Cricut Hastily Walks Back Plan To Charge Cutting Machine Owners $10/Month To Fully Use Their Purchases
from the lol-check-out-these-Cricut-tools dept
Cricut -- the leading brand of home use CNC machines -- has decided to alienate the people you'd think it would most want to embrace: its paying customers. Cricut machines allow users to upload designs and put their machines to work cutting materials from paper to cloth to metal to whatever will fit into the machines, giving hobbyists and craftmakers control of a small-scale manufacturing operation. They're pretty amazing. And they're pretty expensive.
They're also subject to a whole lot of rules -- some written and some unwritten. Cricut has made efforts to lock competitors out of the market by limiting cutting tool compatibility and restricting sheet size to increase sales of its own line of Cricut raw materials. Most designer paper comes in a standard 8.5" x 11" size. Sheet size in Cricuts is limited to 6.75" x 9.25", meaning off-the-rack, non-Circut-branded papers are about 20% useless.
Things like this help Cricut make the most of its multiple revenue streams. Cricut has apparently decided it has at least one too few revenue streams. As Hackaday reports, the company is now asking customers who've purchased printers to start paying the company in exchange for the privilege of fully utilizing their purchases.
[Cricut] has dropped a bombshell in the form of an update to the web-based design software that leaves their now very annoyed users with a monthly upload limit of 20 new designs unless they sign up for a Cricut Access Plan that costs $9.99 on monthly payments. Worse still, a screenshot is circulating online purporting to be from a communication with a Cricut employee attempting to clarify matters, in which it is suggested that machines sold as second-hand will be bricked by the company.
Well, that's at least two levels of suck contained in a single announcement. First, the decision to hit people who've already shelled out hundreds or thousands to Cricut with perpetual fees is inexplicable. Cricut isn't the only cutter on the market and a move like this just talks loyal users out of their loyalty and encourages them to explore their options. In exchange for smaller fees, Cricut seems willing to watch thousands of dollars exit the market for their competitors.
Second, the bricking of secondhand devices is pure bullshit. A Cricut is a Cricut. Anyone who bought one should have the right to sell it. And anyone buying one from a former user should rightfully expect it will be fully functional, not bricked by a company willing to compound its errors.
Fortunately, the company has listened to its users. It has dropped the rent program and said that anyone who buys a cutter before the end of this year will be grandfathered into the existing unlimited free program. Buyers who purchase one after December 31, 2021 will apparently be expected to purchase a subscription, which means this mini-debacle will be revisited later this year if Cricut refuses to drop its subscription program completely.
Cricut has also clarified that it's not moving forward with a plan to brick secondhand machines. New users will need to set up their own accounts, but the machines will function as normal.
All's well that ends well, I guess. But anyone outside of Cricut could have informed Cricut how this was going to play out. Chances are, some people inside Cricut realized that as well, but were overridden by those willing to ask what the market was willing to absorb, even if it meant shedding a few more reputation points.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business model, cnc, connected devices, drm, iot, subscription plan
Companies: cricut
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
My daughter has one of these. they really aren't that expensive, only around $200. And most people use vinyl sheets, not paper. But yeah, those were awful moves, glad the company is walking them back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reputation points don't have value to the accountants as they don't appear on the balance sheet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn't think that buying a Cricut meant you would have to cut a check each month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that's why you never, ever allow yourself to get roped into using a web-based ANYTHING related to operating a physical machine. If I need an internet connection for a machine to operate then I don't want it, full stop, end of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This.
Also, not fitting standard-sized paper would be a dealbreaker in and of itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Also, not fitting standard-sized paper would be a dealbreaker in and of itself."
I'm reminded of Sony's old camera - a brilliant marvel of technology, left to gather dust on the shelves since Sony in their usual boneheaded lunacy decided to ensure only Sony SD cards would be usable with that camera...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One of the complaints on this is that there was no indication that an internet connection was needed to use the design software. If there was any indication it was buried somewhere in the website or the documents that came with the device. You would only find out about the connectivity well after purchase and unpacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
turns and looks at the fine print on the bottom of a box just beside me
"You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product."
On a computer game, where if you break the seal you can't return/refund it if you find the terms unacceptable...
