I paid the “one time fee” to be able to remove the minute restriction, AND to be able to stream my server remotely to myself when I’m not at the house. Now in some sort of loophole wording, and contract update, all these prices go up and my remote streaming feature doesn’t exist with less than a 60 day notice. I think people who PAID the “ONE TIME FEE” should be grandfathered in. If this doesn’t change, I’ll be swapping to a different software. 
2 Likes
How much was the one-time fee?
I doubt the new pricing will change.
Doesn’t matter. One-time fee was supposed to be one time, not recurring monthly.
2 Likes
The one-time activation‘s sole purpose was to remove the 1-minute playback restriction on the mobile apps.
This no longer applies to the new mobile Plex apps (no more 1-minute playback restriction).
What if I’ve already paid the one-time mobile app activation fee?
For users who have already paid a one-time, in-app activation for either our mobile Android or iOS app, an extended trial for the new Remote Watch Pass subscription is available. To make use of it, you need to:
- Start your Remote Watch Pass subscription through our mobile app.
- Make sure it is on the same mobile platform where the original purchase was made (e.g., iOS/iPadOS if your activation was through the App Store).
- Ensure you’re using the same app store account that made the original purchase (e.g., the same Apple ID).
Example: If you originally did a one-time activation of our iOS app, then you need to use our new mobile app on an iOS/iPadOS device to start a Remote Watch Pass billed through the App Store, while signed in to the same Apple ID that made the original purchase.
1 Like
I realize you’re just stating the facts from Plex’s point of view and presentation… but functionally, because of the changes Plex has made recently a “one time mobile app use fee” has become a “subscription fee” for same functionality. The one time fee made it possible to use the mobile app to stream content anywhere. The distinction between mobile and home streaming wasn’t a thing until the new subscription model was invented for remote streaming to now be behind a paywall; so the words being used to say the 1 minute streaming restriction was removed so no fee required anymore are accurate… they are disingenuous. The 1 minute streaming restriction was removed for at home streaming but a new subscription was added for remote streaming where in the past the one-time fee covered both home and remote because there wasn’t a distinction… until the new remote streaming subscription model was invented.
I think it’s fair for those to have paid for it to be grandfathered in - and likely Plex considered it and then ditched it after doing math about the fact that anybody who quit over the new fee weren’t going to pay the subscription anyways so no loss and most folks will likely pay it to keep watching the product they’ve already invested their time in setting up.
Sorry I know I kinda did a recursive statement in there but I think it helps express my point. 
It just comes across as sketchy business practice treating customers as resources rather than appreciated users and Plex didn’t used to be this way; it’s too bad so many businesses do this stuff.
@tom80H … just doing your job here and you’re providing Plex’s stance about this so nothing against you at all here. Just expressing where the frustration on some of this stuff is coming from in case it helps maybe change some things. Maybe.
3 Likes
Either way you look at it, the money spent on the one-time fee isn’t given back, it’s transferred into an “extended subscription trial” which I wouldn’t have done anyways. Not to mention an email warning with less than 60 days isn’t a great way to let a community of people know that things are changing. None of these changes were in the interface, and I don’t check my email too often, especially when it’s mixed in with all of the junk mail. This just seems like the start of a paywall that will go up and lead to price increases and probably eventually advertisements just to use your own server for sure as shows and features are added to plex. I had paid to watch MY library of videos wherever I wanted without restrictions, not the live TV and on-demand stuff that was added. There is other software that I can use, so looks like I will be switching. I think it would be fair to offer a version of plex “free version” where you can stream your own library(regardless of location) and cut all that other crap out. Oh well. ggs. Bye Plex 
You used to be such a good UI
3 Likes
They are. They get a extended trial period for the remote pass which ends up saving them slightly more than the cost of the one-time fee.
I don’t see where it says how long that extended trial period is… but either way, the phrase “trial period” indicates it is temporary and will require a charge at the end of that period.
Getting an extended trial period of previous functionality is not the same as being “grandfathered in” to that functionality. It could be called an allowance or extension or benefit provided in consideration, but trying to make the case that a temporary extension is the same as being “grandfathered in” at the very least would be, again, disingenuous.
1 Like
Right, which morphs a “one time fee” into an unwanted $1.99 subscription. Hence the name of the title of the post.
1 Like
No. It removed the one minute playback restriction. Which was active anywhere you were trying to play – remote or local.
No more disingenuous than claiming that removing a one-minute playback limit is the same thing as remote streaming and paying a fee for the former should exempt you from the latter.
The one-time fee was very specific in what it did. There is no longer a limit, but Plex have recognised the people that did previously pay the fee by providing a reduced price trial for the remote watch pass (which handily is, for all intents, the same price as the one-time fee). If they don’t stream remotely then great there’s nothing more they need to do. If they do stream remotely then they don’t end up any worse off than anyone else.
1 Like
All of that sounds like a bunch of wording loopholes that takes away why people payed the one time fee in the first place. For the ability to remotely stream FROM ANYWHERE WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS. Instead it’s “oh, we’ll take the restriction away, so now you have to pay to be elsewhere.” It’s ridiculous and greedy. Doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it. Might as well just look into a streaming service at that point and NEW software that does what Plex USED to do for FREE.
