I remember some email from them saying the Copilot was now on my plan, but I don't recall anything saying that this was actually a different, more expansive plan, or that Copilot was just a trial and the plan would switch until I took action, or anything like that.
Here's how to get back to your old plan:
• find the Services & Subscriptions page on your account and select Manage.
• click "Cancel Subscription".
• On the page that brings up there will be an option to switch to a different plan. That should have the "Personal Classic" plan. There's also "Family Classic" for people that want the family plan without Copilot.
Another way that some have reported works is to simply turn off recurring billing. That then sometimes triggers an offer to switch plans that includes the Classic plans.
My plan renewed back in May at the new rate. Microsoft did not advertise that there was any way to remain with the "Classic" plan. I've also never used the Copilot "features". I'd absolutely sign-on to a class action suit to get some money back. Even if it ends up just enriching the attorneys (which class actions inevitably do) Microsoft needs as much "correction" about this behavior as possible.
Months before the pricing change went into effect Microsoft sent me a detailed email about how to stay on the old pricing plan.
I don't appreciate being auto migrated, but they did originally provide instructions on how to not be migrated.
In addition to the Classic option that is shown only after hitting "Cancel", they also had a secret "Microsoft 365 Basic" option for $20/year. It includes no Office products, but provides 100 GB of OneDrive. Which is all I needed. So Microsoft is getting $20/year from me that they don't deserve.
Why do I pay them even $20/year? It's insurance against the same kind of BS from Google. I back up my Google Drive to OneDrive.
If you don't mind me asking, how long was it from switching until this happened?
Good move there, at least.
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nickdc_copilot-pro-is-no-more...
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nickdc_copilot-pro-is-no-more...
I'm well aware that companies are not your friends, and they are only in it to earn as much money as possible etc. But in the ideal world it should never be a consideration to willingly deceive your customers. Then something is wrong that needs fixing.
We need to end shareholder primacy and have stronger antitrust enforcement.
That case is from 1919 and it doesn't say what most people think it says.
The problem there was that Ford was trying to claim he could do whatever he wants because he has the most votes, minority shareholders be damned. In practice what companies do now is that they do whatever they want and come up with some explanation for why it's in the interest of the shareholders, e.g. charitable donations are tax deductions and strengthen the company's brand with customers, instead of explicitly telling the other shareholders to eat sand.
The real problem with modern companies is diffuse ownership. You invest your retirement money in some fund, the fund is the thing that actually elects the board and what the fund wants is to increase profits, and typically short-term profits at that, so they elect a board to do it and that's what happens. It's not because the law requires them to do that, it's because that's the result of that incentive structure. And then all the companies that you own as a shareholder are out there screwing you over by double when you're their customer.
Whereas if you have a company owned and operated by the same people, then they can say "hey wait a minute, this is only going to increase short-term profits by a small amount and it's going to make everyone hate us, maybe we shouldn't do it?" Which is the thing that's missing from large publicly-traded companies.
> stronger antitrust enforcement
This is the other thing that's missing. Even if companies are trying to screw you, if they have a lot of competition then they can't, because you'd just switch to one that isn't. But now try that in a market where there are only two incumbents and they're both content to pick your pocket as long as the other one is doing the same.
Unsurprisingly Friedman was lauded and rewarded for this behavior.
To be very clear:
Companies absolutely do not have any responsibility to maximize short-term profit.
They have a responsibility to not actively and intentionally destroy the company, and to not use the company's resources for purely personal gain in a way unrelated to the company.
That's it.
This is also why you never hear about any company getting sued for anything related to this (let alone succesfully). Because it doesn't happen, as it's not a thing and any lawyer would immediately tell you you don't have a case.
Behavior like what some of the tech giants do (and I don't crusade against "big tech" but individual cases are ridiculous) wouldn't be justified if you, like, wrote it down on a piece of paper and showed it to them, but they get away with it because you can just ignore all feedback, you don't have to actually answer support tickets from a distance of potentially hundreds of miles away (if you acted like that to my face, well, you wouldn't dare)
Some are worse than others; some legitimately just do not care how much evil they're pumping out into the world (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42651178)
I realised the last time I was in a major city (I live in a village) at night just how close we are, ebikes wizzing around with youngish adults wearing corporate logos all over themselves while using e-cigs, gangs of others waiting outside each restaurant for a pickup.
