6 ms·
This fix seems a little lackluster. It would seem more upstanding to honor the agreement they had made, and collected money for: i.e. let the 71 users continue
by magicseth 14y ago
This fix seems a little lackluster. It would seem more upstanding to honor the agreement they had made, and collected money for: i.e. let the 71 users continue the delivery-fee-free plan (with no minimum) for the end of the term.
- tptacek 14y agoIt does not seem reasonable for a tiny startup to accept an unbounded downside risk just for PR purposes. The refund they're offering is fine.
- magicseth 14y agoI don't think it's just for PR purposes, but I understand your concern of an unbounded downside. Even a few free deliveries would be something. They were caught having made a mistake: unilaterally changing the terms of a renewing contract without written notice. The bare minimum they can do is to offer a refund. Mistake or no mistake, if their goal is to "always try to go the extra mile," they are failing to do so here.
- asperous 14y agoThe bare minimum they can do is nothing, offering a refund on all of the delivery charges is an important step above, but offering a refund on the entire service so far?! That's quite an extra mile.
- magicseth 14y agoI'm afraid I didn't make it clear. I meant a refund for the most recent $99 auto renew charge that had changed the terms of service without notifying the customers.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y agoNo, Instacart made an agreement which they need to honor more faithfully. If the 71 customers had decided to change the terms of a business agreement similarly, their accounts would probably be closed and referred for debt-collection. The fact that Instacart is a tiny startup has no bearing on whether they should honor their agreements.
- robryan 14y agoWhat is the agreement that they are honoring in this case? They didn't have a plan for further $35 subscription, people were either moving to the more expensive subscription or canceling. Allowing the customers who weren't aware to retrospectively cancel and also keep any value of the service they already used seems fair.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago> First, we’re going to refund all delivery fees paid by the people affected by this bug. I think I misunderstood that the first time, or just plain missed it. I'd be okay with it as long as what I quoted above means what I think it means.
- tptacek 14y agoThat is not a reasonable demand.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y agoYou can repeat that until you are blue in the face if you like. That won't make it a true. It is ludicrous to modify a business agreement without actually giving notice, and expect to keep the proceeds of that mistake.
- tptacek 14y agoSo, the pricing model as suicide pact principle.
- mikeash 14y agoIf they no longer want to offer a free tier, they're free to end it. I don't think anyone is proposing otherwise. They are not, however, free to unilaterally move people to a tier that costs money and start charging them without an explicit agreement.
- anoopelias 14y agoWhat about one of them 71, whose credit card got overcharged because they weren't expecting another $99 on their statement?
- ryanglasgow 14y agoThey're a startup that's experimenting with different pricing models. If a plan they introduce isn't financially viable, it's unrealistic to expect them to continue to honor it otherwise they would drive themselves out of business b/c of failed experiments.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y agoAt the least, the 71 need to be refunded the delivery charges, without question or hesitation.
- parfe 14y agoFirst, we’re going to refund all delivery fees paid by the people affected by this bug. The post specifically says it.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y agoThanks, I missed it the first time.