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.