Straight out the opening of Snowcrash but without the cool car.
We really did invent Torment Nexus from the classic cautionary tale "Don't Create The Torment Nexus".
I love computers, I love programming (and have for 35 years), I really really am coming to detest larger and larger parts of the modern tech scene - consumer tech and the Microsoft/Meta/Googles of the world.
Turns out computers weren't different at all, they just hadn't caught the full attention of government and business yet.
I am an executive design leader and all hires from these three companies are screened in detail about their honesty level in their designs due to how many issues I have with these companies training their workers to lie.
If you work for them know that it’s a black mark on your record.
I have hired two from these companies who literally opened the interview with “I want to leave X because they literally are lying”
And it seems other companies see them and think "hey, can we do that as well?" (Like the issue of this article...)
Meta with its exploiting of children's (and adults') insecurities is probably worse though.
Enforcement agencies are asleep at the switch. Without any pressure to constrain them then these major corporations will stop at nothing.
> it should never be a consideration to willingly deceive your customers.
They don't see it that way. They just see it as a new profit stream that they're daring enough to capture.
Look I am computer savvy enough to "fix" Windows I can live with it but I advised my mom to get an Apple laptop.
They are not asleep. They were intentionally weakened, step by step.
I suppose since they're (they being Amazon, Meta, Google, Microsoft) helping pay for a ballroom for the biggest rug conman..
I decided to cancel anyway because I was still resentful.
Thing is, either $99 or $129 for the Family plan is actually quite reasonable, our family has 5 users. I just don't like giving money to deceitful or disrespectful companies.
If Microsoft had just kept the pricing the same as they had for many years, I almost certainly would have re-subscribed.
I _suspect_ they switched me from annual billing to monthly while I was updating, but the support chat guy said I was still annual. If it turns out he was wrong, I'm out.
How did you find out it was $30 more? Did they email you?
Thank you for being a valued Microsoft 365 subscriber. To reflect the value we’ve added over the past decade, address rising costs, and enable us to continue delivering new innovations, we’re increasing the price of your subscription.
Effective February 14, 2025, the price for Microsoft 365 Family subscriptions will increase from USD 99.99* per year to USD 129.99* per year. To continue with the new price, no action is needed—your payment method on file will be automatically charged. To make changes to your subscription plan or turn off recurring billing, visit your Microsoft account at least two days before your next billing date.
By maintaining your subscription, you’ll enjoy secure cloud storage, advanced security for your data and devices, and cutting-edge AI-powered features, along with all your other subscription benefits. Thank you for choosing Microsoft.
Learn more about how to manage your subscription, including how to cancel and switch your subscription.
* Subscription prices listed do not include any discounts, promotions, or special offers that may be available.
Even after putting their thumb on the scale, the numbers are still dismal. Not even a 2% conversion rate.
Are Microsoft just in to deep at this point? They killed one off their flagship brands (Office) in favour of Microsoft 365 Copilot, shouldn't someone be fired for that decision at this point?
I'm looking forward to the books and articles in 10 - 20 years time, attempting to explain what happened internally at Microsoft these past years.
Presumably the hyperscalers can begin conflating the number of “agents” created with “boring jobs eliminated” and thus herald the industrial revolution.
But first: Your subscription price is increasing and now includes 5 Agents.
My only worry is about the huge impact on rank and file employees when they issue the "we are re-aligning our strategic direction/priorities and we are focusing on effective resource utilization" pr statement.
For our company of >30 people this amounted to a ~$7k/mo increase.
I find this very infuriating, and I've stopped using MS for more than 10 years now. They used to be a proper software company, with their flows, of course, but quite professional in the great scheme of things. But what you're describing goes against everything that I've valued as a computer programmer when I entered this field of work ~20 years ago.
