Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 )
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)
Adobe tricks users into a 12 month contract
371–380 of 592 posts
Re: Adobe tricks users into a 12 month contract
#372I 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 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 subscripti…
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 £49.94/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 £49.94/mo" would not understand that you're making an annual commitment to pay £49.94/mo, and that the total cost will be £49.94/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.
Re: Adobe tricks users into a 12 month contract
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 bi…
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.
Re: Adobe tricks users into a 12 month contract
#374If 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…
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…
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.
Re: Adobe tricks users into a 12 month contract
#375I 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.
Re: Adobe tricks users into a 12 month contract
#376Re: Adobe tricks users into a 12 month contract
#377For 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.
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.
Re: Adobe tricks users into a 12 month contract
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.)
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.
Re: Adobe tricks users into a 12 month contract
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evil is thrown around way to much. If you are going to use it for dishonest business practices what’s left for ISIS?
If you're going to use evil for ISIS, what's left for the Nazis?
Re: Adobe tricks users into a 12 month contract
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 thi…
I got a refund and I know my friends who got theır 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…
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