it's partly because you're looking at this through HN | posting and you are aware of the dark pattern issue. Even if | it poses no problem for 95% if people, if it does for 5%, | it's a big number. | | the problem is, they're deviating from the norm by doing | things: | | > Offering annual pricing, but with monthly pay option. > | Imposing rather stiff penalty. | | Stuff like this... is not that common in ordinary e-commerce. | You either pay 1 full year price and enjoy substantial | savings or go monthly. | | They could've made this info much more clear so that the | comprehension wouldn't be a problem for 99% of the people. | But they didn't. | nunez wrote: | Right, and this is why I use Privacy one-time-use burner cards | (or Blur burner credit cards) for almost everything online these | days. | qwertox wrote: | I don't understand this. It's a free 7-day trial. If I cancel | during the 7-day trial, the following cancellation terms apply: | If you cancel within 14 days of your initial order, you'll be | fully refunded. | | 7 < 14. | | Also, it's not even clear if the 7 days do even count towards the | 14 days, since in that case they could just as well state "first | 14 days are free". But they are not free, since they belong to | the first subscription month. They'd be 14 consumed days of the | first month if no cancellation is made. | | This should mean that the 7 days are not a part of the initial | order. The initial order would get placed automatically after 7 | days, you are just expressing your intent to automatically order | after the 7 days of trial. | | If this is not true, then they are definitely scamming their | users, but I doubt that they would risk going to court for this. | | But what I definitely think is a big scam is the 50% cancellation | fee of the initial order, _with the condition_ that you only get | to use the remaining days of the month. | | For example, if you cancel in the third week, you still have to | pay around USD 300 (the tweets indicated a USD 600 per year | cost), but you only get one week for that, instead of being able | to use the full 6 months (50% of a year) you are actually paying | for. | | --- | | If I go to that page, there is the following text (it's also in | his Tweet): | | Cancel before --> 26 Feb [today is 5 Feb] <-- to get a full | refund and avoid a fee. You can cancel your subscription anytime | via your Adobe Account page or by contacting Customer Support. | Learn more. | | This means that they are actually giving you a cancellation right | of 7+14 days, just as mentioned in the "subscription and | cancellation terms" plus the 7 days. | | According to Wolfram Alpha "today + (14 + 7) days" = Feb 26, 2022 | | So no, you are not getting scammed with this free trial. | ElemenoPicuares wrote: | No, that's correct. If you cancel within 7 days you pay | nothing. If you cancel after 14 days you have to pay for half | the year. I'm not sure what happens between those two points-- | I'd guess it's a grace period but I'm not sure-- but personally | I'd be surprised to have any reduction in cost if I went beyond | a clearly stated free trial I agreed to. | | Folks have legitimate bones to pick with Adobe-- including the | cost alone-- and I think that's why folks want to pig-pile on | them for something like this. That said, I don't think this is | a dark pattern. I don't even really think it's critique-- more | like conspiracy theory. | | _Dark pattern:_ Buttons confirming difficult-to-undo actions | not in a user 's best interest hiding in buttons styled and | positioned like cancel buttons. | | _Dark pattern:_ Ad modals with undersized X closing symbols in | low-contrast colors with transparent backgrounds over complex | graphics making it hard to find and harder to not click on the | ad. | | _Dark pattern:_ Cookie consent boxes w /an "accept all" option | but only line-item rejection of dozens of entries requiring 2 | or 3 clicks each. | | _Dark pattern:_ Cookie consent boxes with "reject all" options | which don't reject cookies selected in other tabs /cards not | visible unless you click on them. | | _Dark pattern:_ Inconspicuous opt-out adware in Windows | installers that rarely require user interaction beyond clicking | next. | | _Dark pattern:_ One-click sign-up requiring in-person, | written, or phone cancellation via a 'retention specialist.' | | _... this pattern:_ Bait link that doesn't tell the whole | story leads to a screen with a prominent order form. It has | only one line item near the top that's labelled _commitment_ | which says _" annual plan, paid monthly PS49.94/mo"_ with the | monthly price. It clearly states the length of the free trial, | twice, including the explicit date you need to cancel by to not | get charged. The terms modal, which could be more clearly | styled, explicitly states the penalties for not cancelling | before twice the length of your free trial passes. | | So if a user signs up for an annual subscription and doesn't | cancel until more than double the time their free trial passes | then they get charged a penalty. Ok. | | Adobe has room to improve here, but sorry-- this is just not a | _dark pattern_ by any good faith measure. | | The first page is obviously a bait link, It should prominently | state a 12 month commitment and save non-interested users the | click. While it's overly salesy, it's a standard advertising | tactic and incredibly mild compared to what you see at your | average car dealership. Newer SAAS companies (e.g. Slack) do a | much better job, here, and Adobe should follow suit. I would | absolutely levy a dark pattern accusation if users only saw | that before committing more than a click, but it's not. | | I don't understand how anyone viewing an order form occupying ~ | 1/3 of the screen with a prominent box labelled "commitment" | saying "annual plan, paid monthly PS49.94/mo" would not | understand that you're making an annual commitment to pay | PS49.94/mo, and that the total cost will be PS49.94/mo * 12. | Never has any phone plan or car lease or gym membership or | anything else I paid for monthly with some multi-month | commitment prominently displayed the explicit total price. The | free trial end dates are prominently mentioned twice. | | The cancellation terms box styling should more clearly convey | the document structure, but even someone _quickly skimming_ the | first 8 paragraphs would see the content didn 't end with the | headline "Cancellation Terms:". Hanlon's Razor shreds the | assertion of deliberate malfeasance over a site-wide design | system flubbing _form follows function._ | | Normally love a pig pile on Adobe's pricing practices, but this | looks a lot more like histrionics intended to drive twitter | traffic than a useful analysis of Adobe's sign-up process. | Karunamon wrote: | I tend to agree on principle, but this whole concept of | 'annual, monthly' is really scummy. | | Even YC startups are doing it now, showing you a per-month | price while de-emphasizing the fact that you're paying for a | year up front. Adobe is the first one I'm familiar with that | does normal monthly billing but forces you to stay a year. | | >Hanlon's Razor shreds the assertion of deliberate | malfeasance over a site-wide design system flubbing form | follows function. | | Hanlon's Razor is a heuristic, not a law, and ceases to apply | in the face of bad-faith actors. If Adobe wanted to be clear, | they'd say "$X/month for 12 months", and not hide the | commitment terms in WCAG-violating grey-on-white text. I | offer instead the heuristic of "follow the money". | ElemenoPicuares wrote: | > Adobe is the first one I'm familiar with that does normal | monthly billing but forces you to stay a year. | | Really? The Commitment Subscription payment model is super | common and old as time. | | Oracle. Microsoft for some services. Lots of random SaaS | companies. Unity Pro. Gyms. Internet service. Webex since | forever. POTS service. Mobile service until Verizon got | greedy and they started letting phone subsidies do the same | thing. Leases. Service contracts for everything from | software support to pest control. Consulting contracts. | Columbia's Record of the Month Club. | | I am firmly against blaming people who've been ripped off | because they didn't' prevent it, but this is _not new._ It | is a standard business practice across many industries. It | 's not even new to software. | | Beyond that, even with Adobe, you don't even have to use | it-- it's just the only one Adobe lets you sign up for a | free trial with. If you go to Adobe's sub page: | https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html | | And click on the 52 whatever a month plan, the three | options for subscriptions-- Month-to-Month, Monthly with a | 12 month commitment, and annual paid upfront, are listed | clear-as-day on the right. | | I think the Hanlon's Razor play on words is clear. When the | two possibilities at large seem to be "Adobe, the world | standard in creative software, maliciously styled their | cancellation terms to trick the sliver of people suspicious | enough to read the terms but not suspicious enough to | realize the text was cut off" and "Adobe fell behind on | user testing for infrequently viewed text-only fine print | pages," Hanlon's razor is the heuristic people should use, | and the results are self-evident. | stjohnswarts wrote: | I got caught up in one recently but was able to talk the | operator out of it. I thought I was signing up for a 1 | month trial not for a year. Evidently they didn't push the | people on the other side of the phone to refuse just make | you have to at least call and talk to a human. I could find | no way on the website to do it. Some people would just have | let it go for a few months after not being frustrated | enough to call customer service, as it wasn't a lot of | money $8/month if I recall correctly. | msavio wrote: | Fell for that trick once. Avoiding Adobe products since. Found | Capture One instead of Lightroom, the Affinity Suite instead of | Photoshop/InDesign/Illustrator. | | I am upgrading Capture One every year, so I probably pay the same | as what I would pay for Lightroom. | | But it just feels like a fair contract. And I love the product | (probably because I know it well by now). | FearlessNebula wrote: | I fell for this a few years ago when I was in college. | | I intended to sign up for a month, and see if I liked graphic | design. After a few weeks my school ended up offering any student | a "free" (paid for by my tuition really) Adobe CC subscription if | you fill out a Google Form and tell them what you want to do with | it. So I tried to cancel and learned I would be hit with a | massive early cancellation fee (I think it ammounted to something | around $240). | | I called Adobe support and in my experience their customer | service politely cancelled my subscription and waived all fees. | Thankfully they did not give me a hard time about it whatsoever. | | But when I signed up I had absolutely no idea that it was a | yearly plan paid monthly, since Adobe was the first and last time | I have personally seen such a model for SaaS. | cprogrammer1994 wrote: | Is it legal to be forced to pay a fee that was never on the | screen? | threshold wrote: | Disgusting. What you should do is call your bank and reverse the | charges for fraud. Unless you bank at Mercury in which case | customer service will just laugh at you because they're a shit | bank (that I'm ditching today) | dkersten wrote: | And this is why I avoid Adobe products like the plague and why I | paid the small once off payment for Affinity Photo for my photo | editing needs instead. Fuck Adobe. | | But really, this is why I avoid subscription software as much as | possible. I will pay for streaming media (because I'm paying for | the media not the software). If I buy software, I expect a once | off payment to be able to use it forever (I'm ok with having to | pay for a new version sometime down the line as long as my old | version continues to run). I do sometimes use SaaS web products, | but I do try to avoid it when I can. | | Since most things are subscription these days, I don't buy much | software and tend to stick to open source stuff where I can. | wly_cdgr wrote: | The most important (not to mention blindingly obvious) rules of | running a subscription based business are "make sure the customer | knows exactly what they're signing up for and on what terms" and | "make it memorably pleasant and easy to cancel", so it's pretty | funny to see big names like Adobe and the NYT be too scared and | insecure to live by these rules | basisword wrote: | "But what does 'annual plan, paid monthly' mean?" - is it just me | or is this completely self-explanatory? I think it's a bit shitty | of them to require a yearly contract but it's very clear. | ninkendo wrote: | What am I missing here? It's a 7-day free trial, but if you go | _14 days_ into the trial, you have to pay 50% of the remaining | contract. | | I mean, that sucks that you can't cancel without having to pay | the remaining money, but the "7 day free trial" part still seems | honest enough, right? As in, if I cancel before the 7-day period | I don't get charged anything? | | I was expecting "tricks users into a 12 month contract" would | imply the "free trial" part was a lie, but it isn't. It's what | happens after the trial that is sketchy. | aldebran wrote: | As a serious hobby photographer (I do birthday parties, | portraits, etc for friends and family), any alternative to | Lightroom that works on windows and Mac? | | I tried a few but either performance was poor or features were | missing along with .CR3 support. | tartoran wrote: | Why don't more people use burner one use cards and cancel them | after entering them in trials? That way you don't need to worry | you forget to end the trial and enter the contract | gryzzly wrote: | Yes, totally, my wife wanted one month of InDesign and got a | yearly subscription, spent hours on the support without success. | I wonder if there was a way to fight the dark patterns like this. | They managed to show her some small print in a screenshot. | Disgusting. I am extremely careful these days touching anything | with "Adobe" on it. Extremely frustrating. | rdtwo wrote: | Someone pointed out that you could switch accounts types and | cancel immediately | hatware wrote: | Yet they wonder why folks would rather pirate old versions. | henriks wrote: | I encountered this when canceling my Lightroom CC subscription. | Changed me from "potential future customer" to "never buying | anything from Adobe again" pretty quickly. | jupp0r wrote: | Just out of curiosity: what happens when you cancel the paypal | subscription or chargeback the credit card transaction? Will | banks be sympathetic to fraud like this? | xp00ky wrote: | Cool! | jijji wrote: | Negative Option billing practices, as this is referred to, has | been a violation of Visa rules since at least 2010 and MasterCard | rules since 2021 [0] and also an FTC illegal practice [1]. | | [0] | https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chargebackgurus.com/blog/ne... | | [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/part-425 | glassprongs wrote: | I experienced Adobe's toxic business practices years ago when I | tried to reduce our DC license count by 1. It made me no longer | want to work with them. | cebert wrote: | This is almost as bad as the dark patterns employed by Intuit's | TurboTax. | octavqq wrote: | graphenus wrote: | If you are looking at Adobe for Lightroom, get Capture One | instead. No trickery and it's a much superior product. | | I switched to it in fact after getting burned with the Adobe | cancellation thing. Never looked back. | | I also tried darktable. But Capture One does magic. The photos | turn out always much better than what I could do with any ohter | product. | taneq wrote: | Adobe got a permaban from all of my devices the moment they | slipped a bundled Norton Antivirus installer past me by hiding | the checkbox to include it on the Acrobat Reader installer | download page rather than in the installer itself. Adobe can fuck | right off and die as far as I'm concerned. | 7373737373 wrote: | This is something businesses should be fined millions for | [deleted] | tomrod wrote: | I am so sick of companies doing this. | | Google bait and switches your unlimited-forever suite into | limited workspaces, fails to support products, and generally | makes it so you can't trust they will be there in two weeks | unless you're an ad buyer. | | Facebook tracks you everywhere, even VR glasses. | | Adobe nickels and dimes, takes away permanent software with | kludgy, awful SaaS billing and UX. | | Why are we okay with these practices? | stickfigure wrote: | These are not the same things. I'm annoyed by the workspaces | thing too but at least I got a decade of free service. | | Adobe is using sleight of hand to get you locked into a long- | term contract. That's closer to fraud. | bmarquez wrote: | Google was also using deceptive language (pay or lose access) | to hold previous G Suite purchases hostage. Only after | backlash did they add info to their FAQ and say that there | would be some sort of purchase migration available. | fblp wrote: | I could recreate this deceptive workload on the Adobe UK site but | not the Australian or US sites. It looks like they're playing | fast and loose in the UK. In Australia this would be prevented by | Australian consumer laws which has broad protections for behavior | likely to mislead consumers (fine print, unclear total contract | price etc). | langitbiru wrote: | You can replace Adobe Photoshop with Affinity Photo or Gimp. You | can replace Adobe Illustrator with Affinity Design or Inkscape. | But what do you replace Adobe After Effects with? | commoner wrote: | Natron is a free and open source node-based conpositor for | visual effects and motion graphics, similar in functionality to | Adobe After Effects. It's available for Linux, macOS, Windows, | and FreeBSD: | | - Website: https://natrongithub.github.io | | - Flathub: https://flathub.org/apps/details/fr.natron.Natron | | - Source: https://github.com/NatronGitHub/Natron | douglee650 wrote: | Never sign up for anything Adobe ... except for CC of course, | totally worth it. The photo stock, they keep renewing it yearly, | even after you cancel | viktorcode wrote: | Is it legal in the EU? | holletron wrote: | I guess not, just tried that and there's an additional