2 ms·

One time for my small business I shared a login with one of my employees and they tried to get us to buy some sort of Enterprise subscription because they claim

One time for my small business I shared a login with one of my employees and they tried to get us to buy some sort of Enterprise subscription because they claimed that dozens of IP addresses were logging into the account and when we refused they simply closed our account. We were paying like over $300 per month and not even using the full subscription limits... We ended up finding a cheaper solution and now just use AI images so yeah it was pretty dumb on their part.

jaynate 5mo ago
[flagged]
- weird-eye-issue 5mo ago
  I didn't use the service. Well sometimes I would log in just to check they were actively using it and seeing which images were licensed to make sure they weren't using it for other purposes (remote employee). Only my one employee actually used it. I think she used a VPN which is why they thought dozens of people were using it apparently. Regardless the only loser in all of this was Shutterstock... The only options they have is single seat or "talk to us" Enterprise level and for basically a one-person company using a virtual assistant we pretty much fall through the cracks there.
- margalabargala 5mo ago
  It's not predatory, it's just Shutterstock being shitty. And in this case, self-destructive. Shutterstock should care how much OP paid, because if they were paying a subscription and not maxing it out, Shutterstock lost money because they had a draconian TOS that they aggressively enforced to their own detriment.
  - weird-eye-issue 5mo ago
    Yes exactly it's not like it's unlimited downloads we had a fixed amount of images per month
    - s1artibartfast 5mo ago
      Why is number of images more 'real' than number of users? What is your strategy for all you can eat buffets?
      - ktallett 5mo ago
        That's a different scenario. All you can eat buffets people will turn up and all eat a similar amount. At a company, multiple people will want to logon and look but fundamentally the only entity that needs to download is the business. Each staff member won't each be downloading similar numbers of photos. It makes more sense just to have multiple access points to one fixed account.
        s1artibartfast 5mo ago
        Most companies will happily sell you an Enterprise license or floating seats for a different price.
      - weird-eye-issue 5mo ago
        That's a terrible analogy because an all you can eat buffet is effectively unlimited but as I already mentioned the number of images was limited. Your comparison is actually more like if you just ordered a regular meal and then shared it between two people which is allowed... Also I should note that users are a useful concept for businesses so that they can manage usage and things like access control easily but for me I didn't need that so a single user was sufficient.
- Citizen_Lame 5mo ago
  Show some manners.

jaynate 5mo ago

[flagged]

weird-eye-issue 5mo ago
I didn't use the service. Well sometimes I would log in just to check they were actively using it and seeing which images were licensed to make sure they weren't using it for other purposes (remote employee). Only my one employee actually used it. I think she used a VPN which is why they thought dozens of people were using it apparently. Regardless the only loser in all of this was Shutterstock... The only options they have is single seat or "talk to us" Enterprise level and for basically a one-person company using a virtual assistant we pretty much fall through the cracks there.
margalabargala 5mo ago
It's not predatory, it's just Shutterstock being shitty. And in this case, self-destructive. Shutterstock should care how much OP paid, because if they were paying a subscription and not maxing it out, Shutterstock lost money because they had a draconian TOS that they aggressively enforced to their own detriment.
- weird-eye-issue 5mo ago
  Yes exactly it's not like it's unlimited downloads we had a fixed amount of images per month
  - s1artibartfast 5mo ago
    Why is number of images more 'real' than number of users? What is your strategy for all you can eat buffets?
    - ktallett 5mo ago
      That's a different scenario. All you can eat buffets people will turn up and all eat a similar amount. At a company, multiple people will want to logon and look but fundamentally the only entity that needs to download is the business. Each staff member won't each be downloading similar numbers of photos. It makes more sense just to have multiple access points to one fixed account.
      - s1artibartfast 5mo ago
        Most companies will happily sell you an Enterprise license or floating seats for a different price.
    - weird-eye-issue 5mo ago
      That's a terrible analogy because an all you can eat buffet is effectively unlimited but as I already mentioned the number of images was limited. Your comparison is actually more like if you just ordered a regular meal and then shared it between two people which is allowed... Also I should note that users are a useful concept for businesses so that they can manage usage and things like access control easily but for me I didn't need that so a single user was sufficient.
Citizen_Lame 5mo ago
Show some manners.