I held off on Windows 10 for as long as I could until Adobe, and therefore my job, required it. Now this nonsense. I hope this isn’t the start of them joining on the web DRM bandwagon.

  • ninbreaker@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel like Adobe is one of the pioneers for DRM lol, They’ve always kept all their things under some kind of paywall.

  • Riyria@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    109
    ·
    1 year ago

    Adobe reactivated my subscription without my permission and now won’t refund me. They have records of my subscription being cancelled in May but can’t explain why I was suddenly billed again in August.

  • TokyoMonsterTrucker@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is seriously deserving of an antitrust investigation. An open web is essential.

    *Edit: referring to Chrome and its derivatives, not Adobe. Alphabet/Google has been begging for antitrust action for years.

    • nakal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      Adobe has already proved they don’t understand web technologies when creating Flash.

          • realharo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            Flash was pretty significant in the web’s journey to where it is today. For things like online video, it was the least pain in the ass way, in a time when the alternative was crapware plug-ins like RealPlayer, QuickTime, or Windows Media Player.

            YouTube probably wouldn’t have existed without Flash and FLV.

        • ffolkes@fanexus.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I remember when it was FutureSplash Animator, and my young mind was blown by the possibilities of animations in only a few kb.

      • QHC@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        What a ridiculous, tech-ideology-above-all-else take. Not to mention over a decade past being relevant.

        Flash could do things other technology at the time could not. It served a purpose at the time, thus its huge level of popularity.

        • nakal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Many popular things are crappy. It is not an ideology, unless you consider the scientists who invented the WWW to be some freaks.

          Flash wasn’t really useful, because many people couldn’t display these websites. It was the exact opposite of WWW. WWW enabled people to use hypertext and provided accessibility.

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Adobe is requiring customers to choose one of three different competing browsers, none of which are owned by Adobe.

      There’s no antitrust issue here.

      • TokyoMonsterTrucker@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        Google forcing people to use its browser or pushing companies to develop exclusively for its browsers has broad antitrust implications, especially if they are using their ad clout to push wider adoption.

        • FoxBJK@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s far more likely that Adobe is just being lazy/cheap in not supporting a browser with a small market share.

        • QHC@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What does Google have to do with Adobe not supporting one specific browser not made by either company?

  • JBloodthorn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    1 year ago

    What’s extra stupid about these, is most of the time just using a user agent switcher to make the site think you’re on chrome or opera makes it work just fine.

    • infamousbelgian@waste-of.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      I do understand it. These are browsers that they decided during development that are not supported. Not supported means not tested by a full QA team for months. And users are generally stupid, soba simple warning (use at your own risk) is something that does not work.

      So they decide to just not support the other browsers.

      To be clear, I am definitely not a fan of Adobe of this mechanism, just explaining.

        • _MusicJunkie@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          People don’t read warnings. They will still swamp your support department with tickets despite being told their setup is unsupported.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can say browser X may cause issues on the website, but people will still complain that browser X doesn’t work properly and demand you to fix whatever issue they’re having.

    • Big P@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would be surprised if eveything works correctly. Generally they don’t just decide that something isn’t supported for no reason

      • JBloodthorn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sometimes it’s as simple as something like “firefox doesn’t support import maps”, but now they do (in 108+) but nobody has the time or inclination to go back and validate that the site now works in firefox.

  • kbity@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The NHS’ virtual appointment service in the UK doesn’t support Firefox either, only Chrome, Safari and Edge. The dark days of “please view this website in Internet Explorer 6” are creeping closer to the present again. I hate the modern internet.

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate them more for pioneering Software as a Service rent seeking crap. Why own software when you can become a revenue stream for Adobe. Die in a fire.

    This is crap too tho.

    • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a software developer I have sympathy for this business model, but of course pricing has to be reasonable. A piece of software is a continuing social responsibility for the developer to fix new security issues, incompatibilities and bugs. If you only get paid a one-off sum the maintenance can drain you. A continued time-based fee is more in tune with how the actual development cost pans out.

      • Crotaro@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A continual stream of revenue is great, understandably. But I would much prefer it if I could instead purchase v.1.34 of a software and get updates until major changes come. At which point I’d still have my v.1.3x with all its functions but if I wanted the new stuff (and the security patches with it) I’d need to pay for v.1.4x. Corporations (that probably much more require the security updates than hobbyists) wouldn’t see much of a change and hobbyists could have a good alternative to subscriptions.

        • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s not how developers see it. We have a responsibility to push security updates to you even if you stay on 1.3x, because if your machine is compromised it can be used to further attack others. It’s similar to how people have a social responsibility to vaccinate themselves to protect others, but in the software world that responsibility falls on the software producers rather than you personally.

          A big challenge here is that the cost and time required to develop and test a security fix is proportional to the number of software versions in circulation. So it’s better for everyone if we can keep everybody on the latest version.

            • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That’s a question of political ideology. I can just say that right now that’s what the general expectation is. Or at least, corporations get enough flak if they don’t fix the issues that they feel compelled to take the responsibility and avoid badwill. But one could certainly imagine a law where individual users are liable for the malware running on their PC:s instead.

              Personally I think it’s good that developers take the responsibility, because there are too many users that will not upgrade and that causes a societal problem. For example, it becomes hard for banks to protect accounts when people log in using PCs that have tons of software with security holes.