step at | the beginning - where you have to explicitly choose if you want | monthly billing ($79,49/mo), yearly but billed monthly | ($52,99/mo), or yearly paid upfront ($599,88) | fitnessrunner wrote: | This isn't just Adobe. Unity3d does this too. While I like the | Unity product, I was trialing others too (Unreal) and didn't | realize I was being locked into an annual contract. They don't | even have an early cancellation fee; you are on the hook for the | entire year, no way around it. Be careful. | scottbelsky wrote: | i am told origin of this was customers who subscribe for 1+ yrs | wanting a big discount (without needing to pay upfront). but | clearly the experience must improve, and there are many good | suggestions for UX and copy in thread below that I'll share w/ | that team. frustrating to see, especially because the team we | have today building our future products and services are here for | the right reason. we can do better. | acidburnNSA wrote: | Screw those guys. | | At least for amateur/hobby work, I've used the following for | years and love them. I also try to regularly donate to them. | | Instead of Illustrator for drawing, use Inkscape | https://inkscape.org/ and/or Krita https://krita.org/en/. | | Instead of Lightroom for developing digital photos, use Darktable | https://www.darktable.org/ | | Instead of Photoshop for touchups, use GIMP | https://www.gimp.org/. | | Instead of Acrobat Reader, use MuPDF (mobile) or Atril | https://wiki.mate-desktop.org/mate-desktop/applications/atri... | (Linux) | chansiky wrote: | If you want something more professional you can look to the | Affinity products which have a very reasonable _one_ time fee: | | https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/ | | I personally like Affinity Designer and have designed quite a | few things with it. They are behind illustrator on features, I | can't deny that, but I've been able to find answers to | everything I needed. | | Also they have solid developers working on the app. Check out | this technical explanation of performance improvements to their | rendering pipleline: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnfxzknVK_0 | | For a photoshop replacement, however, I would say Krita hands | down. Again, its not as polished as photoshop, but I prefer it | _over_ Photoshop at this point even with all its rough edges. I | really need to make a video or something about how to set it up | and use it correctly but I think its got a lot more going for | it. | IshKebab wrote: | Krita is closer to a Photoshop competitor than Illustrator. | Inkscape is like Illustrator but honestly it is not very good, | mostly due to seriously poor performance. | | I don't know if Atril is a good Acrobat Reader replacement | either. Does it support PDF forms and annotation? That's what | most PDF readers are missing. | | Apple's preview is pretty great from that point of view. I've | also used Xournal++ for that in the past. | apollo1213 wrote: | For pdf reader and annotator, https://docmadeeasy.com is a good | alternative. | tasha0663 wrote: | I've been using Inkscape since it was SodiPodi. It's gotten | better, but the interface is still too jumbled. Affinity is | much nicer to work with. | | I will say that if I really need the end result to be an SVG | that I can modify in a text editor later, Inkscape is better | for that. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | Yep -- Inkscape might have some advantages in exporting SVG | to FreeCAD, too -- I've seen some differences with Affinity | Designer that I don't quite understand. | | Or more likely I just don't understand FreeCAD. | tlogan wrote: | So this is basically a complain that one can't use something | marked as an annual plan for just one month. | | They do say " Annual plan, billed monthly" don't they? | bennyp101 wrote: | Use a virtual card if you can, delete that card once you start | the 'free trial' then cancel after the trial, or within 1 month | to not get charged. | | Thats some hoops to go through just to get a 'free trial' to see | if the products actually work for you! At least back in the CD | days you got 30 days to actually try it out, then either buy it, | crack it, or stop using it! | oliwarner wrote: | That stops the money being automatically taken, but you'd still | be legally responsible to pay the contract, no? | | Reneging seems like a great way to get yourself sued for the | balance, possibly the costs of recovery and even having your | credit score ruined in the fight. | Nextgrid wrote: | They are welcome to sue, but they'd have to justify their | shenanigans to the court, which I'm sure would take a very | dim view of intentionally tricking the user into signing up | to something they didn't understand. | | The business model relies on most people not escalating it | there and making noise about it. If they start getting hit by | chargebacks or start clogging the legal system with these | cases it will end pretty badly for them. | jeroenhd wrote: | Why would they need to sue? Can't they just send invoices | to your email, followed by debt collectors? | | The annual subscription is in plain sight. The cancellation | terms are the result of bad web design for people using | browsers whose browsers have made the idiotic choice to | hide scroll bars by default (i.e. all mobile browsers and | Safari) but that can be defended if the devs used Windows | to make the website. | | Actually, on mobile the terms and conditions get cut off | halfway through a sentence so if you'd actually read them | you'd see that they continue below the fold. Maybe that's | not the case on iOS, though? | | Their cancellation terms definitely suck but the terms and | service and subscription term seem quite clear to me. "I | didn't read what I was getting into" is hardly a defence. | These details weren't hidden at all. | Nextgrid wrote: | You can trivially ignore the debt collectors. If they | still want their money after that, they can sue. At that | point it's ultimately down to the court to determine | who's in the wrong and who owes what. | jamespetercook wrote: | I fell for this too. I wanted InDesign for 1 month to make a | decent looking CV when switching jobs. I felt really stupid when | I tried to cancel and realised I'd be charged the remaining | balance. Adobe lost me as a returning customer. | barbazoo wrote: | At some point they switched from "free 7 day trial" to "if you | cancel after 14 days" so I don't know what's really going on | there. | hunter2_ wrote: | I assume this means days 1-7 are completely unpaid, days 8-14 | you've begun paying but without annual commitment, and after | that you're both paying and annually committed. | barbazoo wrote: | Seems like it shouldn't be surprising then having to pay | _something_ after the 7th day? | tssva wrote: | I just went through most of the process of subscribing. The | Twitter feed seems to be missing a screen that I was presented | with. The screen includes 3 cards to select from. One is monthly | at a price of $79.49/mo and has a clear note that you can cancel | anytime with no fee. One is annual billed monthly at $52.99/mo | with a note that fees will apply if I cancel after Feb. 26th. The | 3rd is annual billed upfront at $599.88/yr and a note that there | are no refunds if I cancel after Feb. 26th. It seems pretty clear | to me and I wonder the motivation was in not including this | screen from the sign up process. | kossTKR wrote: | I'm pretty sure they do all kinds of AB testing essentially | scamming people in various ways - i always read very carefully | and was trapped for very expensive year. | | Then suddenly they will have a non-scummy front page. I'm from | Europe though and it was in no way clear that you signed up for | a year. I work in software, and know how to read legalese | pretty well. | [deleted] | jlengrand wrote: | They got me with this a year ago, and I can't wait to cancel my | subscription at the end of this month and hopefully never have to | be a customer again :) | cute_boi wrote: | Can't people contact their credit card provider to inform it as | fraudulent charge? | kingcharles wrote: | They'll point you to the T+Cs which is something my bank did | recently. Even though the company had changed identity to | avoid their customers, the bank still went to the new web | site for the new company and pasted the T+Cs from there. | cbg0 wrote: | It would not qualify as a fraudulent charge. | Nextgrid wrote: | Disputes are not just for fraud. If you got tricked into | paying for something or didn't receive the promised | goods/services it's also a valid reason for a dispute. | davidg109 wrote: | Given how low they are already stopping, they likely have a | dedicated team for chargebacks that will fight tooth and nail | to challenge it. | | I am currently dealing with a chargeback team for another | company, and the amount of time they've dedicated into | challenging me likely exceeds the chargeback value itself. | londons_explore wrote: | > the amount of time they've dedicated into challenging me | | They likely haven't used much time at all. Big companies | get thousands of chargebacks, and can gather evidence all | automatically in a matter of seconds. It'll all be | templated documents anyway. | remus wrote: | > I am currently dealing with a chargeback team for another | company, and the amount of time they've dedicated into | challenging me likely exceeds the chargeback value itself. | | For the company the value is in keeping their chargeback | rate down, not in the money itself. If your chargeback rate | gets too high it becomes increasingly difficult and | expensive to find a card processor who will work with you. | basicallybones wrote: | They tricked me. Now I will bend over backwards to never buy | anything from them again. | francis-io wrote: | I got caught out by Grammerly in a similar way into signing up | for 12 months. Any good will I had towards the product is now in | the gutter. | martinskou wrote: | By far the easiest way to quit : Close you credit card, and order | a new... | umrashrf wrote: | For me my student membership fee went up without me noticing it. | From somewhere between C$20 to C$44 or so, | tgtweak wrote: | Tons of dark design patters in the "Adobe Sign" platform also, | formerly free for gsuite users it is now pay only. When you try | to send a document out for e-sign it gives you an option to | upgrade for as low as $2.99/month. Seems reasonable. | | After you upgrade (which is the YEARLY price... 2.99*12 = $36), | you find that this plan doesn't have the e-signing... That one is | $19.99/mo. But that's the yearly pricing... obviously. | | Who in their right mind is paying $240/yr for this? I cancelled | 20 minutes after buying the yearly, and they took 10 days to | return the funds. In 2022, a refund transaction using the new | auth-method is SAME DAY, just like a purchase. | | Really terrible design patterns and 0 intention to fix. | zerotolerance wrote: | Change your card to a prepaid debit card with a few bucks on it. | Don't update. | readingnews wrote: | I will get "downvoted" into oblivion, but dear god does no one | want to write a small blog/page anymore? I read so many "this is | super interesting useful information" blurbs about contracts, | laws, etc, but they are in the smallest possible digestions given | to us by twitter. | | Either "when did I get so bitter" or "when did the web go to | hell" thoughts enter my mind. | stjohnswarts wrote: | You reach a much wider audience with twitter, it's sad but it | is what it | arihant wrote: | One way to cancel is to chat with them and say that you now have | an enterprise subscription via your company. They cancel without | fee in that case. | djrogers wrote: | Meh. It's not great, could definitely be clearer, but it's also | bordering on intentionally obtuse to claim you have no idea what | 'annual contract paid monthly' means. | | I mean, all of the words are _right there_. Any time I sign up | for an annual contract I assume I'm in it for, well, about a | year. | | If I didn't want an annual contract, or wanted to see if there | were options, I'd simply hit that little drop down box there and | voila - it's even clearer. | zgiber wrote: | I would be interested to hear an expert opinion about whether | such arrangement falls under 'unfair contract terms' descibed by | the Office of Fair Trading: | https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... | | Not sure if such regulation exists in the US, if so it would be | worth to probe into it. | johnwheeler wrote: | Speaking of dark patterns, has anyone noticed the DoorDash app | sets the tip for you automatically and places the "place order" | button above the tip form, which you must scroll to to make | visible? there is no way to adjust a tip without calling customer | support. | | This is such an obviously blatant deception. Off screen form | fields _below_ a submit button? It's insulting. I'm surprised I | haven't heard more complaining about this. | bryans wrote: | I haven't experienced that on the website version -- they give | you three suggestions or let you choose any amount -- but | noticed my order yesterday was $4 more than it should have been | after choosing a custom tip amount. I normally don't double | check email receipts for that kind of thing, but maybe it's | time to start. | | I'm still able to reproduce it on the website today. Trying to | add a custom amount magically adds $4 to the order in a way | that's not just superficially in the UI. It actually gets added | to the order. | kingcharles wrote: | And the tips are their way of being able to limit the pay of | their employees by offsetting their wages onto the end user. | matsemann wrote: | OT rant: | | > _Ooh, I can scroll. That was not obvious at all._ | | It is if you use a proper browser+OS combo. Why some designers | thought it was a good idea to hide the scroll bar in their OS | (which some browsers adopt to) is beyond me. | | It's also an annoyance as a user with a browser that display | scrollbars. The amount of random scrollbars appearing because the | devs never tested anything but Mac+Chrome is staggering. | azangru wrote: | There's a setting on MacOS: System preferences > General > Show | scroll bars > Always; but neither developers nor end users seem | to enable it. | | Plus -- and this is a pet peeve of mine -- there's a growing | number of developers who would use the Tailwind CSS library and | apply its "w-screen" class to their elements. The w-screen | class sets element width to 100vw, which does not take into | account the width of the vertical scrollbar. So the moment the | page content gets taller than viewport height and a vertical | scrollbar appears, the 100vw width of an element exceeds the | available width of the page, and causes a horizontal scrollbar | to appear as well. Argh! | lelandfe wrote: | At my last company, we enabled this by default for new | company macOS laptops. Helped a lot. | lioeters wrote: | Found a demonstration of 100vw with vertical scrollbar. | Suggested solution is to use width:100%. | | https://sbx.webflow.io/100vw-scrollbars | azangru wrote: | > Suggested solution is to use width:100%. | | Which, for a block element inside a block container, is the | default anyway. | lelandfe wrote: | > the devs never tested anything but Mac+Chrome | | Which Android browsers show scrollbars? | BenjiWiebe wrote: | Firefox does, briefly when you load a scrollable page. And | then shows it again while scrolling, naturally. | tomrod wrote: | I suspect parent commenter is looking for more major | browsers like Opera (4X market share [0]), Vivaldi, Brave, | Chrome (leader), Safari, Samsung default, Android default, | etc. | | Firefox isn't widely used anymore for mobile, especially | with their recent user-hostile approaches of deprecating | extension access, removing about:config, devs alledgedly | flipping off users on twitter, and so forth. | | [0] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile- | table... | BMorearty wrote: | > devs alledgedly flipping off users on twitter | | What's this a reference to? | jeroenhd wrote: | > Firefox isn't widely used anymore for mobile, | especially with their recent user-hostile approaches of | deprecating extension access, removing about:config, devs | alledgedly flipping off users on twitter, and so forth. | | I don't get this sentiment. I understand that people are | upset at Mozilla, so am I. But why would you then decide | to switch to a browser that makes the exact same mistakes | without any extensions whatsoever? | | That said, websites like Statcounter will always show a | larger user base on Firefox because of anti tracking | measures present and enabled by default in Firefox. It's | definitely not what it used to be, but these statistics | can't be relied upon ever since ad blocking first | appeared on the internet. | tomrod wrote: | > why would you then decide to switch to a browser that | makes the exact same mistakes without any extensions | whatsoever | | Adblocking among the browsers that are more user-focused. | I personally use Vivaldi, which is from the same devs | that created Opera before the company was sold off. | matsemann wrote: | Difference is a mobile view is often designed with that in | mind, so it works across the board. | | On desktop, I've had random horizontal scrollbars even on big | sites like GitHub. Non-functional as the content had enough | space, but still there, because no one bothered to test. | | I do think hiding it on mobile devices is bad as well, | though. Leads to exactly the issue in the twitter thread, | with more content not being noticed. | | Found an old discussion on it: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24293421 | | Working link: http://web.archive.org/web/20210226184710/https | ://svenkadak.... | azangru wrote: | > Which Android browsers show scrollbars? | | How many people develop web sites on Android? | | Meanwhile, there are a lot of web developers who use Mac as | their dev machine; and the majority of them would never check | how the website looks on Windows or Linux. | danpalmer wrote: | I got hit by this at work while managing our subscriptions. Adobe | customer service attempted to bribe me to not chase it further by | offering me a free subscription on a personal account. I declined | and pushed and they eventually agreed to let us out without | payment. | philip1209 wrote: | Expensify does something similar. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | I am not quite sure why people don't grasp that it's an annual | plan for really expensive software. | | "Annual plan, billed monthly" is about as easy as it's going to | be in four words on a button or by a button. | | If you could rent it for just a month now and then, wouldn't you | only rent it in the months you need it? | | They make it so you can't. | | There's a solution: DON'T USE IT. | | Ask yourself seriously: what is it you want to do that the | Affinity Suite (which costs about, what, PS150 and then PS20 each | for the two iPad apps) cannot do for you. It's not toy software; | it's enormously capable (and improves on Adobe's approach in | several places). It has surprisingly complete PSD and Illustrator | import, it runs Photoshop plugins, it's cross-platform and it | runs well on old hardware (at least on the Mac). | | Failing that, you have Krita, Inkscape, Scribus, Darktable, | Rawtherapee, GIMP if you must, and they are all pretty | surprisingly good. Plus there are video options that are cost- | effective or free (Resolve, for example, runs on Linux). There | are all sorts of viable competitor apps on other platforms. | | Adobe aren't really evil -- they are a giant, slow-witted, | largely benevolent monopoly, weighed down by a lot of cruft. | (They are also fairly reasonable on the phone and support | portals). But you don't need to use their stuff; you can create a | sane workflow that routes around them with decent tools. | | Complaining about a "dark" pattern that up front tells you that | you're getting into an annual commitment for something incredibly | expensive strikes me as missing the point; the point is | _subscriptions are tricky and you shouldn 't expect to be able to | game them_. | | Vote with your feet. | peferron wrote: | > There are all sorts of viable competitor apps | | > monopoly | | You lost me there. Are you using a different definition of | monopoly than the usual one? | unfocussed_mike wrote: | I am using a different definition of monopoly than the USA | one. | | They are a monopoly according to the EU definition (which | used to be the UK definition; may still be). They control | clearly more than 50% of the market; that is enough to | attract regulatory scrutiny as a monopoly. | | The reality is that a monopoly need not have 100% control of | the market. It is more that they have control over some | barrier of entry to the market. That, combined with half the | market share, is a powerful tool. | | In the case of Adobe, as well as market share, they also have | de facto control over a set of file formats that the market | depends on (the so-called 'industry standard'). And they have | a level of product integration/tying in the Creative Suite | that could be monopolistic. That limits the competing apps; | they cannot together offer a truly competing suite. | | Affinity is I think close to rolling back some of Adobe's | monopoly power, because the Affinity Suite is so capable, and | it might well be in Adobe's interest to allow them to do | that; it certainly must help them when they talk to EU | regulators. | | The real question is whether they are an "abusive" monopoly. | And I don't believe they are quite there yet. | | There are some hints that they may risk becoming technically | abusive but this "dark pattern" ain't one. One such hint is | that you can't buy just the two arbitrary apps you want in | the suite -- it's either one app, the photography plan, or | the lot. | | It is certainly the case that any further acquisitions by | Adobe could attract monopoly regulation in the EU. | civilized wrote: | You're just defending the right of a giant corporation to | communicate poorly in a way that enriches them at the expense | of customers, who are often struggling artists. | | > "Annual plan, billed monthly" is about as easy as it's going | to be in four words on a button or by a button. | | It's absolutely insane that you think Adobe has fulfilled their | obligations to communicate to the customer what they're getting | into by putting "annual plan paid monthly" in a drop-down next | to a button. | | Adobe should warn the user of the early cancellation fees in | big red letters. We all know why they don't: because they | benefit from some users taking a deal that they don't realize | is very bad for them. | | That's what you're defending. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | > You're just defending the right of a giant corporation to | communicate poorly in a way that enriches them. | | Thanks for the downvote (I guess) but no, I'm doing no such | thing. I'm explaining that the giant monopoly is going to do | what the giant monopoly does. | | Really almost all subscriptions are like this -- they depend | on you forgetting to cancel. And this one is a bit more up- | front than most. | | > It's absolutely insane that you think Adobe has fulfilled | their obligations to communicate to the customer what they're | getting into by putting "annual plan paid monthly" in a drop- | down next to a button. | | Sorry, this is a straw man. I didn't at all say that I | thought those four words _fulfilled their obligations_. | | What I said is, they have a maximally clear four word way of | summarising the plan right at the beginning of the payment | flow. | | I'm quite sure they need to do a bit more to explain what the | early cancellation options are at some point in the payment | flow. But right before you even try to buy, they do explain | you're buying an annual plan, don't they? | | FWIW, if you do not grasp that "annual plan" means an annual | plan and then think about what your early cancellation | options might be, perhaps you shouldn't be using the company | credit card. | | Complaining loudly that you can't use something clearly | marked as an _annual plan_ for just _one month_ is a bit of a | stretch. | civilized wrote: | What a staggering battery of distortions. Company credit | card? You're just assuming that everyone doing this is | spending someone else's money? | | Everything you've written functions to blame the victim and | leave Adobe harmless here. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | > What a staggering battery of distortions. | | I don't know who you're really angry at but it doesn't | seem to be down to me. Maybe dial it back a bit. | | > Company credit card? You're just assuming that everyone | doing this is spending someone else's money? | | The tweet talks about the the full Creative Cloud suite | (something close to PS750/yr), and yes, the majority of | these people are either spending the company's money or | that of their own freelance business. It's an eye- | wateringly expensive commitment otherwise. | | This kind of commitment encourages due diligence. | CharlesW wrote: | > _You 're just assuming that everyone doing this is | spending someone else's money?_ | | To be fair, you're also assuming that starving artists | are paying for Photoshop. A quick "Adobe" search on your | BitTorrent tracker of choice may change your mind. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | Yes, but also we're talking about the whole Creative | Cloud suite, not Photoshop here. There's a Photoshop-only | plan that costs about PS11 per month and there are Black | Friday deals which are well understood by the budget | photographer world to provide better value for money than | this. | | (Even then it is poor value for money, IMO; other | packages cover 95% of the functionality of Photoshop and | cost less than a year of this, and I really think the | market understands that now) | civilized wrote: | Plenty of low-income people do their best to follow the | law out of conscientiousness. I know some of them | personally. | | I object passionately to the idea that, when people | misunderstand communication that's _designed to be | maximally misleading_ , subject only to the constraint of | legal defensibility, they are entirely to blame for | falling into the trap. | | Adobe should be very clear and upfront about their early | cancellation fees. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | "Annual plan, billed monthly" is demonstrably not | maximally misleading. | | If it said "monthly subscription" without clearly | identifying the annual commitment, that would be | maximally misleading. | | I will grant you that it could say "Yearly plan", not | "Annual plan", and be less misleading; they do appear to | use this alternative phrasing in A/B tests. | | If anyone from Adobe is reading this thread: make that | change. | | (And sort out your Photography plan: make a slimmer | version of Photoshop that really does have just the | features photographers need, and offer a plan for that.) | civilized wrote: | Monthly subscription would simply be a legally | indefensible lie. | defaultname wrote: | For most users it isn't a bad deal at all. It's a 33% price | savings over straight monthly, and I suspect many/most users | have subscriptions much longer than a year. | | This all seems a bit overwrought. Like the root post, I | cannot fathom who would go through a purchase process that | included the phrase "Annual plan, billed monthly" and not | clue in. Or that that drop down includes a separate straight | monthly plan at a significant price premium (50% higher). To | give even more of a hint, a separate "you have until this | date to cancel without a _penalty_ " disclaimer gives another | clue. | | On the scale of dark patterns, this one is pretty eh. It | clearly could be clearer for people who seem to just click | straight through stuff, but I suspect a lot of the people | chose the cheaper per month annual plan thinking they were | hacking the system, and then discovered that it wasn't all | upside. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | > This all seems a bit overwrought. Like the root post, I | cannot fathom who would go through a purchase process that | included the phrase "Annual plan, billed monthly" and not | clue in. | | FWIW (mine is the root post and) I am definitely coming | around to the idea that it should at least say "Yearly", | and maybe say "in monthly installments", because that | language may be more familiar to buyers. But the rest of | your point about the other plan you can choose is right. | | I don't yet believe Adobe is _evil_ , either. Banal, | corporate, plodding, slow-witted, yeah. It is definitely an | 800 pound gorilla. | CharlesW wrote: | > _It 's absolutely insane that you think Adobe has fulfilled | their obligations to communicate to the customer what they're | getting into by putting "annual plan paid monthly" in a drop- | down next to a button._ | | "Annual plan, paid monthly" seems pretty clear to me too, so | help me approach this with a new perspective. | | Is there a SaaS provider using the "annual plan, paid | monthly" who does this "right"? Are you against this pricing | model in general? | civilized wrote: | I reject the idea that everyone should know from these | words that they will be subject to an enormous early | cancellation fee if they forget to cancel before the 7 day | trial period is over. | | Adobe has a moral obligation to explain that up-front, so | that consumers who cannot easily pay the fee are adequately | warned of the danger they are getting themselves into. | chrisseaton wrote: | What does 'annual plan' mean to you? | | How can you misinterpret those words? | civilized wrote: | I would probably understand it, but I don't think those | two words would necessarily make it clear to every person | of every background, and it's very easy for Adobe to | briefly explain the early termination fee on the payment | page where everyone can easily see it. | | They don't explain it because they want everyone to | convert, even people who did not understand what they | signed up for and would not have signed up if they had | understood. | | Subscription fee companies have always behaved like this. | chrisseaton wrote: | > They don't explain it because they want everyone to | convert | | Being charitable, I would guess that they don't explain | it because it seems like plain language and should be | understandable. | civilized wrote: | That's only "charitable" to the giant company. It's not | so charitable to the people who say they were confused in | good faith and signed up for something they wouldn't have | signed up for if they had understood it. | | These people exist and have made themselves known in the | OP Twitter thread and other HN comments on this post. | | I can't help but wonder if all this "how can people not | understand" is just thinly-veiled contempt for people who | don't have the same background or way of thinking or | interpreting words as you do. | | Who gives a shit about those people, am I right? Who | cares if they're on the hook for hundreds they didn't | expect to have to pay. Good on Adobe for imposing that | stupidity tax on lesser minds than yours! | chrisseaton wrote: | If people can't understand 'annual plan' then I'm not | sure what it's reasonable to do? How can you conduct | business with a person who can't understand language like | that? | CharlesW wrote: | > _I reject the idea that everyone should know from these | words that they will be subject to an enormous early | cancellation fee if they forget to cancel before the 7 | day trial period is over._ | | I hear you, and I want to dig in on that a bit if you'll | be kind enough to indulge me. | | I'm currently helping a SaaS vendor define their pricing | plan, so I'd like to know what _you_ would like to see in | order to feel comfortable with an annual, paid monthly | plan. If you have any thoughts on the two questions I | asked, I 'd really appreciate the feedback! | unfocussed_mike wrote: | I think maybe the words: | | _" Yearly plan, billed in monthly instalments"_ | | makes the point more clear that you're in for a year. You | can then put accompanying print that says "early | termination fees apply". | | But really, apart from people perhaps not understanding | that "Annual" is doing the work of saying "yearly, not | rolling", I don't get the logic here. | civilized wrote: | Haven't I been clear enough? If you're going to charge a | giant early cancellation fee, that information should not | be hidden behind a link and fine print. It should be | explained on the payment page, briefly and in plain | language. | widerporst wrote: | I don't really get why the cancellation fee should be the | issue here. When I purchase a subscription for a year, I | assume that I will have to pay for the entire year. | That's why it is cheaper per month than a monthly | subscription. | | The cancellation fee might be quite high, but it is | absolutely expected that there is one. And if I'm not | sure if I'll keep the subscription running for an entire | year, then I'll look into the cancellation term | beforehand or simply pick the monthly plan. | civilized wrote: | Because some people might not have the background to | think exactly the way you do. | | People are reporting that they were surprised by the | cancellation fee. Is it reasonable to assume that these | people were fully aware of what would happen? And chose | this path anyway, in order to... what, exactly? It makes | no sense. It's more reasonable to take what they say at | face value, that they were in fact surprised and didn't | understand in good faith what they signed up for. | | Given that, what is so unreasonable about expecting | companies to be upfront about the fee and explain it in | the payment page? Why is this trivial disclosure and | transparency to the consumer something to balk about? | | I think the reason is pretty obvious. Companies have | always loved it when confused customers have to pay money | they didn't expect to pay. So the companies design their | payment flows to encourage this, to the maximum extent | the law allows. | | It's sociopathic, and just because it's common and | accepted doesn't mean I have to think it's okay. | iam-TJ wrote: | As another interested in this aspect, how about an 'info' | tip alongside that states the minimum cost with an | asterix? | | "Yearly plan, paid monthly, PS678" --> [ minimum cost | PS456 [[ a href="terms-cancel.html" ]] if cancelled early | ] | ketzu wrote: | > I reject the idea that everyone should know from these | words that they will be subject to an enormous early | cancellation fee if they forget to cancel before the 7 | day trial period is over. | | Reading the twitter thread it seems to me that you can | cancel within 14 days of subscribing without a | cancelation fee. See also: https://twitter.com/darkpatter | ns/status/1489901691151519746 | unfocussed_mike wrote: | In the interests of reaching a point of agreement, I | concur that they could put, in or next to that initial | wording, something like "early cancellation fees may | apply". | | But an annual plan really is that. They are telling you | pretty clearly* what you're buying; the fact that there's | a way to bail out half way for less is an advance on that | position. | | * though as I said in the other reply, "yearly" would be | better | Closi wrote: | > I concur that they could put, in or next to that | initial wording, something like "early cancellation fees | may apply". | | Again, this wording seems unnecessarily soft to me - the | inclusion of 'may' adds ambiguity to make the user think | that there might not be exit fees - it should really be | _" early cancellation fees will apply"_. | | Better yet, you could give the cost: | | _" Early cancellation fees of 50% of the remainder of | the year will apply"._ | unfocussed_mike wrote: | Fair point, though at that stage, early cancellation only | _may_ apply, because you can back out of the trial on | /before seven days. | | Early cancellation fees _will_ apply after the trial, is | the wording that is the clearest, I guess. | | This is a really interesting exploration of word choice | though. I must say, I had not considered that the word | "annual" could be perceived to be unwieldy in this | situation, for example. | civilized wrote: | These four words are clear enough to be legally | defensible, but they are the absolute minimum and they | are designed to be the absolute minimum. They want to | maximize conversion even if it traps people who didn't | understand in good faith what they were buying. | | It isn't hard to provide a complete explanation of what | happens if you go past the trial period and want to | cancel. All they have to say is, "if you don't cancel | after the trial period, you are obligated to pay X over | the next 12 months. Early cancellation is possible for a | fee of half the remaining balance. For example, if you | cancel immediately after the trial period your early | cancellation fee will be X/2." | | There's plenty of space to feature this explanation | prominently. We all know why they don't. It's to trap | people. | | Many subscription plans work this way but it's no excuse. | It's scumbag behavior. The fact that it's so common is | just one of the many reasons why I believe the world is | run by sociopaths. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | > ... why I believe the world is run by sociopaths. | | Finally a point on which we agree. On average I suspect | it is. | Deivuh wrote: | I still remember when they didn't even give me an option to | cancel my subscription from the website (because of my location). | Instead, I had to contact tech support and ask them to cancel my | subscription. IIRC, the first time I tried, it was around 1AM, so | no tech support, so I had to wait til the next day, but it was | until a couple of days later that I actually did. | | This is when I started to dislike Adobe. At least a very good | competitor surfaced recently, Affinity, and they have a pretty | good Photoshop and Illustrator alternative. I just wish that they | would make a Lightroom alternative, which is not on their | roadmap. | Brajeshwar wrote: | I was a victim once. That was when I removed every trace of Adobe | from my life and ended my relationship with Adobe that spanned | decades. On my way out, and to serve my nostalgic need, I bought | the software from Serif's Affinity[1] - Publisher, Photo, | Designer. | | I really wanted to build up a workflow with Lightroom but that | was cut short. For now, I'm good with MacOS Photos and some | plugins such as Skylum's[2] Photo Editing Software. | | 1. https://affinity.serif.com/ | | 2. https://skylum.com | cormullion wrote: | The Adobe you started your relationship with decades ago was a | great company. I wonder when it started to go wrong... | friendlydog wrote: | Adobe is now blocked from the networks I control. A page pops up | with links to Inkscape, Gimp and other open source alternatives. | teilo wrote: | If Affinity Publisher had the needed tools for book publishing, | I'd drop CC in a heartbeat. But I need footnotes and cross- | references, and ideally, book collations of multiple Publisher | documents with contiguous page numbering. InDesign is the only | game in town for this, and it's frustrating. So I'm stuck feeding | that beast. | sibit wrote: | For anyone stuck in this dark pattern here is a trick I've used | in the past: | | Adobe won't let you cancel without paying the remainder of your | subscription fee however you can switch to a different plan. As | soon as you switch you'll have the ability to cancel your "new" | plan within 14 days. If you cancel after 14 days they'll charge | you the early termination fee. | [deleted] | tomrod wrote: | In other words, they are hopelessly broken and you have to | social engineer a loophole? | toyg wrote: | No, they are purposefully evil but not competent enough to | close all loopholes (or leaving it open on purpose to have an | escape hatch for the most litigious customers). | [deleted] | achow wrote: | Agree. It is a constant wonderment why Adobe is not called | out 'evil' more often like its other SV brethren. | | They are not even good at software engineering and UX. | NetOpWibby wrote: | They used to be but then competitors sprang up so Adobe | got less attention. | tonyedgecombe wrote: | Back in the early days they were really good, I remember | phoning about some PostScript problems I was having and | whoever I spoke to clearly knew it inside out. Now I | can't even get a response about obvious bugs in their | software. | | It's not just Adobe though, this is an industry wide | problem. | bradleyjg wrote: | Evil is thrown around way to much. If you are going to | use it for dishonest business practices what's left for | ISIS? | Taywee wrote: | It's an adjective. Adobe is bad. ISIS is bad. That | doesn't equate the two (or imply that it's the same | degree) any more than calling them evil is. Evil is just | an adjective that means "deliberately very morally | wrong". | | You could easily make the argument of ISIS being less | evil than Adobe, given that many of them have conviction | that they're doing the right thing, but Adobe couldn't | possibly believe that this is anything but duplicitous, | misleading, and scummy. Killing for religious beliefs is | much more complex than simple "evil". Scamming your | paying customers by intentionally misleading them with | dark patterns is a very simple and obvious evil. | imwillofficial wrote: | "Evil is thrown around way to much. If you are going to | use it for dishonest business practices what's left for | ISIS?" | | I love captain crunch cereal. It is so good-- "NOW I HAVE | NO WORDS TO DESCRIBE CHARITIES!" | [deleted] | [deleted] | whimsicalism wrote: | If you're going to use evil for ISIS, what's left for the | Nazis? | Rexxar wrote: | Inform yourself on what happen to Yazidis recently and | you will not do this sort of humor anymore. | whimsicalism wrote: | What sort of humor? I'm showing the ridiculousness of the | claim. The Nazis can be evil as well as ISIS. | Rexxar wrote: | Sorry if I misunderstand you but you could just say that | it's ridiculous if you think it's ridiculous. I | personally don't like there is comments with "isis" and | "nazi" inside in a discussion about Adobe (and I don't | specially like Adobe at all). | suifbwish wrote: | If you are going to use evil for the Nazis what's left | for the Romans? | torstenvl wrote: | What have the Romans ever done for us? | toyg wrote: | A gradation of evil is still evil. | bradleyjg wrote: | I love living in a time moral absolutism and self | righteousness. Nothing better than having conversations | with people that have zero doubts about the correctness | of every single one of their many, many ethical positions | and that anyone who disagrees is evil. | | Good times. If only I could have witnessed the Spanish | Inquisition. | ironmagma wrote: | Ironically, the point is that evil is relative and there | are different scales of evil. That isn't absolutism. | imwillofficial wrote: | "moral absolutism" | | How dare people make judgement calls on actions they feel | are morally wrong! Why, that's like burning people at the | stake! | rightbyte wrote: | It is not a very ambiguous moral stand versus Adobe here. | torstenvl wrote: | ISIS' actions are far far worse, but most Daesh are | motivated by the desperation of being a religious | minority associated with a deposed dictator in a | resource-constrained desert infected with religious | fanaticism. | | Daesh's actions require a more drastic response, but I'm | more confident that the average Adobe CSR, rather than | the average drafted Sunni kid from Al Qaim, is going to | hell. | whimsicalism wrote: | > most Daesh are motivated by the desperation of being a | religious minority associated with a deposed dictator in | a resource-constrained desert infected with religious | fanaticism. | | Eh, not really. They are pretty much all a religious | majority in the regions they controlled and moreover | Syria is pretty predominately Sunni. | chiefalchemist wrote: | Communications have context. To apply a word to Adobe (as | a loose refernce to "Don't be evil.") and then say ISIS | is evil, doesn't mean or even imply Adobe === ISIS. | | Context, it matters. | bradleyjg wrote: | Let's do literally evil next. That adjective doesn't get | nearly enough use. | chiefalchemist wrote: | Well, blame Google. Knowing about historic references to | Axis of Evil and such they should have left the word out | of SV / start up lexicon. | | As it is, they didn't. The best the rest of us can do is | further develop our capacity for context. | | https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Axis_of_evil | chrissnell wrote: | Yes. It's all rooted in narcissism. Calling something | "evil", makes you a hero when you fight it, whether that | means going on patrols in the streets of Raqqa or calling | out a shitty SaaS pricing scheme on an internet bulletin | board. | imwillofficial wrote: | Bad take. Calling something evil is a moral judgement and | that's it. I do t need to fight it, be a part of it, or | hell, I could be evil myself. It's a judgement call and | nothing more. | | You may disagree with my moral standards, and that's | cool. | tux3 wrote: | There's not a limited number of slots for who gets to be | called evil. | | It's a threshold, not a competition. Sometimes the | threshold changes, but crossing it is enough. No matter | that other people might be even worse. | bradleyjg wrote: | Indeed not. Contemporary society has infinite capacity | for moral condemnation. | | Is black and white thinking considered a compliment now? | RHSeeger wrote: | It's not black and white thinking, it's a threshold, as | stated. | | For an average income person | | - A Porsche is expensive - A Ferrari is expensive | | The fact that a Ferrari costs a lot more than a Porsche | does not make a Porsche "not expensive", because there is | a line (for the buyer) beyond which they consider a car | expensive. There's problem a grey are below that line in | which a car may cost more than they are comfortable | spending, but have enough useful features that they will | consider sacrificing for it. And there is a large area to | the right of the expensive threshold where a lot of such | cars lie. | | The fact that lots of cars are past the "expensive" | threshold for someone doesn't mean they're thinking in | black and white. | renewiltord wrote: | This is true. It's a threshold. So sometimes when I think | to myself "Should I be spending time fighting to ensure | people are not dying at the hands of a fundamentalist | religious organization or should I be spending my time | lowering prices for a high end graphics editor?" I always | try to remember that these are equivalent tasks. It | doesn't matter which I do. I am bringing the same amount | of good to the world. | Macha wrote: | Were I to crack Photoshop and provide it to 10s to 100s | of business in my local city, should Adobe stay quiet and | not complain, because there are people doing the same and | uploading it to pirate bay where it's available to | millions? | | I think the answer is clearly not. There is no reason why | it should be invalid to criticise any act, just because | it is not the worst act. | renewiltord wrote: | You are evil for saying "doing to the same". In a | categorical sense, you and Hitler are similar: eeevilll | tux3 wrote: | Pears are sweet. Yet Coca-Cola is sweeter. Both deserve | the label, that doesn't mean some things can't be even | sweeter than other. | | Similarly, there are shades of evil. Inventing some new | greater evil does not invalidate the regular kind. | renewiltord wrote: | A fair point, and I must concede to it. | Spooky23 wrote: | They aren't evil, it's just when companies move to | subscription they turn into mini insurance companies | focused on the spreadsheets. They model out your lifetime | value and know that every $1 they chisel out of you is | worth $1.40 in 5 years. | | They are brutal in the enterprise space, looking for | 10-15% price escalations. They also turn over sales | leadership so if you are big enough you can pull stunts | for concessions. Just do some recon and figure out what | they get paid the most on. Last time, we hired a few | interns specifically to do a public PoC of how we were | getting rid a key product in the portfolio. Made sure | they heard about it and got significant confessions. | Basically 10x the intern and PoC investment. We ended up | hiring the interns as well for an extra bonus. | | As a consumer, you need to be really aware of the | motivations of your suppliers business model and model | your business accordingly. Understand your costs and use | OSS strategically, or understand where you just need to | take what they offer (ie AWS). Things in the middle, like | Adobe in my case, you need to be ready to walk away or | play chicken and make a deal at the 11th hour. | ummonk wrote: | "it's just when companies move to subscription they turn | into mini insurance companies focused on the | spreadsheets. They model out your lifetime value and know | that every $1 they chisel out of you is worth $1.40 in 5 | years." | | The term for that is "evil". | marcosdumay wrote: | "Evil" is normally used for people that do worse actions | than overbill their customers. "Fraudster" applies better | here. | lostcolony wrote: | Nah, evil is fine. It's a low grade evil, sure, but it's | still evil. To cite a lovely paragraph from Carpe Jugulum | that feels appropriate - | | "There's no greys, only white that's got grubby. I'm | surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is | when you treat people as things. Including yourself. | That's what sin is.' 'It's a lot more complicated than | that -' 'No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot | more complicated than that, they means they're getting | worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, | that's where it starts." | | -- Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum | gkedzierski wrote: | > They model out your lifetime value and know that every | $1 they chisel out of you is worth $1.40 in 5 years. | | Even more. Every $1 in MRR is worth around $216 in | company market cap. (assuming their current multiple) | cjbgkagh wrote: | The CEO can also claim credit for the stock price | increase and get his bonus. Fixing it would reverse the | effect and put the bonus at risk. So not only will such | 'small evils' become intrenched there is also a powerful | insensitive to find even more of them. | remus wrote: | Or you can threaten to report them to the relevant consumer | body in your country. I did this after arguing with one of | their sales people about cancelling a subscription for half an | hour and they immediately relented. | | Just speculating, but i suspect they know what they're doing is | dodgy and want to avoid as much scrutiny as possible from any | regulatory bodies so their support script says to cancel if the | customer mentions reporting them. | SomeBoolshit wrote: | Of course, you then report them, anyway. | bambax wrote: | Or you can just block the recurring payments and wait for them | to come at you? | | Anyway a "free" trial that asks for your cc number is obviously | not free. Better to stay away of those to be on the safe side. | josephcsible wrote: | > Anyway a "free" trial that asks for your cc number is | obviously not free. | | There is a legitimate reason to do that: to keep people from | making a bunch of accounts and getting free trials with them | forever. | rabuse wrote: | I always just create a virtual number through my CC, set | the maximum to $1, and have it expire within a couple | months. Works like a charm. | jsf01 wrote: | How do you do that? | JJMcJ wrote: | If you don't have a card that allows that, you can also | buy a prepaid card, though I believe such cards may have | distinctive numbers and it's possible a vendor may | disallow. | victor106 wrote: | I use https://privacy.com/ for this. | | One of the best discoveries I found on hn a few years ago | [deleted] | JJMcJ wrote: | Thanks for the pointer! | anu7df wrote: | Thank you. Never knew about this service, was looking, | obviously not hard enough, for exactly this. But really | do think they should advertise better. This would help | with managing expenses too. | tallytarik wrote: | Looks like it's US-only. | | I haven't been able to find a service like this that | supports Australian users, so looking for suggestions! | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | Anyone with a legitimate use isn't going to create large | numbers of emails just to do this. It's a complete waste of | time for any professional. | ssss11 wrote: | Couldn't you make the free trial useful enough to show off | the product, yet _incomplete_ in such a way that | continually making new accounts is not viable? | | An example.. a marketing mail app where the trial only | allows you to mail 1 or 2 campaigns with a max of 5 email | addresses (recipients) for each. In that scenario you'd see | the full capability of the product but couldn't use it for | a full email campaign. Creating more accounts wouldn't help | you game the trial. | | I think not taking people's CC is important. | that_guy_iain wrote: | It also means you're more serious about paying for the | service | arcticbull wrote: | You may get sent to collections and thats a whole pile of | misfortune. | dheera wrote: | Most online services just terminate your service after a | couple warnings and don't bother with collections. | | In any case just set it as your policy that you don't talk | to collectors, you only engage with businesses directly. | | Send Adobe a written notice of termination of the | agreement, stop payments, and I believe that's all you need | to do, but IANAL. | kevincox wrote: | IANAL but if you agreed to a fixed term contract you | can't just inform the other party that you are leaving | early. You need to use an exit clause within the contract | or somehow invalidate it. (For example by saying that you | didn't knowingly enter into a 1 year contract.) | obmelvin wrote: | > (For example by saying that you didn't knowingly enter | into a 1 year contract.) | | I'm also not a lawyer, but I don't think its ever a | reasonable defense to say that you didn't know the terms | of the contract if you've signed it (or agreed to the | terms online - which I'm sure is provable by Adobe)? | kevincox wrote: | I'm pretty sure it is. I believe the technical term is | "Misrepresentation". I don't think it would be an easy | fight but it seems that you could try to make an argument | that they represented the contract as monthly. There are | also examples of ToS being declared invalid because no | reasonable person read them, this sounds similar where no | one is actually reading the fine print. | | While this case may be hard I'm pretty sure it isn't | "never". For example if you are buying a subscription to | a software suite and they sneak into the contract "You | also give us your house" that isn't going to fly, even if | you signed it. | gaius_baltar wrote: | > IANAL