Live data from Hacker News

Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

petapixel.com

561–570 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#561
post #452
post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> actually an "annual plan, billed monthly" and thus that if they cancel after one month (for example) they'll be billed for the remaining 11 immediately I don't know if this is a recent policy change, but it is not the complete amount but only 50% of the remaining annual amount as per their website[1]. If it were something involving physical goods or services I can understand, but 50% penalty is still a crazy amount…

That's why you always use throwaway cards for this.

Or better, just avoid companies like Adobe as much as possible. It is not like they are the only game in town anymore, right?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shown by the video embedded in [1] (which has a screenshot at 2:00), Adobe changed their sign-up process and added those clear options after being sued by the US for deceptive subscription fees. https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/adobe-sued-over-subscription-f...

ok so the problem is they _used_ to do this. I’m not suggesting we just forgive and forget, but warning people against abusive billing practices that aren’t in place any more is a bit silly. If your argument is we shouldnt support a corporation who requires being taken to court to treat their users fairly then there’s probably a very long list of companies that fail that test much harder than adobe do, especially now…

> I’m not suggesting we just forgive and forget

That seems to be exactly what your posts amount to though?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#563
post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's rather the opposite - there's way too much going on in their life, specifically stuff that they have no control over, so they vent all that stress wherever they can.

Disagree. I think when people are that busy they don't have time to find and attack a corporation on BlueSky.

You could say the same about most Internet activity: busy people don't have time to post on HN, or make stupid LinkedIn posts. Yet here we all are, reading and writing despite our busy startup lives.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reverse class action isn't a thing, there's no way to sue thousands of people all at once, so they'd have to bring their suit against every individual who did it. Costs would be guaranteed to be much higher than any possible recovery.

Why would they sue? Just send it to collections and let them sort it out?

Good luck finding Asfghjs Fghdjsk using only his email address, fdsfgsd@tempemail.test.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#565
post #480
post #368

The phenomenon at work here is: if product being produced by a profit-seeking enterprise can be rented instead of being sold, said enterprise will eventually find a way to do it, then over time, rather than a single bill, it will attempt to rent out individual aspects of the now product-turned-service, followed by cost cutting that degrades the default service level while introducing additional service levels for whi…

Single bill for modern software doesn't make sense economically anymore. Do you want updates? You want new versions? New features? Support? Single bill it's like buying an IPhone once and then you expect to get a new one for free each year.

>Do you want updates? You want new versions? New features? Support?

No. This was a solved problem decades ago. Purchase includes minor version updates, then you keep it for life without updates. Upgrading to the next version is a choice.

Why did we collectively agree that customer choice does not matter?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#566
post #535
post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could lose because of unfair business practices.

Is it? It clearly says "Annual, billed monthly" and "Fee applies if you cancel after 14 days." next to the price.

This is a bit longer than I would have wanted to spend writing about Adobe billing practices, but oh well.

Is it the most manipulative dark pattern in e-commerce? Hardly--there are plenty far more vicious--but it's still an attempt to prime a would-be subscriber to focus on the annual, billed monthly and play on their understanding of the word "monthly" by using it in both options.

"Annual, billed monthly" is set in smaller italicized type right under the actual price of US$59.99/mo on the main pricing page[0]. You've now been primed to focus on the $59.99 price. Only when you select a plan and a modal pops up do you see that there's a separate monthly option available from the annual, billed monthly option that's been helpfully pre-selected or a third annual, prepaid option.

The point is to quickly shepherd subscribers through the payment process. The user sees the $59.99 option they expected is pre-selected, so most hit continue and move on. If they look beyond the price in bold to the plan descriptions in smaller italics, well, there are literally decades of eye tracking studies showing users skim websites rather than carefully reading every single word. The price in bold draws in the eye, the word "monthly" is present so the user catches the word, and then they move on to the continue button.

Adobe could have easily labeled the plan Annual, billed in 12 installments or even Annual, billed in monthly installments to better differentiate the two options. They didn't for a reason. The word "monthly" comes with certain expectations. Using it for both the actual monthly plan and the default annual, billed monthly plan allows those expectations to bleed over to both.

While it mentions a fee for cancelling after 14 days, you'll find nary a mention of what that fee actually is until you track down a legal page[1] that isn't linked to any point during the payment process up until the sign-in prompt (I didn't bother creating a new account to look beyond that). At the very least, it's not present during the stage when you're still relatively uncommitted and somewhat more likely to notice any more onerous terms were they present.