You might have paid thinking that it was for remote streaming, but that’s not what it was. It was always to remove the one minute playback limit, which applied to all streaming. It was also specific to the mobile apps. That’s not the case for remote streaming which will incur a fee across all apps.
Again, that is not what the original one-time fee was advertised to do. I haven’t found any mention of “remote” with that one-time fee in older documentations.
It was simply to remove the one-minute playback limitation of the legacy app.
Not more, not less.
1 Like
Exactly that… functionality and what was covered previously and what is covered today changed but folks are trying to make a past decision and setup fit a new narrative and model. I get why the employees are doing it - that’s their job - just not sure why customers\users are defending it too. That’s why I’m not saying it’s “lying” or nefarious … it’s just … kinda … not a great choice in managing it. It’s business logic with some legalese and PR management.
Personally, no matter if I agree with the business change, it would feel better to me just being upfront and saying “we needed to increase revenue so this is our new model, sorry to those who paid the one-time fee - we’ll give you an extended trial to sort this out for yourself for the remote streaming and folks will get at home streaming for free now” instead of trying to frame the new model as a benefit for the consumer when the previous one time fee - which covered all streaming home or remote no matter how it’s being phrase now - was cheaper in the long run for the consumer.
Ultimately Plex kinda split the difference here a bit in a way (particularly from their view I’d say)… but I don’t like getting an unapologetic response when customers are expressing what ultimately amounts to an unexpected increase in costs for them.
2 Likes
Well, this is the Feedback forum right? So my feedback is that using misleading marketing and making people pay and subscribe to something that was INCLUDED and SHOULD ALWAYS BE FREE is bad business practice and shouldn’t be allowed. Not interested in all that technicality mess y’all are talking. It is what it is. Looks bad on ya’ll for defending that. Some people spent a lot of money building up servers and paying a one time fee to use this UI without restrictions. Adding restrictions and making ppl pay isn’t the answer here.
That’s exactly what they did…
Not trying to pick on you specifically here OttoKerner - just using your example of the copy that being repeated.
I think this is part of where I have a problem. The fee was advertised the way it was at the time without mentioning “remote streaming” because there wasn’t a need to make a distinction between home or remote. No need to say “unlocks 1 minute of playback from home network and remote stream” because the fee covered all playback scenarios. It’s only now that there’s a difference in business model between home and remote streaming that costs are defined by adding home or remote terms. It feels like people are trying to apply a distinct language choice from today’s new environment about split home and remote cost considerations to a past environment where it was all one and the same but saying it somehow applied then too.
Let’s say you bought a car years ago and it required $5 one time fee to unlock driving more than 1 mile - so you paid that fee. Then 5 years later they said “now you don’t have to pay $5 to drive as much as you want on local roads but you have to pay $2 monthly subscription to drive on interstates” and applied it to the car you already paid that fee on years ago thus limiting how you’ve been using the car for years. Then if you say to them “but I paid $5 to drive everywhere” the response was “we said you could drive more than 1 mile … we never said it paid for driving on the interstate” even though by paying the fee you could drive on the interstate and now not paying the new fee means you can’t. Not a perfect analogy but close enough I think?
The phrases used originally had an inclusivity about driving on the interstate but now Plex reps (and users for some reason) are saying that there was somehow always a known exclusivity about interstate driving. The words aren’t lies really… but it’s not coming across as good faith statements.
Plus saying “we did everyone a favor by removing that fee” to people who already paid it…?
It is playing with language in a way that is, in many people’s view - including mine - kinda “business practice slimy”. It’s accepted in business circles - particularly investor circles - but really customers are starting to get tired of it. It’s just a poor choice on how to handle the situation.
Plex knew that with this change some folks would incur a new additional cost to continue using Plex the way they have been for years. It would have been more considerate to handle those folks with more empathy about it rather than coming up with PR language games with what comes off as massaged copy from the legal dept.
Second thing…
You cherry picked a partial line there and by leaving off the rest of it, from my perspective, you’re kinda making my point about bad faith responses. Maybe my point wasn’t as clear as I thought.
Edit:
Just wanna say I am not trying to win an argument or anything here about the fees themselves… just how it feels like it’s being “managed” poorly. I think it could be “managed” better.
5 Likes
I didn’t need to include the rest of it. The point was you said they should’ve done a certain thing and that’s what they did. They said they were implementing a new subscription because they needed revenue. They also offered an extended trial for those who’d previously paid for the unlock. The only ‘framing’ as a benefit was that there is now no time limit on playback so mobile apps can be used for free to stream locally. That is a benefit.
I think the whole extra free for remote streaming would be more acceptable if the Plex apps hadn’t been so butchered at the same time. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot…
I also wonder how many users have signed up for the $1.99/month and don’t actually need to be spending that (because the server they are connecting to has a Plex Pass) - just horrible messaging all around.
3 Likes