Never was. You probably got it installed by friendly it guy or the store was just installing pirated versions.
> Now it's a subscription product.
There is also pay once version. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/p/office-home-...
> But, $100/year for personal use??
The subscription comes with 1TB of OneDrive storage. Look up how much 1TB of storage costs usually
> What's so great about MS Office that LibreOffice can't do??
Work with spreadsheets more complicated than two cells.
I work with spreadsheets made of more than two cells with LibreOffice. The lack of dark patterns to trick me into cloud saving, ribbon with random buttons everywhere and animations makes everything feel much more comfortable to use.
Data linking a CSV in Excel opens a UI where it seems one can do many conversions and adjustments. It looks very powerful but it also makes it slow to link a CSV file. In LibreOffice it's less powerful but so much faster.
> Work with spreadsheets more complicated than two cells.
I use both daily. You're misrepresenting what LibreOffice can do; 99% of the people I see using excel are using the exact same 20% of its capabilities.
Quick-n-Dirty database that they can update during sales meetings and create charts from. You think another spreadsheet can't do that?
> The subscription comes with 1TB of OneDrive storage. Look up how much 1TB of storage costs usually
Depends on what kind of storage you need, of course, but I can get a 16TB (decimal) 3.5" USB hard drive for $250 on Amazon.
The features don't matter as long as people put up the price for what they require. The job of the salesman/marketing team is to bet on a balance that will net the company money. The features are just the sales pitch that convince you you need the latest and greatest (comparable to a sports car salesman selling you the new v8 model instead of the more economical v6).
It's potentially quite a bit more. TFA mentions another two penalties: "three times the total benefits that have been obtained and are reasonably attributable" (~2.5 million customers times $40+ for the difference in subscrptions times three is $300 million), or "30 per cent of the corporation’s adjusted turnover during the breach turnover period" if the preceding can't be reasonably calculated (I'm not going to dig through Microsoft's financial statements, but it's probably substantial.) The greatest of three is taken.
If you still think it's pocket change, the point of fines is not to bankrupt the company, but to lead them to less shitty behavior by disincentivizing the alternative. It takes a persistent effort and time.
That the opening figure is so high it's clear that if MS ever do it again the fine will be in the billions.
So you might even say it's actually a moderately strong statement by the Australian government that they're not playing around.
Even though it is still a relatively good deal for a Family Plan (compared to say Google Drive or Dropbox) for OneDrive, I finally dropped my Microsoft 365 Family plan.
The final straw was that the Copilot was completely unhelpful and hallucinated features Office portal does not have.
I believe Office 2016 is available in the shady corners of the Internet..
I got Microsoft's emails, did not want Microsoft's forced imposition of Copilot in my Office subscription (regardless of price), found the classic option mentioned in online forums, and managed to switch to it just before my renewal.
My 89 year old aunt on the other hand got stung for the unwanted forced upgrade. I had to call Microsoft, complained about them unfairly exploiting vulnerable customers, and eventually got a downgrade and the difference refunded.
What really annoys me about this - quite apart from the initial deception/misrepresentation - is I now expect Microsoft to pull similar tricks in future. A real disincentive to sign up to any other 'value-added' services.
Why make subscriptions so full of traps that consumers end up hating you? (Yes, I know, so some GM can hit this quarter's bonus)
That reminds me, having just cancelled Spotify (due to their price rise), Disney+ is next on the list. Maybe Netflix too.
We rarely use their services beyond email and storage so Microsoft was making free money; and for my family it was a nice to have Office on hand.
But I refuse to play their opt-out game.
The product is so good that they need to scam people into buying it.
It's really shitty that companies believe they can pull these stunts and get away with it.
They have gone after Airbnb / Airlines / Hotel Booking / Concert Tickets - for misleading conduct.
Especially business that use drip pricing (adding compulsory hidden fees later) or misleading prices like in the Microsoft case.
Anything sneaky - they're normally right on to it.
Microsoft used to have the motto "Where do you want to go today?". Seems like Copilot has decided we should all go to hell.
I refuse to play their opt out game.
You have choices. Make them.
