When you sign up you agree to the fee being broken up in installments. I think they have spelled it out pretty clearly, actually one could consider it ‘free’ financing in a sense. While I don’t like what they have done I don’t see what the big deal is with it.
It seems like even the original post isn't suggesting that what they are doing is illegal, just scummy. I think it straddles the line of false advertising since it is pretty clear by looking at the market of subscriptions that there is a decent premium for a monthly vs. a yearly subscription.
As a point of reference, World of Warcraft offers about a 10% discount for their 6 month subscription plan compared to the month to month plan. Additionally, they have pretty consistently offered one free item from the store (which they choose) for players on the 6 month plan. The last such item was a mount which must otherwise be purchased for $25 (obviously the true value to 6 month subscribers is lower than $25 due to bundling and since subscribers don't get to choose which item they receive).
I don't understand what's scummy about this. Every service out there offers discounted prices for longer-term contracts since they are guaranteed a sustained future income. If they didn't have a penalty for breaking the contract then everyone would just game the system.
What should they do instead? Not have the annual payment option and screw over all the people who do want to pay for the entire year and are happy with the discount?
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not against longer term contracts, but Adobe's marketing only advertises "monthly" prices which are really the yearly contract paid out monthly. They apparently have three separate tiers: actual monthly (most expensive, not advertised), yearly but paid monthly, and yearly charged yearly (also not advertised very well).
We also can't ignore the environment around subscription payments. If many other SaaS companies offered similar yearly but paid monthly plans, I think Adobe CC plans would be less problematic.
I'm definitely not against yearly plans, but this is unnecessarily confusing. If the advertising were honest, it would be more clear that this is a loan/lease agreement or they would advertise the real yearly cost/real monthly plans instead of this weird hybrid plan.
Personally, I think they should simply sell the product rather than rent seeking. Perhaps combined with some sort of rent to own option for people who are unable to make a single upfront purchase.
Rent seeking? Seriously? You realize that rent seeking actually has a definition and it isn't "any business model I don't like" . This is the opposite of rent seeking, you pay for a monthly subscription to a product line that keeps getting updated and supported. That's a directly & mutually beneficial transaction.
Take video editing as an example. The tech it involves (such tracking or object detection) usually improves pretty quickly and the improvement can be drastic . Not having to shell out hundreds of dollars outright every new CS version just to keep up with the tech is a pretty big benefit for a lot of people and makes the ecosystem more accessible. That's true for almost every other software included in the Adobe subscription.
Now, it's absolutely okay to still dislike subscription based business models (I do too) but in this case it's non sense to argue it's rent seeking.
If the updates and support were valuable to people, then Adobe could simply charge for them directly (e.g. by requiring users to periodically pay a fee to upgrade to the updated version). Instead they only allow people to buy a subscription.
Photoshop is overall a lot cheaper under the subscription model than it was before. A boxed copy used to cost $800-$1000 (in 90s/00s dollars). Even if you skipped some versions and upgraded every 3ish years, it would come to ~$300-$350/yr. You can get an annual subscription today for $240/yr. And that's without factoring in inflation and the fact that you can just pay for a month or two of use if you want. And you're always on the latest version.
It’s not clear. I went to sign up once and was looking for text like this and could not find it. I didn’t sign up because everyone says it’s impossible to cancel later, and I was worried I missed something in the terms
1. Annual Plan paid monthly ($9.99 * 12 = $119.88)
2. Annual plan prepaid $119.88
So no discount. The wording might have been poor before because I remember when I first signed up i didn't know they only had yearly plans but at least now it's pretty clear
This: https://imgur.com/a/yQFQRKF is what you see when looking at prices and after clicking Buy Now. It says "annual plan, paid monthly", but doesn't state the fee, it vaguely mentions the price. Clicking 'learn more' does not tell you the fee.
The word "annual" doesn't even appear on the first screen anywhere. It's even very easy to miss the word "annual" on the little dropdown on the checkout screen (2nd screenshot). If you are in a rush, it's VERY easy to see numerous line items for "$___/mo" and miss the single instance of the word "annual" in this entire checkout flow.
Where is the link to an agreement that the user has to read to even complete this purchase? Is it just on another step elsewhere in the process?
When I read "Annual plan, paid monthly" I expect to be on the hook for the whole year. I wouldn't even assume that there is an option to cancel early.