but if you agreed to a fixed term contract you | can't just inform the other party that you are leaving | early. | | Also IANAL, but he whole point is that the user is still | in the 14 days "free trial, just cancel", and Adobe is | refusing to honor the "cancel" part, right? This approach | can be handy, specially in countries where there is a way | to send legally valid electronic notification letters. | phgn wrote: | No, during the first 14 days you can actually cancel for | free. This is talking about months later when you | discover the "annual commitment" part for the first time. | It's a perfectly legal contract, just deceptive. | 2ion wrote: | Not a good idea if you, in the future, may actually need | Adobe's services again. | chongli wrote: | At this point I intend to avoid Adobe's services for the | rest of my life. If I ever feel like I need Photoshop or | Illustrator I'll find an alternative. There are a lot | alternatives to these, both open source and proprietary | from small businesses. | dheera wrote: | I use Linux but I'm mostly content with Gimp and | Inkscape. | | I know Photoshop have some "content aware fill" and | things but that's just their re-branded name for neural | networks that are already open source, it's just a matter | of time before it's available in Gimp. I might even | consider writing those plugins too but my time is | limited. | andi999 wrote: | I thought the big problem is that gimp uses only rgb | color encoding, which is fine for non-print, but if you | want to print something professionally you need at least | cmyk. | dheera wrote: | For desktop publishing, Scribus does CMYK. | | RGB color in Gimp is fine for me because I only use it | for photo processing, and cameras shoot in RGB so you | aren't losing any information by doing your photo | processing in 16-bit or higher RGB. | | You can do color space conversions to CMYK after that | stage. | | On an interesting side note, realistically though, I've | found the vast majority of people I've had to work with | don't understand the difference between RGB and CMYK and | just want "PDFs" and don't necessarily let me choose or | interact with the printing agency directly, or the | printer is some friend's wife's father's friend's | friends' friend's company on WeChat that is going to be | doing the printing at 1/10 the cost of every other | commercial printing agency out there and they've chosen | to use that company and it would look silly of me to | suggest to use a company that costs 10X more just so I | can get proofs. In those cases, I've found that if I _don | 't_ have access to proofs, these days, RGB PDFs often | seem to get more consistently rendered than CMYK PDFs. | chongli wrote: | Yeah if you need to work in CMYK you're kind of stuck. | Personally, if I needed to do a lot of print work then | I'd pick up an old Mac and an old license for Photoshop | CS6. | awslattery wrote: | They didn't "come at me" when I've done this a few times in | the past, but thankfully I haven't been in a position to put | their akin-to-malware on my system in a few years. | AlfeG wrote: | There are stories when Adobe charged for several missing | years as soon as credit card were linked. | dymk wrote: | CC chargeback time | chrisseaton wrote: | Chargebacks aren't the magic spell people think they are. | | The credit card company may elect to side with the | merchant, or the merchant may decline to do business with | you again in the future (not ideal if your income relies | on access to these tools in the future), or the merchant | may take legal action against you, or the credit card | company may decide to close your card account. | | You can't just do whatever you want and then claim | 'chargeback!' | beeboop wrote: | I use privacy.com for throw-away cards and you can set | spending limits and close them at any time. | chrisseaton wrote: | > close them at any time | | Closing your card doesn't have _any_ impact on legal | obligations you had, or a merchant thinks you had, or any | impact on whether a merchant will choose to do business | with you in the future. | nunez wrote: | kind of hard to have legal obligations when you use junk | PII (which Privacy accepts; they allow any address and | zip to be used) | dymk wrote: | No, that's just fraud, and it'll get you in way more | trouble | lostcolony wrote: | In terms of legal obligations, sure - however, for SaaS, | it's almost never worth it. If it's "we charge you at the | start of the period", then you received no goods, they | received no payment, there is no legal obligation. If | it's "we provide the service and charge you at the end of | the period", then there is a legal obligation, but the | cost to them to collect is probably too large; they could | always send it to a debt collector, but good luck proving | that debt ("the issuer of the debt provided access to a | service" "...that I was unaware of and never used? Sounds | fraudulent"). | | In terms of merchant choosing to do business with you in | the future, they may or may not have a choice; depends | what they use to identify you with. Certainly, if they | don't make canceling easy, it's probably not the kind of | business you want to deal with. | | All that said, this is why anything that auto-renews, | that I don't know if I want to keep renewing (i.e., will | I still be using it at the end of the trial period, end | of the month, end of the year), I immediately cancel. If | it's a trial and that terminates access, I will take that | as a sign not to use them. If it's paid and that | terminates access, I will also take that as a sign not to | use them, but I'll also email them and basically say | "hey; I paid for X period, wish to use it for X period, | but am unable to use the service for X period. I either | need you to reinstate my account, sans auto-renewal, or I | expect a refund". That tends to get a response, since | otherwise -they- are legally on the hook. | marcosdumay wrote: | Yeah, and a software provider hiding a non-cancel clause | somewhere in a dozens of pages after the deal "contrat" | doesn't impact on your legal obligations either. | chrisseaton wrote: | I would guess that 'annual plan' is presumed to be clear | enough, you didn't have to read the contract. | marcosdumay wrote: | Hum... Annual plan is not stated on any of the large | text. It is stated on the "review order before you buy" | as part of the name of the product, what makes it nothing | any similar to "clear". "Completely confusing" is more | apt. | | Near it the price information carries the monthly price | only, with no indication that you are signing up to 12 | times that amount. | | The only saving feature is that you don't need to read | dozens of pages. If you open the contract, it is | confusing from page 1. But it's also not clear at all | what is going there. | [deleted] | claviska wrote: | As a [small] SaaS owner, I immediately refund, cancel, | and block the user from reactivating their account until | they reach out to me. In more than 10 years, I've seen | less than a dozen "accidental" chargebacks. Most are from | users who are too lazy to login and hit the cancel | button. | | I don't believe in using dark patterns as a retainment | strategy, so I make it very easy to cancel from the same | screen they signed up on. The domain is listed on their | CC statement. I also send out reminders well before | annual subscriptions renew with a link to update or | cancel their plan. | | I used to dispute chargebacks when the user was very | clearly using the service actively and provide | screenshots, logs, and written evidence, but what usually | happens is the bank takes 30+ days to complete each | interaction and almost always sides with the cardholder | anyways. In the meantime, users get frustrated because | their money is locked up in limbo and I can't even refund | them until their bank responds. | | The only chargeback I recall "winning" was one where the | user accidentally canceled but still wanted the service. | They called their bank directly and the bank canceled the | chargeback. | | It's just not worth the hassle, so immediately offloading | the responsibility of chargebacks to the user is well | worth the $15 chargeback fee. They'll let you know if | they want to come back. | | Big companies, I've heard, may put you on a block list | and if you've submitted any identifiable info (address, | phone number, etc.) they'll know when you create a new | account. | [deleted] | the__alchemist wrote: | I've never had Amex side with the merchant. | _dain_ wrote: | >Anyway a "free" trial that asks for your cc number is | obviously not free. Better to stay away of those to be on the | safe side. | | A few years ago I signed up for a "free" Audible trial and | later forgot about it. They rolled it over into a paid | subscription somehow and charged me money despite never | giving them my card details in the signup process. I believe | what happened is it got linked to my Amazon account and | charged the card connected to that. | | They refunded me after I contacted them but I didn't get the | entire amount back. | jibbit wrote: | this is very bad advice | asdefghyk wrote: | A person meeds to have a cc where transactions are disabled. | ( My bank via its online customizer accounts - allows a | person to turn this on / off for security ) | ferminaut wrote: | I got a X1 credit card a little bit ago. You can have | unlimited "virtual" credit cards, trial subscription cards, | and one time use cards. | | I now use it for everything, with a different "virtual" | card for every business. I wish more credit cards offered | this. | | (not affiliated with x1) | rabuse wrote: | Citi also offers this, for those who didn't know. | estro0182 wrote: | CapitalOne offered this feature too, which I used | heavily. Then they _got rid of it_. Blows my mind, it was | incredibly nice. | ed wrote: | They're still offered through the Eno extension | https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/eno%C2%AE-from- | cap... | witweb wrote: | Thank you so much, I was able to successfully cancel my plan | for free! | sibit wrote: | That's awesome! I'm glad it still works. I stumbled upon this | work around 5 years ago when I was in college and Adobe | quietly switched my subscription from the student version to | the full CC suite. I contacted support because I genuinely | couldn't afford to pay $60 a month and support was no help | whatsoever. | cudgy wrote: | How did you get the above mentioned 14 days to pass in 40 | minutes? | codazoda wrote: | You need to cancel BEFORE the 14-day period, after that | you're locked in again. | | There's money in confusion. | mr_tristan wrote: | Subscription models are great for professionals (and companies), | but amateurs, a single year of the Adobe Photoshop + Lightroom | bundle is over 2x what a perpetual Affinity Photo license costs. | (I just wish Serif came out with a photo management product, but | in the meantime, it's not too bad to use digiKam for some | management and `aws s3 sync` to back photos up in an s3 bucket.) | | What's sad is that it was not easy to even see that there's still | a Photoshop Elements product these days with a one time price, | though I have no idea what the support is, and what upgrades | cost. I had to search around to find it. It costs $99, though | there's sales and bundles yada yada yada. The Adobe "comparison" | page (which I still don't know how to navigate to) just seems | like they want to funnel everyone into the subscription offering: | https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/photoshop-vs... | It seems like Elements would be the "hobbyist" license, the | subscription model would be the pro version, but it's very, very | not clear. | | The product that gets subscriptions right is Autodesk Fusion 360. | There's a Personal Use tier that's free, which provides pretty | much all the features you need for most hobbyist style 3D design | and CNC usage. You need the serious features, you pay the | expensive license, but, you're probably making money at this | point, so it's a necessary tool. Fusion 360 changed it's | licensing in 2020 which confused a lot of people, but really, | they used to have a "startup license" or "personal use" license | that was really vague, and I think was being taken advantage of | by actual businesses. It's just simpler now, and I think it's | more obvious. | vr46 wrote: | Previously - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26786563 | w4rh4wk5 wrote: | Seeing this thread, I just realized how easy the hidden | scrollbars in macOS can screw you over. Would the terms and | condition page by worded slightly different, the Cancellation | Condition heading would not even be visible and you won't even | notice that there is still content you are agreeing to. | | This feels bad, like really bad! | DethNinja wrote: | I think customers are a bit to blame for such shady companies. So | many good alternatives to Adobe ecosystem exists but customers | are mostly unwilling to switch to them and as result Adobe | doesn't have to worry about keeping customers satisfied. | ljoshua wrote: | Eh, this one's a little tough. Both my wife and I extensively | use Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign on a frequent basis, | and we're not even designers, we just like to make stuff. I've | tried alternatives like Gimp and Inkscape, but they really | don't even come close. I've never found an alternative to | InDesign at all. There are some applications (especially photo | editing apps on Mac) that are nice, but still don't really give | you everything the CS suite gives. | | Do I hate that I used to pay a (large) one time fee for a | version and now I've given them thousands of dollars more than | I'd have preferred? Yes. Do I think this 12-month contract dark | pattern is scummy? Yes. But I also can't find suitable | alternatives either, so in a sense they've earned their money | in that regard. | salamandersauce wrote: | Have you tried the Affinity suite? They even have an Indesign | alternative (Publisher) and at reasonable prices. Sometimes | they even go sale. Free updates too. Of course if you need | EVERY feature of CS nothing else will do but there's some | good stuff out there that's significantly more affordable. | CharlesW wrote: | > _They even have an Indesign alternative (Publisher) and | at reasonable prices._ | | Scribus also looks like an interesting open-source | solution. (Anybody here have an "InDesign vs. Scribus" | perspective?) | commoner wrote: | The most fully featured free and open source alternative to | Adobe InDesign is Scribus. It's available for Linux, macOS, | and Windows: | | - Website: https://www.scribus.net | | - Download ("Development Candidates" recommended): | https://www.scribus.net/downloads/unstable-branch/ | | - Flathub: | https://flathub.org/apps/details/net.scribus.Scribus | | - Source: | https://www.scribus.net/websvn/listing.php?repname=Scribus | kossTKR wrote: | I stopped using all Adobe products after they did this exact | trick on me. When i actually tried cancelling normally their | cancel page "didn't work" and i had to call and e-mail wasting | hours and days. | | Absolute thrash company. With Adobe, always pirate, never | recommend them, pay for competitors. | Mandatum wrote: | Similar thread last year: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26786563 | | I made a complaint to ACCC in Australia last year regarding the | way they advertised monthly pricing: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26786563#26787160 | kayhi wrote: | How do these contracts hold up to charge backs through the credit | card company? | hedora wrote: | Also, consumer protection laws. I smell a pile of fines and | lawsuits in their immediate future. | | As I understand the charge back process, vendors are generally | assumed guilty until proven innocent, and it's not going to be | worth Adobe's time to fight these. On the other hand, it costs | credit card companies a boat load of money to acquire | customers, and failing to issue legitimate chargebacks is a | great way to lose customer. On top of that, the bank makes more | money from a chargeback than a legitimate charge. | | I've successfully issued charge backs against Experian, for | example. You can't get much more in bed with the credit | industry than they are. (Though the operator at the credit card | company did say that Experian was responsible for about 50% of | their caseload that year...) | hashimotonomora wrote: | So what's the chargeback reason? | Nextgrid wrote: | They don't. The business model relies on most people not | challenging it or not being aware that chargebacks are a thing. | | Similarly, this may not fly in court either, but again the | business model relies on most people not escalating all the way | up (and in their case, they won't pursue it either, as they'd | lose more in legal fees even if they ultimately win the case). | | Nasty business models like this won't survive if people stood | their ground and knew their rights better. | sersi wrote: | I was able to cancel a while ago by threatening with a | chargeback so at least the threat of it seems to help. | onelastjob wrote: | I have loathed Adobe for this for years. Even worse, Adobe was | supposed to make all of their products available under this | single subscription, but now they want to charge users a separate | additional subscription to access Substance Painter/Designer | which they recently acquired. | refactor_master wrote: | Wow, and I thought Ryanair was a masterclass in dark patterns. | | "By clicking here you agree that you would like to opt out of | receiving newsletters". | | "By clicking here you agree to our terms". | mrtksn wrote: | Just yesterday, on a local streaming platform that has a series | that I want to watch I was offered "7 days free". Great, I can | watch the accumulated episodes and if I still feel like watching | the new ones that come weekly I can keep the subscription, right? | | Nope, the "7 days free" wasn't a a trail but 7 extra days when | you purchase a full year subscription. I was considering to get a | monthly subscription to try it out but since they tried to trick | me into a yearly one I simply decide to Torrent the crap out of | their content. Sorry not sorry. | | That's one of the things that's great about Apple's iAP and Apple | being the handler of transactions. There's no tricks, it's | standart on every app: If there's a trail