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.

  • Riyria@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    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.

  • JBloodthorn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    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
      11
      ·
      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.

  • ninbreaker@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    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.

  • kbity@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    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.

    • nakal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

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

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

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

      • TokyoMonsterTrucker@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        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.

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

  • Stefen Auris@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    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.

  • Redsylum@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      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
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

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

      • Neve8028@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        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
          19
          ·
          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
            8
            ·
            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
        10
        ·
        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
      6
      ·
      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.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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?!

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    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
      1
      ·
      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
        0
        ·
        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
          2
          ·
          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.

  • Im28xwa@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What in the actual fuck is this, thank you for bringing this up I will never use an Adobe product ever