Apparently the early cancellation fee is 50% of your remaining subscription fees. In other words it's an improvement to the actual terms I signed up for when I agreed to be committed for 1 year. I dont see why Adobe needs to explicitely "warn" customers about an option that is actually beneficial to them (the users, not Adobe).
Perhaps this is a country/regional thing, but I definitely do not expect to be on the hook for the whole year. In Australia it's quite common to have phone/power/gas/insurance plans that are 1/2 year contracts, but to cancel it you pay a small fee.
If fact, when I think about things I currently pay for, none of them work like Adobe's contract.
- I have a 1 year contract with my energy provider, the cancel fee is ~$45 and I must give them 20 days notice
- My phone has a 24 month plan, to cancel I pay any remaining phone/accessory payments and nothing for the plan, that's it
- My car insurance is paid annually in advance. If I cancel 6 months in they charge a $40 fee and refund me the pro-rata amount for the remaining six months
My point is Adobe could be upfront and clearer with the overall pricing, terms, renewals, and cancel fees — I don't think they are at all.
It might indeed be a regional thing and I'm not saying that early cancelation is unheard of, but to me it wouldn't be an expectation. Anyway, just a few thoughts:
> In Australia it's quite common to have phone/power/gas/insurance plans that are 1/2 year contracts, but to cancel it you pay a small fee.
> - I have a 1 year contract with my energy provider, the cancel fee is ~$45 and I must give them 20 days notice.
Depending on how small the fee is it sounds as if this renders the concept of a half (or full) year contract worthless.
> My phone has a 24 month plan, to cancel I pay any remaining phone payments, that's it
Doesn't paying the remaining payments mean that you actually pay the full price as agreed to when you signed up? If so, how is Adobe's cancelation fee not an improvement? It is smaller than the remaining payments after all.
> My point is Adobe could be upfront and clearer with the overall pricing, terms, renewals, and cancel fees — I don't think they are at all.
I still disagree. If I sign up for an annual subscription I have no expactation of getting out of it early. That's what the monthly subscription is for. If they offer a way to cancel early despite my annual commitment that's a bonus which can be advertised, but doesn't have to be (again, why should they? That's what the monthly subscription is for).
> it clearly says "annual plan, paid monthly" which is what you are signing up for, a year long obligation, with installment payments.
It seems that a lot of people in this thread don’t seem to know the fundamental principle of contracts: Pacta sunt servanda, i.e. contracts are supposed to be fulfilled.
It goes month to month after 12 months, it doesn't stop, but I grant you sure they could make their own deals sound less appealing, but without a law forcing them too, they aren't going to.
This right below the button you press to start your subscription.
By clicking "Agree and subscribe," you agree: You will be charged US$52.99 (plus tax) monthly and at the end of your one-year term, your subscription will automatically renew monthly until you cancel (price subject to change). No annual commitment required after the first year. Cancel anytime via Adobe Account or Customer Support. Cancel before Apr 26, 2021 to get a full refund and avoid a fee. You also agree to the Terms of Use and the Subscription and Cancellation Terms.
I mean, at some point, you are responsible for the financial transaction you make, this person that is playing the victim in this case had several chances to see what they were purchasing. They wanted a lower price, and signed up for it, they are acting like they are a victim of some trickery.
They made a mistake, adobe honored the subscription, and they should too, take it as a life lesson to pay more attention before obligating themselves.
People need to learn to treat transactions and contracts as a hostile situation and they can easily do themselves great harm by blindly ignoring the terms of a deal and some how thing it will be to their benefit.
This could be a country specific thing but Adobe’s Australian site does not say that at all, quite the opposite. It doesn’t even state the monthly price in the terms, just refers to them.
> “ Your subscription will automatically renew annually without notice until you cancel. You authorize us to store your payment method(s) and to automatically charge your payment method(s) every month until you cancel. We will automatically charge you the then-current rate for your plan, plus applicable taxes (such as VAT or GST if the rate does not include it), every month of your annual contract until you cancel.”
Adobe will renew it for another year at whatever rate they choose without notice.
I agree people should be more responsible in general with contracts, but it should be standardised. Australia’s design for the critical information sheet is great, it clearly shows what your paying, for how long, and for what. It’s got a similar design across companies too.
I believe with any contract that involves money over time, the total amount (including any fees) should be clear. I don’t think Adobe has made them clear.
