> It doesn't work like this because deceiving people is good for business. I think it is a bit more nuanced than that. Business isn’t purely about making money

> It doesn't work like this because deceiving people is good for business. I think it is a bit more nuanced than that. Business isn’t purely about making money, it is about exchange of value. It doesn’t work like that because people don’t think Adobe products provide the value Adobe wants to charge for. If adobe credibly believed that their annual plan for their products was worth what they’re charging, they would not hide the pricing. So “it doesn’t work like this because deceiving people is good for” _accumulating capital_. This is happening a lot. The Burning Man organization used a dark pattern to attempt to withhold ticket refunds last year. The burning man org made refunds something you had to request, then sign in, and opt out again in or lose all of it. They increased the minimum amount you could donate during the refund period and said the money was to “save” the event. Then they turned around and applied for the max PPP loans. [1] https://www.burn.life/blog/interview-with-the-ceo-of-burning-man-marian-goodell https://www.burn.life/blog/interview-with-the-ceo-of-burning... WinRed, a political organization in support of the former president, used a series of increasingly deceptive interface patterns that have provably awful publicly disclosed refund rates. They also used increasingly deceptive interface methods and emotional statements to sell the idea. [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/us/politics/trump-donations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/us/politics/trump-donatio... If anything Adobe should be regarded for only using deceptive financial practices and not trying to sell some sad story if we don’t give it to them.