Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How companies use dark patterns to keep you subscribed

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 191 posts

Re: How companies use dark patterns to keep you subscribed

#151

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

graypegg wrote: post #3

I heard someone say a while back that “cancelled customers are just potential future customers”. Anyone that’s had an easy cancellation process will remember that flexibility if they ever need that service again. No idea why no large subscription service seems to understand that. Make me go thru annoying hoops and you’ve lost me for good!

Part of the appeal of monetizing through subscription is that they pay more than they would through other methods.

Adobe doesn't want $21 for each of the 3 months that you used Photoshop, spread over the last 7 years. They want the guaranteed, "he didn't bother to cancel" $1800. If subscription plans actually worked such that people were paying less than if it was just a flat-price-per-major-version, then we'd still be seeing them do that.

I have my doubts that easy cancellation would change that... people would probably just remain subscribed anyway. Humans didn't evolve to deal well with persistent, parasitic threats quite like this. We have no psychological armor to protect us. But even so, why would they risk it by making cancellations too easy?

If legislation were to demand automatic cancellation after some period of time where data indicated the user wasn't using it, how they would howl. Imagine not showing up to the gym for 3 months, and it's cancelled whether you ask for it or not. They only get to bill you for those 3 months, and not try to send it to collections that you've had 19 months of access.

Re: How companies use dark patterns to keep you subscribed

#152

Post by garbagecoder »

alistairSH wrote: post #101
mthoms wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. It's a blatantly obvious dark pattern. It's your credit card. Your money. Yet Apple gives you no way to cancel (or even view!) a child's subscription online. Heck, they won't even tell you which child made the subscription.

Why do you allow your child to buy subscriptions without approval? Does "Family Sharing" with "Require Purchase Approval" not work as described?

[deleted]

Re: How companies use dark patterns to keep you subscribed

#153

Post by asdff »

chasing wrote: post #24

You know which services I don't have problems cancelling? Ones I subscribe to via Apple's in-app payments. I get that it sucks to have Apple scrape a percentage of my payments for themselves, but if you're a company I don't fully trust and/or want to have total control over my subscription without a bunch of hassle, Apple's IAPs are the way to go. Mostly this is great with the big streaming services. Want Disney+ or…

What sucks about apple implementing this is that for a lot of developers who used to get by with a 99 cent app you buy once, now its 99 cents a year, sometimes $99 a year.

Re: How companies use dark patterns to keep you subscribed

#154

Post by alistairSH »

garbagecoder wrote: post #152
alistairSH wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you allow your child to buy subscriptions without approval? Does "Family Sharing" with "Require Purchase Approval" not work as described?

[deleted]

Pretty sure I was responding to somebody else? But, if Family Share doesn’t let you view and mange a child’s subscriptions that you’ve approved, that is awful, no disagreement there.

Re: How companies use dark patterns to keep you subscribed

#155

Post by npteljes »

Entinel wrote: post #104

> Or maybe there’s a warning that the item is low in stock. Those are dark patterns. I don't agree this is a dark pattern. I understand why they say it is but as long as those items are actually in low stock I think this is fine.

I agree. This one, and the one where they indicate how hot an item is, are not dark patterns by themselves. They are signals that proved to increase sales. But that doesn't have to mean that they are also dishonest.

Re: How companies use dark patterns to keep you subscribed

#156

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

ruph123 wrote: post #62
liendolucas wrote: post #58

Another way to forcefully cancel a subscription is simply registering with a card to which you can manually add or recharge credit, the day that you do not put money in it (or remove from it), the subscription should be automatically cancelled as they can't debit that amount from you (yeah, it doesn't work if you're subscribed to several services. Or maybe it could if you meticulously add/remove credit the exact days…

How is this legal? This always seemed like a weird "hack" to me. Just because your payment method does not work anymore, this does not cancel your buying contract. If they wanted to, couldn't they just sue you?

What contract?

Did you sign a piece of paper promising to buy it for the next year? They do this even after 3 or 5 or 11 years of service after all, so even in the unlikely event there was a proper contract, your complaint is sort of moot.

Are you going to claim that it's a verbal contract? Those are rather narrowly defined. Telling your friend "Oh yeh, I'd buy one of those when you get one in!" isn't a verbal contract. At minimum, there's no mutuality going on here. They suffer no detriment from 1 in 10 zillion subscribers forcing a cancellation they made impossible in the first place. Verbal contracts should require, at least, that someone met you face to face and heard/saw you assent.

There's a strange cultural phenomenon going on in the modern world, where people believe that contract norms/laws govern things that they absolutely do not.

Re: How companies use dark patterns to keep you subscribed

#157

Post by npteljes »

brvsft wrote: post #115

> Products that confusingly label “cancel” or “unsubscribe” > Some websites that are subscription-based hide the cancellation flow under a new name: “auto-renew” or “edit plan.” With Daily Harvest, Express VPN and Vimeo, there isn’t a button or area that says “cancel.” Instead a user has to look for “auto-renew” and turn off “auto-renew” payments, which effectively cancels the subscription. This kind of naming is con…

I disagree. To be fair to the user, they need to clearly indicate the way out. Additionally, the avoidance of a clear language (like auto-renew instead of subscription) is a dark pattern in itself.

Re: How companies use dark patterns to keep you subscribed

#158

Post by npteljes »

eli wrote: post #13

"Deceptive patterns" is now the preferred term for what used to be called "dark patterns" It's both more descriptive and avoids equating "dark" to "bad". I've also heard "hostile patterns" as an umbrella term that covers deceptive patterns as well as careless UX problems like a design that isn't accessible.

[dead]

Re: How companies use dark patterns to keep you subscribed

#159

Post by npteljes »

jasmer wrote: post #12

We need more regs about this, it's ridiculous. It's so bad that I'm completely afraid to get out my credit card for whatever reason. Thanks for putting this together but interfering with scrolling, although maybe less impactful, is probably more annoying.

I agree that the language needs to be clearer. People who want to sell are too happy to muddy waters around transactions. In the digital world, it's even muddier, for example, on Steam, as much as I love the service, I sure as hell don't "Purchase" when I click the Purchase button and pay. License maybe? Even then, the license is attached to my account, not my person.

Re: How companies use dark patterns to keep you subscribed

#160

Post by npteljes »

JohnFen wrote: post #20

Signing up for subscriptions is rarely a good idea.

What's wrong with it? One-time payments don't make sense for a lot of transactions. Apartment rent is the most obvious example, but any other continuous service that is in use is hard to imagine without subscriptions.
Post reply on HN