Finally, there's an option for a 30-day free trial of Adobe Stock. I'd have sworn it was pre-selected a few years ago, but I may be mistaken on that. If it was, then at least that's a change for the better. Anyhow, did you notice how it's on a 30 day trial period whereas the normal plan has a 14 day cancellation window? Let those deadlines fall to the back of your mind for a week or two, and will you remember which is 14 days and which is 30? There was no reason why Adobe had to use 30 days for Stock or only 14 days for their other offerings. But it adds to the confusion, and that's the entire purpose of a dark pattern. Stock is also an "annual, billed monthly plan," but nowhere in the checkout process is it mentioned that Stock also has a large cancellation fee. That's hidden in a separate part of the Subscription Terms page.[1]

Adobe could easily just choose to settle for a straight-up monthly payment plan with no bullshit and completely sidestep recurring--but largely toothless, given the state of most alternatives to their software--criticism over their billing practices. They could eliminate the dark patterns and make their plan selection and payment process more transparent. They don't, presumably because those patterns generate more revenue than the lost goodwill they create is worth. That goodwill is diffused, and even if people grumble about it online, it generally doesn't rise to the level of leaving.

0. https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html

1. https://www.adobe.com/legal/subscription-terms.html

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they sue? Just send it to collections and let them sort it out?

Good luck finding Asfghjs Fghdjsk using only his email address, fdsfgsd@tempemail.test.

They use the billing address. KYC makes it easy.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#568
post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ok so the problem is they _used_ to do this. I’m not suggesting we just forgive and forget, but warning people against abusive billing practices that aren’t in place any more is a bit silly. If your argument is we shouldnt support a corporation who requires being taken to court to treat their users fairly then there’s probably a very long list of companies that fail that test much harder than adobe do, especially now…

> I’m not suggesting we just forgive and forget That seems to be exactly what your posts amount to though?

No, I’m saying call them out on the shit they _are_ doing that you don’t want them to do, and don’t drag every mention of them into the same topic ad nauseum.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Training data at scale unavoidably taints models with vast amounts of references to the same widespread ideas that appear repeatedly in said data, so because the model has "seen" probably millions of photos of Indiana Jones, if you ask for an image of an archeologist who wears a hat and uses a whip, it's weighted averages are going to lead it to create something extremely similar to Indiana Jones because it has seen…

> if you ask for an image of an archeologist who wears a hat and uses a whip, it's weighted averages are going to lead it to create something extremely similar to Indiana Jones because it has seen Indiana Jones so much. If you ask a human artist for an image of "an archeologist who wears a hat and uses a whip" you're also going to get something extremely similar to Indiana Jones unless you explicitly ask for somethin…

> But it's the person that causes the creation of the infringing material that is responsible for the infringement, not the machine or device itself.

That's simply not good enough. This is not merely a machine that can be misused if desired by a bad actor, this is a machine that specializes in infringement. It's a machine which is internally biased, by the nature of how it works, towards infringement, because it is inherently "copying:" It is copying the weighted averages of millions perhaps billions of training images, many of which depict similar things. No, it doesn't explicitly copy one Indiana Jones image or another: It copies a shit ton of Indiana Jones images, mushed together into a "new" image from a technical perspective, but will inherit all the most prominent features from all of those images, and thus: it remains a copy.

And if you want to disagree with this point, it'd be most persuasive then to explain why, if this is not the case, AI images regularly end up infringing on various aspects of various popular artworks, like characters, styles, intellectual properties, when those things are not being requested by the prompt.

> If you ask a human artist for an image of "an archeologist who wears a hat and uses a whip" you're also going to get something extremely similar to Indiana Jones unless you explicitly ask for something else.

No, you aren't, because an artist is a person that doesn't want to suffer legal consequences for drawing something owned by someone else. Unless you specifically commission "Indiana Jones fanart" I in fact, highly doubt you'll get something like him because an artist will want to use this work to promote their work to others, and unless you are driven to exist in the copyright gray area of fan created works, which is inherently legally dicey, you wouldn't do that.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#570
post #363

Adobe runs what must be one of the largest deceptive rebills. The vast majority of users signing up for a monthly plan do not realize that it is actually an "annual plan, billed monthly" and thus that if they cancel after one month (for example) they'll be billed for the remaining 11 immediately. I honestly don't know how they haven't faced FTC action for this, as it's been their primary model for 5-10 years now.

Yeah this is terrible, I remember for creative suite there used to be some weird workaround where you could switch your plan to the cheapest one (I think it was Photoshop+Lightroom) and then cancel, and then it would not charge you for the remaining time. I wonder if that still works.
Post reply on HN