I do note that the contract terms differ country to country so this might be more/less applicable to some. The part you quoted seems more reasonable.
> This could be a country specific thing but Adobe’s Australian site does not say that at all, quite the opposite.
Nope, perfectly normal business practice and not even unethical.
Please learn and understand how contracts work. They are a legal _obligation_ and you cannot just unilaterally change the conditions after signing a contract without provoking a contract penalty.
It’s really just how contracts work, everywhere in the world.
Contracts that involve money over time should state the exact amount you are obligated to pay in total, including any and all fees. Adobe does not currently do that. In Australia at least, they can renew your annual contract at a higher rate without notice. That's not OK with me.
The fact that you defend this practice shows where our ethics differ. I do not know how you can justify: A company signing you up for another year at a higher rate without telling you.
> Contracts that involve money over time should state the exact amount you are obligated to pay in total, including any and all fees. Adobe does not currently do that. In Australia at least, they can renew your annual contract at a higher rate without notice. That's not OK with me.
It was shown in screenshots in the Twitter thread that Adobe _actually_ does that.
> The fact that you defend this practice shows where our ethics differ. I do not know how you can justify: A company signing you up for another year at a higher rate without telling you.
So, you think it's justified to punish Adobe for the negligence of the customer?
Both Adobe _and_ the customer have the duty to study a mutual contract before signing it. Not reading what you are signing can also backfire for companies:
Not OP, and I agree that they should include the total payment expected but at this point the goalposts have moved from "adobe charges subscription cancellation fee" to "adobe doesn't show the difference between monthly and annual" to " adobe only shows the difference on the actual payment page" to" adobe doesn't display the annual total on the payment page".
Im no adobe apologist, but this entire thread is a witch hunt.
"adobe charges subscription cancellation fee" —
Adobe do not tell you how much the fee is ahead of time. In the conditions of the Australian purchasing page, the monthly price isn't even written in them. They can also renew it for another year while increasing the price without telling you.
"adobe doesn't show the difference between monthly and annual", and "adobe doesn't display the annual total on the payment page" —
They don't show you total price that you are committing to, they don't show you minimum amount to you must pay if you cancel.
All of this could be solved by saying "You are agreeing to pay a total of $923.88 over 12 months at $76.99 per-month. If you cancel, the minimum cost to you is $461.94 (50% of the total Annual plan), this decreases evenly each month.
> All of this could be solved by saying "You are agreeing to pay a total of $923.88 over 12 months at $76.99 per-month. If you cancel, the minimum cost to you is $461.94 (50% of the total Annual plan), this decreases evenly each month.
And presumably this must be on primary pricing page, not below the fold, have different options for with and without vat, and they must display this for the up-front annual sub, pay-monthly annual sub, and monthly sub with no commitment? The monthly sub needs to be clear that you're actually not signing up for 12 months, because you may only want/need it for 6 months rather than 12, so the other options need a monthly equivalent breakdown for comparison? FWIW, I did a super quick inline edit of Adobe's HTML to show what that looks like [0].
Also, the $461.94 is actually the _maximum_ cost, not the minimum.
> Adobe do not tell you how much the fee is ahead of time.
Yes, they do. [1] clearly says " If you cancel within 14 days of your initial order, you’ll be fully refunded. Should you cancel after 14 days, you’ll be charged a lump sum amount of 50% of your remaining contract obligation and your service will continue until the end of that month’s billing period.". There is so much detail in that page, it would be impossible to put all of that on the purchase page without being accused of burying it in the fine print.
> They can also renew it for another year while increasing the price without telling
This is exactly what I'm talking about - you're moving the goalposts here. We're talking about adobe's cancellation fees, not their renewal policy. I'm not defending their renewal policy, it's awful, but it's off topic.
> They don't show you total price that you are committing to, they don't show you minimum amount to you must pay if you cancel.
You're right, they should show it. They _do_ have it linked at [2]/[3] where they clearly show the annual cost, and the option to pay it monthly.
> they don't show you minimum amount to you must pay if you cancel.
Lets assume they _did_ show that amount. Reading this thread, are you telling me that people wouldn't find another axe to grind? e.g. "They don't make it clear that they can autorenew at a higher price". So now they need to add _every_ detail to the purchasing pages, where they're now accused of burying it in the fine print. But the reason they don't is because the amount is "50% of your remaining obligation", which is a minimum of 1/24th of the annual sum, which is misleading to display. What they _do_ do is clearly show you how much they'll charge you to cancel before you actually do so.