Pity no one has demanded that additional terms of "ownership" (because we never own what we purchase) be clearly disclosed on the outside of the packaging.
Imagine a world where the people paying for things actually were treated as a customer & not just a future revenue stream to be exploited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cricut?
I thought they were a phone company. I'm so confused. Why isn't there a lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cricut?
The key question would be - over what?
Imposing new restrictions on previously purchased machines could risk a class-action lawsuit, but for that reason that plan has been scrapped for a plan where they make a big announcement that if you buy it before the end of the year, you get unlimited free use is maintained.
After the end of the year, buyers would theoretically be on notice that the restriction exists, and a lawsuit might be able to force a refund if that restriction is not clear, but the cost of that lawsuit would be a Pyrrhic victory. I'm not sure what other cause of action exists.
Its anti-competitive operations might draw a suit, but again its an expensive suit that likely wont pay back its cost, particularly since they seem committed to burning the user base.
So what did you expect a lawsuit to solve?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cricut?
The OP meant a lawsuit over the name - Cricut vs. Cricket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cricut?
Oh so it was a stupid joke in favor of more trademark stupidity.
In that case, the answer is that Cricket saves money by having a competent legal team which knows that lawsuit only succeeds at burning money.
Why aren't businesses asininely stupid isn't a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cricut?
I'd also point out my confusion as to what the joke was might explain why the lawsuit was never filed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cricut?
This thread section will now be used in evidence to show that confusion over the two names was indeed possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cricut?
Except in that I never connected Cricut and Cricket until it was pointed out. The guy making a joke connected the two, suggesting they also knew there was no connection.
No one here thought the 2 were connected, so much so I didn't understand the joke that required you to casually connect them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cricut?
You know, it could be possible no one saw the connection until now.
I didn't.
Although if it leads to a lawsuit from Cricket, Techdirt would be on the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cricut?
Which is part of the whole mess that drives me the most mad.....not the same competitive market. Cricket sells phones and access while Cricut sells cutting machines and supplies.....should NEVER be a chance of a lawsuit over that, but somebody probably will at some point.
At least the Cricut name isn't close to anything related to the Micro-Brew industry or they'd have been hauled into court repeatedly by now I'm sure!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cricut?
"Oh so it was a stupid joke in favor of more trademark stupidity."
Actually, it was a stupid joke making fun of Trademark lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cricut?
I initially read it as "Circuit" and was thoroughly confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeh right!
".... the company has listened to its users"
Gonna guess it is more like "users threatened to sue and the company listened to its lawyers"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'GIve me all your money.' 'No.' 'Fine, I'll just take half.'
Fortunately, the company has listened to its users. It has dropped the rent program and said that anyone who buys a cutter before the end of this year will be grandfathered into the existing unlimited free program. Buyers who purchase one after December 31, 2021 will apparently be expected to purchase a subscription, which means this mini-debacle will be revisited later this year if Cricut refuses to drop its subscription program completely.
Standard sleazy company move, hint that you'll do something completely unacceptable and then should you receive pushback you reduce that to only mostly unacceptable, which despite still being bad looks much better in comparison to the previous position.
They didn't listen to their customers, they're keeping the program they're just making the current customers exempt and punishing any new ones in a way that any objections will be dismissed with a 'You knew what you were buying, it's on you for choosing to buy from them knowing that'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'GIve me all your money.' 'No.' 'Fine, I'll just take half.'
How long before a design change give a range of incomparable machines, and then a delay and the old servers switched off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'GIve me all your money.' 'No.' 'Fine, I'll just take half.'
Story is a day late. They announced Thursday that the 2021 cutoff is now gone too. No required subscription period. They’ve probably tanked their ipo and reputation now though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At this point, it no longer matters; Cricut hereby joins Amazon Kindle, John Deere, etc, on my list on my list of manufacturers whose products are no longer even to be considered for "purchase" -- new or used.
I don't do business with companies who can't (read "choose not to") remember whether the business &/or it's product serves the customer's needs, or vice versa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ends well my end.
its just the usual "ok you caught us turning up the heat too fast and jumped out of the pot, well slow it down" type of deal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]