period you get the | trail and if not you directly start paying. Also no tricks in the | cancelation process, it's all in one place so you can review and | cancel easily. You can also change plans right from the same | screen. If somehow you manage to purchase something you don't | want, get refunded easily. | | I really hope that if Apple is forced into allowing 3rd party | payments, we end up getting a standardised interface like the one | we have currently on Apple's platforms but with an option to | choose the alternative payment method(in the same screen but a | different card or account kind of thing, like choosing a card in | Apple Pay). | Lamad123 wrote: | The main reason why I used Netflix (despite not having most of | the content I want to watch) is how straightforward the | cancelling is!! | londons_explore wrote: | > we en up getting a standardised interface like the one we | have currently | | Of course you won't. Apple will do everything in their power to | make third party payments as painful as possible for both the | consumer and the merchant. They'll do things like preventing | those apps from auto-filling credit card numbers, and denying | them camera permission to scan cards. They'll insist credit | card data is sent to an in-country server owned by the same | company as the app (for privacy reasons obviously, but knowing | that for a small app developer hosting certified credit card | processing servers in every country their app sells in is very | hard). | mrtksn wrote: | So, if that's Apple fault on Android it must be really good, | right? How is the Android side of things going? | | BTW, there's this thing called MasterPass. It's MasterCard's | payment system that applications can request you to authorise | the use the cards in the MasterPass wallet. | | It's quite good experience, they are also very aggressive to | collect all your cards in there so if you don't already have | a MasterPass there's a option(on by default) in the CC | entering screen to add the current card in the MasterPass | wallet. There's no explicit account creation step or anything | like that, if you tick that option the next time you | encounter a payment you will have a MasterPass(At least | that's how I remember). I think they must be using some kind | of keychain magic to make it possible because it's almost as | frictionless as Apple's. You only enter the SMS code if you | choose to give access to an app. | | The only problem is, there's no easy way to manage your | payments and cards in the MasterPass. The payments are | credited to your cards so it's good as your bank UI. There's | a website that claims to be an UI for MasterPass for managing | your cards but it's not on the main mastercard.com domain, | therefore I never tried to use it as I can't tell if it's a | phishing attempt or a legit one. I guess if I call them they | can tell me but I would have expected to see at least a link | to that website from my bank website or mastercard website. | nguyenkien wrote: | He not talk about android. Why are you bring that up? | mrtksn wrote: | Because Android is the free alternative where we can | observe how "If Apple allowed that" theories will pan | out? | imbnwa wrote: | People really don't realize how much of a clusterfuck is | prevented by Apple's platform lockdown, like, my god its | another level of quality in my experience and I was an | Android user for most of my life. Even those things that | can be annoying to a Web Dev like Apple's control of | full-screen video content is so much better than gambling | on any ol' web video player's UI being non-ridiculous | with hard to hit elements, etc. | zibzab wrote: | Not sure why you are bringing in android into this, but | things are fairly okay in android-land thank you very much. | | Have been scammed twice, both times on App Store. | | (Funny enough, best support experience was on Microsoft | store when I wanted to return something, but maybe that | time was an outlier) | mrtksn wrote: | > Not sure why you are bringing in android into this | | Because Android has fewer restrictions and can act as a | guinea pig. | peeters wrote: | There need to be laws that you cannot advertise anything as | "free" or "introductory price" if it's amortized into a longer | contract. A common tactic in Canada is to say "$4/mo for the | first three months" but when you sign a contract for $12/mo | over a year commitment. This should be treated as straight-up | fraud. The price is clearly $10/mo and they're just deferring | some payments. | legalcorrection wrote: | What if it's $4 for three months and then $12 in perpetuity, | with no commitment. | charrondev wrote: | Quebec has separate civil law from the rest of Canada and our | consumer protection act prohibits this kind of behaviour | (with very clear case law and precedence siding against | companies). | | As a result though there are a fair amount of companies that | will have these trial offers everywhere except Quebec. | Spotify is one that comes to mind. | kevincox wrote: | I don't mind too much if the continuing price is obvious. But | most of the time the ongoing price is in the fine print or | completely missing. I wouldn't mind a law that says the | continuing prices needs to be at least as visible as the | promotional price. | [deleted] | mthoms wrote: | >That's one of the things that's great about Apple's iAP and | Apple being the handler of transactions. There's no tricks | | If you don't cancel a three day trial before the end of the | second day, you are automatically billed. That's not a three | day trial, that's a two day trial. A full 33% less than what | you are explicitly promised[0]: | | >If you signed up for a free or discounted trial subscription | and you don't want to renew it, cancel it at least 24 hours | before the trial ends. | | >If you cancel during a free trial period, you might lose | access to the subscription immediately. | | (Note: Although it says you "might" lose access immediately, in | my experience you _always_ loose access immediately) | | That means it's basically impossible to "trial" software for | the period Apple advertises. No matter if the period is 3 days, | 7 days or 3 months. It's a dark pattern, a dirty trick that is | blatantly consumer hostile. | | [0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202039 | mrtksn wrote: | Yes it happens but you get the refund easily. You also get an | e-mail before that happens. | mthoms wrote: | Well you don't get the refund _at all_ if you try to cancel | less than 24 hours out. As technical users, you and I both | know there is no technical reason for this. None. It 's | designed to catch users off guard, plain and simple. | | There's also this (emphasis mine): "3 months free. Apple | TV+ is _included_ for three months when you purchase an | Apple device and redeem the offer within 90 days "[0]. | | What does _included_ mean in this context to you? It means | _included in the purchase of the device_. Right? As in, we | are giving you a bonus incentive over and above what you | would normally get. | | Sorry, no. If you cancel or decline autorenewal, nothing is | in fact "included". It's a deception. It's _conditionally_ | included. | | Sure, it's all covered in the fine print, and everybody is | doing it but come on. Apple is engaging in dirty trick | after dirty trick. | | [0] https://www.apple.com/ca/apple-tv-plus/ | | For the record, I use Apple devices exclusively and happily | pay for many services (including AppleTV+) but this stuff | still needs to be called out. | mrtksn wrote: | I got a refund and I know my friends who got their | refunds when they forget to cancel subscriptions in time. | It's also well known policy of Apple to refund you right | away. | | I'm having hard time understanding why are you so bitter | about. I got 3 months of Apple TV+ and Apple Arcade trial | with my purchase and Apple keeps reminding me to active | it because the offer is valid within the 90 days of the | decice activation. So what? Where's the deception? | | The cancellation policy is not in the fine print at all, | it's right there next to the cancel button. Where exactly | it needs to be? | | Just return the device if this doesn't work for you. | mthoms wrote: | >I got a refund and I know my friends who got their | refunds when they forget to cancel subscriptions in time. | It's also well known policy of Apple to refund you right | away. | | That doesn't excuse deceptive tricks used to prematurely | start subscriptions. Many people don't bother chasing | refunds. Anyways, you didn't address the issue: Apple | says it's a three day trial, but the fine print says it's | effectively a two day trial. Is that not an accurate | assessment? | | >I'm having hard time understanding why are you so bitter | about | | Sorry if I wasn't clear. The page I linked previously[0] | says "3 months free. Apple TV+ is _included_ for three | months when you purchase an Apple device "[1] | | Now, let me ask. When referring to purchasing products or | services what does the word "included" mean to you? If | english was your second language, what would you take | "included" to mean in this context? Maybe you'd look the | world up in the dictionary? Let's see - | | Google says 'comprise or contain as part of a whole' and | gives the example _" the price includes dinner, bed, and | breakfast"_. Merriam-Webster has a similar definition and | gives this example: _" The price of dinner includes | dessert."_ Cambridge gives this example _" The fee covers | everything, babysitter included."_ | | And so on. See the problem? | | >The cancellation policy is not in the fine print at all, | it's right there next to the cancel button. Where exactly | it needs to be? | | Again, refer to the page I linked with the ad copy | regarding AppleTV+. I'm not sure what page you're | referring to(?) | | >Just return the device if this doesn't work for you. | | That's not the point. The topic was (generally) about | dark patterns and misleading wording. I'm just giving two | examples which counter the notion that Apple isn't also | guilty of it. I'm not "bitter", and as I mentioned I | generally love Apple's products and services. | | [0] https://www.apple.com/ca/apple-tv-plus/ [1] | https://imgur.com/a/jwAJANz | mrtksn wrote: | I don't know what to say really, go buy something else. I | have no issue reading the offer details and IMHO the | terms are clear and easy to understand but if that's not | the case for you get a refund and buy from somewhere | else. | | In my opinion, the wording is not intended for deception | but for mood uplift. It answers the following question: | Interesting device but what I'm going to watch on this? | Answer: No worries it comes with this service so you can | start using it right away, go to the bottom of the page | for the details. | cudgy wrote: | Recently subscribed to a free seven day trial. Wrongly assumed | that I could cancel up to the seventh day. Unfortunately, the | Trial required cancellation to occur before the seventh day. | reaperducer wrote: | _a local streaming platform_ | | You should name and shame, so that others don't fall into the | same trap. | mrtksn wrote: | Maybe it was their marketing department screwing up with the | wording. | | I also torrent their shows, so... | Razengan wrote: | > _That 's one of the things that's great about Apple's iAP and | Apple being the handler of transactions. There's no tricks, | it's standart on every app_ | | And that is _exactly_ what user-hostile companies and devs want | to undermine. | | Just look up Match.com (parent of Tinder and part of the | "coalition" against Apple) and the shit they pull against | people, as an example (like charging certain demographics | differently for the same service and using artificial matches | to bait new subscribers) | | If you get screwed by such a scummy actor via Apple's IAP, | Apple will give you a refund without asking any questions, | almost immediately. That's what they want to sidestep, it was | never about the users. | djfdat wrote: | I agree with you on all points, I would just like to point out | that Apple does not follow the same trial rules as they do for | everyone else, unless something changed. When I first was | trying out Apple Music with the trial period, there was a | notice that access to Apple Music would end immediately. I | don't think they do this same thing if you were outside the | trial period. | | So while I applaud Apple for standardizing the subscription | rules for most apps, I would love if they applied it to | themselves and their apps the same way. | mrtksn wrote: | Yes, Apple Music or Arcade cuts access the moment you end the | trial. Apple gives developers API to detect cancellations too | but I'm not sure if the developers are allowed to cut access, | haven't looked at it. I know some apps that do cut access | though. | rdtwo wrote: | This is why I use privacy or eno burner cards for all | subscriptions. Simply turn off the cards when you are done, they | also accept fake names and addresses so they can't attempt to | send you to collections. | ushakov wrote: | pretty sure this is illegal in EU/Germany | | gotta show the investors that revenue growth thou! | oytis wrote: | That is literally the first thing I've encountered as a new | immigrant to Germany. This scheme is ubiquitous here that | nobody even considers it especially dishonest, it's up to the | customer to be careful. | ushakov wrote: | we have a 14 day "Widerrufrecht" Adobe must comply with and | return 100% of the funds | | they can't just override the law with their own Terms and | Conditions | | but yes, the scheme is very popular among telcos | oytis wrote: | Gyms and online services too. Widerrufsrecht is useful, but | if you are not aware of this scheme you're likely to miss | this term. | lukevp wrote: | This happened to my wife and I. We both have advanced degrees and | write software for a living. The fact that it had these | cancellation terms was not at all obvious to either of us, and | only realized it when she went to cancel. It's one of the few | trials that I absolutely remember and I'm so glad it was just the | photography bundle and not the whole creative suite. It's | absolutely designed to trick you and it works. Fuck them for | doing this. At least it wasn't a lot of money to us, but what | about struggling artists/photographers who sign up for creative | suite trial but plan to only buy one or two apps, and are now on | the hook for a year of everything? It's pretty dang close to a | scam if you ask me. | ummonk wrote: | Did you try a chargeback? Or make a report with the bureau of | consumer protection? | [deleted] | hirundo wrote: | Apropos of nothing, GIMP is pretty darn good, no charge, no | subscription. Ditto Darktable, Inkscape et. al. | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: | > GIMP is pretty darn good | | GIMP could be pretty darn good if they gave 20 UX designers | another 10 years to redo their entire UX. As is, it's a | usability nightmare. Whenever I'm forced to use it, it feels | like I spend 70% of my time fighting with the horrible UI, 25% | of the time Googling how to do trivial things because it's very | much not obvious, and 5% doing what I actually want. | civilized wrote: | Most open source productivity apps are like this. | | Free office apps are a great achievement but you seem to get | what you pay for. | kingcharles wrote: | I tried to use GIMP for a few months because I'm totally | broke, but I have to agree with the comment here. I ended up | getting the full Adobe cloud plan for $30 a month on Black | Friday and it's not a bad deal considering I regularly use | Photoshop, Illustrator and Premiere. | Kliment wrote: | That's exactly what made Krita so good. Every once in a while | they'd shut a bunch of the developers in a room with a bunch | of artists/users, have the users complain about everything | that pisses them off, and get all those things fixed. The | resulting application is obviously driven by what artists | enjoy, and it feels that way. Strongly recommended. | hallarempt wrote: | The stupid pandemic has made that impossible for us for | quite some time, but our current workflow of having artists | discuss stuff on krita-artists.org with developers | listening, then making a plan and then working on works | quite well for us. | | But I miss the sessions where each artist present would | have two hours to demo making something with the express | message: tell us what you hate, and we're not allowed to | tell you "oh, but you could do this using that." | coffeefirst wrote: | Affinity on Mac is also pretty solid, reasonably, and most | importantly not a subscription. | viktorcode wrote: | Sorry it is not. On my computer it looks like a poorly made | artefact from the 90-s. And it's slow. | ugjka wrote: | Krita | [deleted] | diamondage wrote: | Shutterstock do the same thing. | winternett wrote: | Me over here just happily running my super old but still viable | copy of CS6... :| | aurizon wrote: | This must be desperation due to losses of paying subscribers due | to the diversity of Microsoft ways to do this, as well as many | others that make pdf's. Time for Adobe to fade into another | company. Are they also losing share in their other photo products | = a broad decline? | gavinclarke0 wrote: | I fell for this. When I called adobe to complain the service rep | said, in a manner not much polite than this, that "I don't | believe you that you didn't know you were signing up for a year". | | Looking back, I now see where I agreed, but the manner in which | they attempt to deceive you is criminal. | civilized wrote: | Fucking scumbags. | notyourwork wrote: | CC chargeback. | is_true wrote: | Depending on your card it could be a pain and cost you some | money. Mine requires a new card if I want to do a charge | back. | notyourwork wrote: | Never heard that, I've only done it twice but would be | surprised if I was asked to pay for it. | albedoa wrote: | "My hospital staffs fake doctors." Okay! That is not | normal, and in no way does it change the general | recommendation. | seafoam wrote: | You need a new credit card company. | stjohnswarts wrote: | I would definitely switch, it isn't hard and I've done it | in the past just to get better terms or rewards several | times. | vorpalhex wrote: | A chargeback should be (I would imagine is required to be, | but haven't checked) free. If the company wants to roll the | number too then fine, but that should be just inconvenient | not a cost. | | If your credit card company is charging you, leave them. | hedora wrote: | For future reference, just tell the vendor "I did not authorize | this charge. Please refund me". Don't engage them further. | | When that call fails (or, if they don't pick up the phone in a | reasonable amount of time), call your credit card company and | say "I want to issue a charge back". They'll ask if you tried | to work with the vendor. Answer "yes", full stop. | | There should be a phone number associated with the charge on | your credit card bill. Start (and end your interaction with the | vendor) by calling that number. | | Edit: You can also say "this service wasn't rendered", or "I | never received the product I ordered", as applicable. Those are | specifically listed as valid reasons to issue a chargeback. The | person at the credit card company has to enter a numeric reason | code for the charge back, and by using those phrases (or | similar), you're making their lives easier. | damontal wrote: | And what if they then send you to collections? Now you've got | bill collectors after you and your credit affected. | [deleted] | laumars wrote: | I can't see Adobe going to those lengths because they'd | know there is a good change they would lose any class | action lawsuit that would come about. Which would not just | cost them in damages but also in bad publicity plus likely | get them ordered to remove the dark patterns too (thus | removing any future revenue this dark otters generates). | | I'm not as clued up on consumer laws as I once was but I'm | pretty sure in Europe their sign up page is actually | illegal. Not just immoral but literally classed as false | advertising or something similar. And even if that's not | the case, we do have protections against being tricked into | signing an unclear contract and this would easily fall into | that category. | ihateolives wrote: | > Which would not just cost them in damages but also in | bad publicity | | Unfortunately I think Adobe is beyond the point where few | months of bad publicity would harm their core business. | Amateurs would vote with their feet but professionals | have really nowhere to go. There just are no alternatives | to some of their programs. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | Which products do you feel truly have no alternatives, | and which features define that for you? | | The only one I can think of is After Effects, which | appears to do a broader set of things than any other | single package (but I could be wrong). | | The rest, well I am not convinced, though there are some | edge features in each package that undeniably would sell | them to a few people, and that is, I guess, in the right | way of things. | _dain_ wrote: | GIMP has no CMYK support; that isn't an edge feature, | it's a core need for working with print. | danaris wrote: | > any future revenue this dark otters generates | | ...I'm sorry; I know this is a typo/autocucumber, but now | I can't help picturing these nefarious Adobe otters | coming up with ways to scam us. Adorable yet evil! | unfocussed_mike wrote: | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-59592355 | jeroenhd wrote: | I don't know, I opened their page and the drop down was | clearly labeled as an annual subscription to me. It also | told me the exact date by which I should cancel not to | infer any costs. The drop down offered me to pay the full | year upfront, or a monthly plan which is cancellable at | any time. | | I don't think this stuff is illegal at all. What they | effectively did here is put the email address and | personal information form in front of the product details | instead of below them, change the buttons that normally | say "next" to "start your free trial, but the information | was all in plain view. Complain to your browser vendor | about the lack of scroll bars if that's what's gotten | you. | | The big scam here is the fact this program requires a | monthly fee at all. All subscription services I know | either have a minimum duration with similar cancellation | fees (or you'd be on the hook for the full remainder of | the fees instead of half) or they're advertised | explicitly as being cancellable at any time. | | I don't think anyone was getting tricked, but I do | believe people were entering a subscription without | looking at the details. | vel0city wrote: | The author of this tweet thread even acknowledges it | states the terms in the workflow. | | > But what does "Annual plan, paid monthly" actually | mean? | | I don't understand how "Annual plan, paid monthly" could | be taken as something confusing or requires some | additional context to make any sense out of it. How are | other people reading "Annual plan, paid monthly" any | other way than that it is an annual plan broken out into | monthly installments? | remus wrote: | For me it is more that the overall presentation is not | clear. That wording on it's own is clear, but at every | other stage in the process the implication is that it's a | month to month commitment and not a full year you're | signing up for. The fact that if you cancel they take | half the year of payments and then only provide you with | service for the remainder of the month is another nice | little "fuck you" too. | tasha0663 wrote: | Every single button said "Start Free Trial", not "Start | Annual Plan" and the cancellation terms were hidden and | hostile. | | I was actually considering trying out the Adobe line for | my own work, but I'm going to be sticking with Affinity | and Procreate now. Bad enough that they went to a | subscription model, worse still that they run it like | mobsters. I have too many kids, too little sleep, and not | enough amphetamine salts to remember to cancel the | membership in 7-14 days. | [deleted] | loeg wrote: | I don't think their agreement with the CC network lets them | come after users for chargebacks the bank has approved. In | a chargeback situation, the bank has to agree that the | charge was unreasonable. | Msw242 wrote: | I used a virtual card (and froze it) for adobe. They | haven't gone to collections. | | I get emails from them making offers to get me back on | creative cloud. Nothing about the unpaid cancelled account. | rdtwo wrote: | Virtual cards are a must with all these nasty | subscriptions | Marsymars wrote: | > You can also say "this service wasn't rendered", or "I | never received the product I ordered", as applicable. Those | are specifically listed as valid reasons to issue a | chargeback. The person at the credit card company has to | enter a numeric reason code for the charge back, and by using | those phrases (or similar), you're making their lives easier. | | This is, unfortunately, not a panacea. I paid for tickets | pre-covid for a concert that was indefinitely postponed - | Ticketmaster refused to refund, and PayPal and my bank also | both refused to issue chargebacks. My view was that I paid | for tickets for a concert on a specific date, and a | postponement to an indefinite future date was a failure to | render the service I paid for, but none of the payment | processors I went through agreed. | | I did eventually get the refund from Ticketmaster, and the | concert still hasn't happened. I didn't like Ticketmaster | before, and I like them even less now. | stjohnswarts wrote: | Ticketmaster is definitely a great example of one company | essentially owning the market, but they have a legal out | against being a monopoly in that most places will also sell | a few tickets through other channels like grocery stores or | a hard to get to box office somewhere or "at the door" | EPmoL wrote: | I'm still out $506.70 for a ticket to Ultra Music Festival | in Miami on 2020-03-20/21/22. | | They keep insisting that it's just "postponed" to 2021, and | now 2022 ... | | It's ridiculous, I'm never going to ever go to an Ultra | show again in my life. | | If they had just refunded me immediately I would probably | have already bought tickets to & attended other Ultra shows | (in the country I now live in). | [deleted] | stavros wrote: | This isn't a solution and doesn't excuse Adobe's shitty behavior, | but I use privacy.com which gives you single-purpose cards. That | way, I can just pause the card and subsequent charges will fail. | Then let them try to get their money. | | Pull-based payments are such a bad idea, implemented even worse. | Privacy.com at least gives you per-merchant controls and limits, | even though this really should have been a Visa default. | av8avenger wrote: | You're right here, they won't be able to charge you | automatically via the credit card, but you're still legally | obligated to pay for the subscription since you have agreed to | the terms of service during sign up. Depending on the action | that they would take, you could easily end up paying a higher | amount than the original subscription price if they put | additional charges on you... | torstenvl wrote: | > _you 're still legally obligated to pay for the | subscription since you have agreed to the terms of service | during sign up_ | | Except they didn't agree to them, because they didn't know | about them, and they might not be legally obligated to pay, | depending on the jurisdiction. | | It's pretty clear that there wasn't a "meeting of the minds" | in most of these situations. | | I don't use Adobe but if I got bit by this I'd definitely | take them to small claims. | Jare wrote: | > because they didn't know about them | | I want to agree with this, but can't in strict terms. | "Annual plan, paid monthly" item description next to the | price is hard to defend as something unreadable. Maybe it's | just me, but anytime I see "annual plan", I know I'm | signing up for a year, and that commitment pretty much | always comes with advantages (less total price) and | disadvantages (cancellation fees) compared to shorter | commitments. | | It's hard to deny the pileup of dark patterns in this and | many other subscription services is disgusting and I wish | the legal precedent was clear that customer clarity and | control always trumps service clauses. Over a decade ago I | established as a rule for myself that anything "free" that | requires me to enter my credit card is in fact not free. | Anytime I consider sidestepping the rule, I know I have to | be REALLY sure and read everything. Yep, "limited trial | with pre-accepted subscription but hey you can cancel | anytime!" which is common in mobile, is always a no no from | me. | torstenvl wrote: | I think this is a question of fact, but isn't consistent | with OP. Either Adobe tricked them and they genuinely | didn't know and it's a dark pattern.... or it _isn 't_ a | trick/dark pattern and they _did_ know. | | But if the part of the agreement that talks about | canceling is above the fold and the part that says there | are liquidated damages of half the remaining annual | payments is hidden behind invisible scroll bars, I know | which way I would be likely to rule if I were the judge. | empalms wrote: | Technically but enforcement's another matter. Many | subscription services are just going to cancel your plan and | paywall you | TobTobXX wrote: | The problem is only that they can throw lawyers at you. | Normally a contract is invalid if one side can show to have | been deceived. | vel0city wrote: | How were they deceived? The workflow clearly states "Annual | plan, billed monthly." This wasn't something hidden from | the user. | rdtwo wrote: | They can sue joe fartnoggin all the want. I'm not sure they | will get very far. Virtual cards only require a valid zip | code nothing else has to match | prirun wrote: | Can they report you to a credit bureau and get your credit | score lowered? I recently had my credit score lowered, I think | because I canceled a Chase / Amazon credit card after only 1 | month. Apparently that is a credit faux paus. No balance owed, | but I did hit the measly $500 limit once - another thing bad | for credit scores. | | When my car + homeowner insurance renewed, it had a special | section about how Lexus Nexus had lowered my _insurance_ score, | which is partially based on my credit score. Cost me several | hundred dollars extra in insurance premiums. | borski wrote: | No. The worst they can do is send you to collections, which | they won't do, or charge you for back charges if you sign up | again. | | Canceling a credit card as you did _may_ hurt your score | though. | judge2020 wrote: | In general, they can and do send this sort of stuff to | collections since you did sign up for the terms and it's a | non-trivial amount of money owed. Gyms do it for far less, so | I don't see why Adobe wouldn't. | lukevp wrote: | We had Time Warner send us to collections which then | reported my wife to the bureaus, alleging that we had never | returned our cable modem (this was just for $60, and it was | 5+ years ago!!). First of all, I'm incredibly sure that we | did. We had fiber after that, what would I want with an old | DOCSIS modem anyway? And second of all, they were unable to | offer any proof that we had not returned it. The company | that was collecting tried to strongarm us, but after a few | documented phone calls, it all went away. But why are | companies allowed to report a fraudulent payment to | collections, when they have no proof (if they had some | proof surely they wouldn't have dropped it) and there is | literally no follow-up or accountability required of them? | I'm glad we have the financial literacy and confidence to | tell them to stuff it, but how many people get scammed by | stuff like this? | | We also spent a bunch of time on the phone with TWC | directly, and they had no account in our name or any | history of our account. | judge2020 wrote: | Not your fault but the easiest way to prevent this is to | return equipment at a corporate store, you'll get a | receipt for the return. | daniel-thompson wrote: | > We also spent a bunch of time on the phone with TWC | directly, and they had no account in our name or any | history of our account | | Best part of this story | Nextgrid wrote: | I had similar encounters with a shitty ISP where their | salesperson signed me up on a yearly contract despite | explaining very clearly that not only did I only want a | 30-day rolling contract but that the reason I'm doing so | is because of a _temporary_ issue with the new ISP. Even | if they somehow misheard the "30-day rolling" part, a | yearly contract just wouldn't make sense given my planned | use-case. I can only assume that the idiot simply wanted | some commission and I guess they don't give any for | monthly rolling contracts. | | When it was time to cancel I learnt that I was actually | on a yearly contract - this was a month later so past the | cancellation period. The support advisor claimed that I | not only received an email but actually opened it, at | which point I knew they sent it to the wrong address or | were outright lying as my email client never loads remote | resources, making it impossible for them to see that I | "opened" it. He also refused an IMO reasonable demand of | reviewing the call recording (it was just a month ago so | they should still have it) to determine who was in the | right. | | In the end, I simply blocked further payments. When | collections reached out, I explained the story above and | they went away immediately. Collections ended up having | significantly better user experience than the original | company. | Nextgrid wrote: | They can send it to collections all they want, but | ultimately if the debt isn't valid as per the law then | you're all good. If the merchant is using bad-faith tactics | to trick you into a contract (or outright lies as in my | case) it is very unlikely to fly in court. | hnburnsy wrote: | Until when you go apply for a mortgage and the | underwriter makes you resolve all outstanding credit | issues, which in many cases results in you paying the | collection agency otherwise it could hold up your home | purchase. | | Theses systems were built by the creditors not the | consumers. | londons_explore wrote: | I'm surprised gyms don't do it... It is my understanding | that credit reference agencies pay money for this kind of | information, and pay even more if they get to guarantee | that the same debts won't be reflected on competing credit | reporting mechanisms. | erklik wrote: | > privacy.com | | Not for those of us who don't live in the US unfortunately. | phphphphp wrote: | Where are you located? Privacy.com were first to bring this | feature to the mainstream as a product but it exists as an | add-on in various places. For example, in the UK it's offered | by Monzo and offered by Revolut in the many countries they | operate in. If you want to use virtual cards, it should be | possible where you live. | Marsymars wrote: | While virtual cards are _technically_ a thing in Canada | (e.g. you get a virtual cards if you add a card to Apple | Pay), I'm not aware of any services that let you generate | more than one at a time in a useful way. | Nextgrid wrote: | Wise (formerly Transferwise) also offers virtual debit | cards. I don't think you can limit the amount or merchant, | but it still works if all you need is to be able to cancel | a card on-demand. | daniel-thompson wrote: | Their "free" plan says you can | | > Create up to 12 cards per month | | Does that mean you can create 12 in January, 12 more in | February, etc? Or is it capped at 12 total? | stavros wrote: | AFAIK it's 12 every month (I have hundreds by now) but I've | never reached the limit. They're vendor-locked so you need | one per vendor. | achow wrote: | This is why last year India's policy for auto debit rules for | credit debit card makes very good sense. | | _Under the new norms, banks will be required to inform | customers in advance about recurring payment due and | transaction would be carried following nod from the customer | (will need additional factor authentication from 1 April). This | rule is likely to impact your monthly subscription charges for | different streaming platforms including Netflix, Amazon Prime, | Disney+..._ | | https://www.livemint.com/industry/banking/debit-card-credit-... | 41b696ef1113 wrote: | Love that. I wonder how much money is flowing from consumers | on forgotten subscriptions. My bank should have a separate | highlighted section for any recurring charge. | DizzyDoo wrote: | I've been working at detangling myself from the Adobe lineup of | products. I really like (or liked) Adobe AfterEffects, it's been | very helpful for me in compositing trailers for my computer game | business, but it's totally been replaced by the free version of | Davinci Resolve. Which I've also found is an excellent | replacement for Adobe Audition, which I was using for editing the | Voice Over and raw Sound Effects for, again, my video games. | | But I can't see myself escaping from Photoshop anytime in the | next couple of years. I have a lot of special export scripts in | 'Adobescript' (yuck) that carve up my high res art assets, slice | them this way and that, crop, hide/display different groups and | export in particular ways. Nothing unusual, it's just a lot of | grunt work, but I have it set up so that clicking a button in | Photoshop will just Do It All and have it work. It'll take some | time to set that all up again in a Photoshop alternative. | | The nasty payments stuff detailed in the twitter thread is just | the usual Adobe nastiness, some product manager somewhere is | trying to juice the numbers. | | My own billing experience with Adobe recently was needing to | change my account's country from UK to Canada, as I've moved, and | the VAT number and sales tax stuff is of course all different. | The poor support person I spoke to couldn't fix it for me, they | had to have a backend engineer manually change alter a field in a | database somewhere - it all sounds like a terrible mess. | pcurve wrote: | That's the problem. Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and After | Effects have almost no competition and they know it. | | Even if there were, companies can't just jump to different | tools because they would lose ability to open all their past | work files. The migration will be slow. | inversetelecine wrote: | AutoDesk (CAD/BIM/etc) is also getting like this. Maybe not | totally Adobe yet, but they too also basically have a lock on | their industry. Just like with Adobe, some alternatives exist | and a few might be good enough, but AutoDesk bought so many | competitors and/or companies that most of the time they are | the only game in town. | | Bentley (not cars) is another company I loathe, but I've | already gotten off topic. | | The professional software industry is a cesspool across all | industries. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | Yes, AutoDesk is a very good comparison. | | The problem is these companies aren't evil but they are | under considerably less pressure to be _good_. Perhaps the | saddest thing about Adobe is that the subscription model | has almost completely eliminated their support staff 's | ability to allow things like discretionary late free | upgrades (which I've benefited from in the past, before I | made the jump to Affinity Photo in 2015, after a year of | Photoshop CC). | pcurve wrote: | I agree there's no pressure on these companies as a | whole. Ideally, they should be heavily investing in R&D | while the moat is still wide. | | I manage a product design team. We've long moved away | from from using Adobe products. It's not that we detest | subscription model or Adobe as a company; their products | were no longer meeting our needs. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | Only After Effects doesn't have an all-in-one competitor, | really. | | Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign, as a linked suite, has a | very, very able competitor in Affinity | Photo/Designer/Publisher. Given the complexity of these | products, expecting more than _one_ fully-integrated | competing suite might be too much. | | You might find this video useful, to see the extent to which | it is a competitor: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVqJIaMlB6E | | Not a 100% drop-in replacement, mind you, but almost nothing | ever is. Very close, though, and capable of some remarkable | things. | | (I still don't have Publisher but I love Photo and Designer.) | roywiggins wrote: | Last I looked for a replacement for Lightroom I didn't | really find anything that worked well for me. Maybe the | open source tools have matured in the interim? I've been | sticking with my old copy of Lightroom 5 and until I buy a | new camera that it doesn't support processing raw files | for. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | I don't really like Darktable for that job to be honest | -- nothing against what it is capable of, because it is | clearly capable, it just rubs me up the wrong way GUI- | wise. Haven't tried RawTherapee in a long time but maybe? | | Because I don't really like working in "sessions" and | prefer folders, what I do is use DxO PhotoLab (which now | comes in an "Essentials" version when you get it with | their Nik tools, which might appeal to you). It's fast | enough to cull in, though for really fast culls I use | Fileloupe on the Mac. | ta78373764 wrote: | The billing page does say "annual plan, paid monthly" but it is a | bit non obvious at first glance. Oddly this seems to be only in | the UK version, the US version has a much clearer pricing layout. | lelandfe wrote: | > But what does "Annual plan, paid monthly" actually mean? | Let's fill in our email address and press continue. Maybe | that's explained on the next page. | | This Twitter thread appears to be a person who indeed noticed | that and had to delve into the fine print to figure out what it | actually implies for the contract. | iso1631 wrote: | Seems pretty obvious to me, it's an annual contract you pay | for monthly, I have many such contracts | bennyp101 wrote: | But thats a monthly plan? I would pay monthly... an annual | plan I would pay once per year... or is that their cunning | terms - 'contract' rather than 'plan' kind of thing | iso1631 wrote: | A monthly plan would be one that you can cancel with a | month's notice | | An annual plan would be one you can cancel with a year's | notice | | The payment terms might be all in one, or in daily, | weekly, or monthly amounts | howeyc wrote: | No, the term of the plan can be separate from the terms | of payment. | | Auto insurance is usually a 6-month plan you pay monthly. | Some are easier to cancel/change mid-term than others. | | Mortgage is an X-year plan you pay monthly. | | Auto loan is an X-year plan you pay monthly. | | This is fairly standard stuff. | lelandfe wrote: | Sure, me too. Annual plans are great. The issues here are: | | 1. All of the marketing language shown in the tweets | present this as a monthly cost, rather than an annual | commitment. This is deceptive. The other, truly monthly | plans are default hidden on the plan selection page. | | 2. The enormous contract cancellation fee is buried inside | the fine print. | | Contrast this to the USA version: | https://i.imgur.com/TDptfcI.png | iso1631 wrote: | Annual plan to me that you're agreeing to pay for the | year. Disney did something similar, it was cheaper to | sign up for a year. Typically you get 12 months for the | price of 10. | | The screenshot says you can have a full refund if you | cancel before Feb 26th, assuming that holds, that's | plenty of time to work out what's going on. | | The US is clear, I've seen that setup several times. The | UK one has several red flags | | 1) Free trial | | 2) "From" PSx a month | | 3) It's Adobe | lelandfe wrote: | If a user will be on the hook for $300 when cancelling a | contract, that should be made quite clear. The only hint | that that lays buried in the fine print is small gray | text intoning "avoid a fee" that gets shown _after plan | selection_. | | It's pretty clear Adobe has work to do on their sign up | flow, here. That they've already done so on the US side | makes it even more inexcusable, frankly. | iso1631 wrote: | Very first screenshot says "Starting At" | | The point where you enter your email states "Annual Plan | Paid Monthly", and "Cancel before 26th Feb for a full | refund" | | Maybe I'm just cynical, but I would expect if I were to | sign up I would be on the hook for a full year unless I | cancel before 26th Feb. | lelandfe wrote: | "I would expect" is not exactly a sterling commendation | of how clear a sign up flow's terms are. The Creative | Suite has a wide audience. | iso1631 wrote: | Maybe it's not entirely clear, but then you get several | weeks to decide to cancel and pay nothing | | Of all the dark patterns online, this is fairly low down | the list. | toyg wrote: | _> Oddly this seems to be only in the UK version_ | | Considering this behavior is likely illegal in the UK (where | consumer cooling-off periods are 14 days or 30 days), I'd find | that peculiar. | cpach wrote: | If you're on macOS and just want a good and convenient image | editor, I warmly recommend Acorn. The Muellers (owners of Flying | Meat Software) have put a lot of effort to make it feel like a | really solid Mac application. The price is good and from time to | time they offer discounts. The whole experience reminds me of | using good old Paintshop Pro back in the late 90s (^_^) | | Other options are Affinity Photo from Serif Ltd and Pixelmator. | IMHO Acorn has much better GUI though. (FWIW, Affinity works fine | on Windows too.) | | I realize that some people need the features from Photoshop and | then I guess they have to pay the "Adobe tax". But if you're not | a photo/graphics professional, you can come a long way with the | above options. | | AFAIK there are also lots of good alternatives for Illustrator | and InDesign. | phgn wrote: | Gimp also works somewhat on Mac. | anon23anon wrote: | I've bought both Acorn and Affinity over the years. W/ Affinity | they're license is only good for the platform you purchased it | on e.g. you can't use a windows license on your mac - you'd | need to purchase 2 separate license. Considering I have a work | mac and a work windows this was kind of annoying but whatever. | | The thing that I encountered w/ Acorn was their license was | tied to a particular version. For example a new Mac OS version | came out, the version of Acorn I purchased wouldn't work w/ | whatever version that was so continue using Acorn I need to | purchase a new version. The part that irked me here was I only | got like 1 years use out of the software. Feel like they should | support n-2 or something to that effect. Not sure if things | have changed. | Ma8ee wrote: | Yes, either you pay for a subscription or you once pay for a | specific version and have to pay again if you want to use a | later version. You can't both, that is, you pay once and get | upgrades indefinitely. Even developers have to eat. | sascha_sl wrote: | >W/ Affinity they're license is only good for the platform | you purchased it on | | I threw my Affinity Designer macOS key into a Windows trial | and it worked just fine, you just have to download the trial | for the other platform. | brtkdotse wrote: | Another point of view I'd like to offer is that very few people | actually _need_ Photoshop/Illustator. I thought I did, until I | discovered Canva and PlaceIt. Sure, they're not super flexible | but you can usually find some template that works and just use | that and be done with it before Photoshop has even finished | loading. | | (No affiliation, just a pleased user) | cpach wrote: | Indeed. In my life I haven't used Photoshop more than like | two hours or so. In my youth I used Corel Photopaint and PSP. | Then Gimp, and now Acorn. | alok-g wrote: | Corel PaintShop Pro is alive still and works great. | danaris wrote: | I can strongly second the recommendation for Acorn. I'm not a | graphics professional, but it is _very_ often useful in my job | to have access to an editor on par with Photoshop--which, aside | from some of the more advanced stuff, Acorn definitely is. It | 's extremely polished and well-put-together--and can also both | read and write Photoshop PSD files. | yokoprime wrote: | Thank you! Acorn looks pretty solid, I've got Pixelmator on my | iOS devices, so I was wondering if i should go for Pixelmator | pro on macOS. | | For very lightweight stuff, I've often used | https://www.photopea.com/, even when i had photoshop installed. | Works pretty well for a browser image editor | | I've moved away from Adobe recently, both because of their | scummy business practices (but when you know how it works, its | predictable at least) but moreso because creative cloud is such | a resource hog. Core sync often was listed as a process using | significant energy, even though file sync was turned off and | the finder extension disabled. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | Pixelmator Photo on iOS is also the mutt's nuts; I have been | cynical about Pixelmator on the Mac until recently but Photo | really makes the point that they intend to compete. | | Stay away from the Skylum stuff, IMO; it's usually half-baked | and instead of evolving the product they have a habit of | abandoning it and launching some new product, which is | maddening. | | Affinity Photo is very very good too (bit confusing on the | iPad). | markwillis82 wrote: | I am curious if photoshop is better installed from the App | Store instead of through creative cloud so all the extra apps | aren't added. Core sync drives me mad. | cpach wrote: | My pleasure! | | I've tried both Pixelmator and Acorn on macOS and IMHO | Acorn's GUI is cleaner and more Mac-like. YMMV. | PascLeRasc wrote: | Acorn looks really great! Thanks for the recommendation. | eps wrote: | > Paintshop Pro | | Now that's the name I haven't heard in a long time :) | | I still have PSP7 on one of my machines and even use it | occassionally! | sprkwd wrote: | Affinity do their own illustrator, photoshop and InDesign | without subscription. Excellent quality and fast. | peebeebee wrote: | Photopea is also a great 'alternative'. Free, online, and | written by one guy. Quite amazing feat. | https://www.photopea.com/ | prox wrote: | I use Affinity Suite professionally, absolutely possible to | switch. Have done for three years, it's really good. | BikeRanger wrote: | Same here, on about the same timeline. I miss a few things | from Photoshop, but some things are much better in Affinity | Photo. Especially love that Affinity isn't a subscription. | fermentation wrote: | As soon as Affinity releases a Lightroom replacement I will | buy it. I've tried using the open source apps and it just | doesn't feel as good on a mac. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | Definitely a limitation, though I'd imagine we will see a | Bridge/DAM type product before we see a specifically | Lightroom-type product. | | Perhaps we'll see a Lightroom-type persona in Photo and | integrations with some sort of DAM. | sokoloff wrote: | Convenience link: https://flyingmeat.com/acorn/ | | I also loved this bit from their FAQ: Does | Acorn use a subscription? Nope! We have a simple | philosophy- you buy a thing, you get a thing. | | I have no affiliation with them (not even a user yet). | goldenchrome wrote: | This is why I sail the high seas. | atlanta90210 wrote: | I manage adobe subs for my company. When you log into the adobe | user management portal you can see all of your users and the | products we pay for but you can't pull up a "last used date". | This way I would know who to cancel if not used in a long time. | | I have complied to adobe about this for years and they say it | would violent the privacy of the users we are paying for - yet I | have their email addresses. | | I try all the time to get users to try others products when they | ask for an adobe product subscription. | snehk wrote: | I had this problem many years ago and that was when I decided to | never, ever use or recommend Adobe products to anyone for that | very reason. A bunch of people at work wanted me to green light | purchases of Adobe subscriptions for Premiere but we decided to | go with Apple instead. Never in my life will I install another | Adobe Cloud software on any of my machines again. | | And that's in addition to the fact that once you decide to | install their software they'll install about three hundred | different things that are somehow needed and are pretty much | impossible to easily remove. I really hate Adobe with a passion. | sgustard wrote: | I just tried this in USD and at least the initial screens were | more clear about the options. To wit: after "start your free | trial", there's a choice of "$79 monthly, no cancellation fee" or | "$52 yearly billed monthly, fee if you cancel". It is pretty | common to discount per month when a user agrees to an annual | contract. | binarymax wrote: | I now obsess over cancellation policies before subscribing. | Yesterday I signed up for Peacock premium so we could watch the | Winter Olympics and beforehand made sure I'd be able to cancel | anytime. $10 per month and I can cancel easily whenever I like - | but they still go out of their way to extract every cent of worth | by selling all your personal information, and had to go through a | rats nest to opt out. | boingy wrote: | I found a loophole to get out of their contracts for free online | and was amazed it worked. Tell them that your employer now pays | for your Adobe subscription so you don't need it anymore. They | must have a policy around this because these magic words seem to | get them to cancel for you no questions asked. Also, the easiest | way to contact them (good luck finding a live chat on their | website) is via twitter DMs. Sounds bad but using this method I | got my account cancelled with no fee in around 10 minutes and | with just two messages. | rgj wrote: | Adobe, a company of the past, playing tricks because they never | will understand - or be - SaaS. | xyhopguy wrote: | I recently dealt with this. Right before my free trial expired, I | went to cancel. A support rep offered another 3 months free. The | first red flag was not receiving a log of our conversation. Three | months go buy and sure enough, when I went to cancel, they told | me I had already committed to a year. Incredible. After some | persistence and vague legal threats I managed to receive a full | cancelation and refund. | [deleted] | ummonk wrote: | What would happen if people performed chargebacks? | BonoboIO wrote: | Adobe ... they have good products, but i will never give Adobe | money. | babyshake wrote: | The worst part of this stuff is you can bet the PMs and others | working on this feature have some BS terminology that helps them | feel like this is not actively hostile toward their customers. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-05 23:00 UTC)