  • Redsylum@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    1 year ago

    “We can’t track you using this browser. Please use one of the following that we have agreements with.”

  • Stefen Auris@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t understand why Adobe was allowed to survive as a company when Flash player had like 500 security vulnerabilities daily.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      I bet it would because Firefox supports pretty much everything Chrome supports. Sometimes a little better.

      • ultratiem@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Adobe message has nothing to do with the technical limitations of your browser and everything to do with their monopolistic nature as a company.

        • antimidas@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, in this case it might even be a technological limitation, which can be solved with a workaround but leads to a poor user experience.

          Firefox, for security reasons, doesn’t allow opening local files for writing. That means, it’s not possible to make a web application that can autosave to your machine after you open a file, meaning you have to download a new version of the file every time you save. You can get around this issue by importing the files in question to the browser’s local storage, or by using cloud storage via an API, but local saving is a feature that people have come to expect and missing it will lead to complaints from the users.

          The missing API is called File System Access API and has been available on Chrome for years. I’ve personally had to write my web apps around this limitation multiple times, since I want to support Firefox. By no means is this a valid reason to exclude Firefox in my opinion, but I can also easily see why a company would want to not bother with user feedback on ctrl+s not working in their web application.

          • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            But they support Safari though, what’s the excuse for that? According to this page, safari supports level for file system access api is similar with Firefox.

            • antimidas@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              My best guess is the dates on which the feature was added, which can also be seen on CanIUse. Firefox added OPFS support in March this year, and much of the userbase (AFAIK e.g. Firefox ESR) is still lacking the feature – in any case it’s a very recent change on Firefox. However, webkit/Safari has had OPFS for over two years by now. I was personally unaware of the support having been added to Firefox as well, last time I checked the discussion they told they weren’t going to implement the API.

              By no means is this an acceptable excuse in my opinion, this kind of check should always be done by checking the existence of the feature, not the UA string. Though it might be that the check is still performed in the correct way as Safari users stuck on older version are also encountering the issue. But if they’re fine with using OPFS, where you need to export the files separately to access them outside the browser context (as the storage is private), there’s no reason to complain about recent Firefox versions that support this feature.

              But, the same point still stands, kind of. The main underlying problem is Google forcing new standards through Chromium, without waiting for industry consensus and a proper standard. Then, as 80% of the userbase already has the feature everyone else is forced to get on board. I still don’t really see Adobe as the main culprit here, despite the apparent incompetence in writing compatibility checks, but Google with their monopolistic practices with the Chromium project. Adobe isn’t innocent and has done the industry a lot of harm in the form of being one of the original pushers of subscription software, but I don’t think this instance should be attributed to malice rather than incompetence.

              Edit: So, a bit of additional advice for someone trying to get this to work: in case the UA spoofing doesn’t help, check the Firefox version in use – it has to be 111 or newer, as 111 was the release where File System API support was added. Firefox ESR probably doesn’t have it available. Also check that FS API / OPFS doesn’t need to be enabled through some flag or configuration parameter, and that it’s not blocked by some plugin.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Reminds me to how Google Meet does not support background blur in Firefox, but magically support it when you fake the user agent to chrome. Like, wtf?!

    • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      CS6 is nice, i use it as a student. Then by the time i wanna buy it they went subscription only for new version.

      Luckily i’m not in the industry that require it.

  • iloverocks@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    You could use a user agent switcher to pretend that you are running chrome, edge or anything else

    • Leigh@beehaw.orgM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Love and use them for Photo, Publisher, and Designer, but there’s no alternative for Lightroom. And honestly, I like Lightroom. It truly is the best at what it does. Simple, easy to use, great features, thoughtful design.

      • vector@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I gotta admit I run a 350k image lightroom catalog as well, neither open source clone is even close. The license fee for PS and LR is reasonable too.

        • Leigh@beehaw.orgM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          350k? As in, 350,000 images? Holy shit, man. How do you have that many pictures? And how much storage space does that eat up? All of it?

      • Neve8028@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        Genuinely can’t see a future where people collectively ditch adobe. They make industry standard products that companies, educational institutions, professionals, etc… buy.

        • paddythegeek@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          I used to be responsible for the app portfolio in a 1000+ user company, and every 3 years or so I would go back out to the market and try hard to replace Adobe, just for PDF operations. Couldn’t do it because so many products were integrated with them, often in ways we could not reproduce with other products. The best we could do would be to pay for a different product for 1/3 of the cost for Adobe, and then still end up having to carry a significant number of Adobe licenses for cases when integration failed with the other product. No-win situation, and just easier to stay with the evil we knew.

          I hate them.

          • Thrashy@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            In the AEC field we have Bluebeam as a de facto industry standard for PDFs, and it’s vastly superior to Acrobat in every way for our typical use cases. I imagine it’s a bit harder in other industries, though.

      • Sanjana @infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Google is worrying me with their ever-encroaching strategy of limiting internet access through DRM

      • Chemical Wonka@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately the majority of users or don’t care about privacy or don’t want to spend time to learn how to use other tools and for extremely professional tasks Adobe suite is not easily replaceable.

    • djsaskdja@endlesstalk.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d stop using the web if this happened everywhere. I do use a user agent switcher or Ungoogled Chromium in a pinch though.

  • SnowBunting@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is honestly why I have more then two browsers installed. But it is sad this DRM stuff is spreading.