> And presumably this must be on primary pricing page, not below the fold
It just has to be before you commit to the contract.
> Yes, they do. [1] clearly says
No, that page shows no prices whatsoever. Your minimum commitments should be shown before you agree to the contract.
People keep making it out like it's some huge imposition on companies to tell customer how much money they'll pay. Here's an example of a more complicated flow from an Australian phone carrier Telstra, purchasing a phone over 24 months: https://imgur.com/a/XycFkyP — it's possible, Adobe are lazy and this is a dark pattern.
> It just has to be before you commit to the contract.
But then the other half [0] of this thread that claim putting the dropdown on the second page isn't enough.
> No, that page shows no prices whatsoever.
It states you can cancel and will be charged 50% of the remaining balance. That number depends on when you cancel, so it's not possible to give an actual figure to it. Could that flow be improved? Sure, you could have a page per product, but I do'nt think it's deceitful to have a clear link to the cancellation terms of the contract from both the marketing page _and_ the purchase page.
> Your minimum commitments should be shown before you agree to the contract.
One click on the purchase page shows this [1] which shows three options, one for prepaid, one for annual for paid monthly, and one for monthly. How much clearer do you want it?
> Here's an example of a more complicated flow from an Australian phone carrier Telstra,
That flow is almost identical to Adobe's - it doesn't show you the actual cost to the customer, it shows you the cost of the device, and separately the cost of the subscription. On the cancellation terms page, it also tells you you will be due "the full amount" - not what the amount is. (Unrelated, that's a nice recording).
This stuff is _hard_, yes adobe could do better, but at a certain point, you have to accept that the user understands the terms of what they're agreeing to. An "Annual Plan, paid monthly" couldn't really be any clearer.
How is it deceptive? They don't even need to let you cancel if they don't want. The point of the annual plan is that you're accepting the obligation of paying for a full year.
Determine the root of what gives you anx, is it the not working, not being able to provide, keeping the family afloat? Ways to manage it: Live below your means, diversity your family employment, meaning see if your spouse can be in a different industry that has a different risk profile and save for the rainy day. The feeling won’t ever go away but you can do your best to prep for worst.
Lastly, keep your eyes and ears open. If your company is struggling change jobs on your terms before you take the hit. Good luck.
Over the last year or two I have noticed that a bit more care and scrutiny needs to be put in to a seller and product review before I make my one click purchase. Overall I do think they would get more out of me as a consumer if the market place was a bit more locked down. In some ways it's starting to look like ebay or aliexpress
I only got hit by that recently. A few of items in my "Save for later" list dropped price one day early this month. I purchased them on a whim one day without thinking too hard...one item was successfully shipped to a totally different state. Another 2 were listed with 3-4 day shipping estimates but were given chinese tracking numbers many days after they were supposed to arrive with no status updates or seller communication. One just got an update 2 weeks after initial delivery date...the one amazon put a pay hold on. I'm guessing best case its a wrong/counterfeit item. The other 2 have alreay been refunded by amazon.
One possible solution is to have a business partner in the US manage this part of the business. I'd be interested in learning more about what you are doing.
Perhaps this is not the answer you are looking for but I wouldn't start a business just based on how much money I had in my pocket. I'd start a business based on what markets are within my reach, based on connections, skills etc..
I agree that just having the capital alone is not enough reason to start a business.
I was asking more along the lines of, "what controversial/high risk business have you always wanted to start, but that requires a lot of starting capital?"
(Purely software startups probably don't fall into that category)
I'm actually a YNAB user. My wife and I started using it recently and really enjoy application. The budgeting system works perfect but there are a few features I wish it did have.
1. Target goals - Take the thinking out of saving for a target, you should be able to tell the system I want to save x in y time and it should tell you exactly what you need and if you adjust your budget when the new target date will be.
2. I want to be able to enter my bills into the system when the arrive at my house and have it remind me to pay them X days before they are due. I don't want the paper bills sitting on / in my desk until I pay them (QuickBooks can do this).
I believe Dave Ramsey and his people have put this together is free unless you want bank connection BUT still makes the end user think and do some work. I a totally automated system is BAD as people put their fiances on autopilot.. this SHOULD require some work.
