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.

  • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    If safari is supported, then there is no reason to not supporting Firefox. What key features supported by safari required by adobe that’s not supported by Firefox?

    • jvisick@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Out of all the modern browsers, it’s always Safari that I end up needing to write compatibility code for. I’m sure the app works fine on Firefox, they just haven’t tested it.

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

        Tbf, while daily-driving Firefox I do occasionally encounter websites (mostly web apps) that do not work on Firefox. But it’s often a pretty simple fix, like sometimes I can get around it myself just through Dev Tools shenanigans.

    • Ryzzlas@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      QA is probably just not testing on FF because of user share. And if it’s not going through QA, you just don’t support it as bog coorp…

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    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
      3
      ·
      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
        5
        ·
        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.

  • ninbreaker@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    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.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I know people love saying that IE didn’t follow web standards, but the reality is more nuanced. Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator both had non-standard features, and a lot of the non-standard features IE had predated any relevant standards.

      • u_tamtam@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think people’s problem with IE came much later, after MS had used its monopoly in the operating system market to establish IE as a monopoly in the browser space, to then freeze it as IE6 for years and years.
        With IE6 so dominant, even mandated for most people (with ActiveX being the de facto bypass to IE/HTML4 limitations), web designers assumed its universality and stopped caring about anything else, practically contributing to the stagnation of the web standards around an obsolete and suboptimal Implementation.
        The better, faster, more compliant and innovative browsers had no chance of dislodging IE, while a growing number of decreasingly tech savvy users could see (from the experience of Firefox and Opera mostly) how bad they had it with IE and how much behind it had fallen.

        Yep, the web was a mess back then (still is, tbh), but the hatred for IE/MS is deserved, and comes back with a sour taste as we are witnessing the same thing all over again (just in slower motion).

  • Riyria@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    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.

    • Leigh@beehaw.orgM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      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
        0
        ·
        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?

  • kbity@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    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.

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

      Websites supporting safari but not firefox really grinds my gears.If safari can run it, there’s no way Firefox can’t run it too.

  • MSids@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I got in on the Kickstarter for the Abode (not a misspelling) software suite by Stuart Semple and am hoping that when they release that it at least beats Darktable. Also, Darktable is pretty great as a free alternative to Lightroom.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/culturehustle/abode-a-suite-of-world-class-design-and-photography-tools

    Edit: I named him because he created the Freetone color palette when Pantone upped their license fee on Adobe. He also made a few paints and sells them at reasonable prices as an accessible alternative to more expensive paints.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also DigiKam for the photo management side of things (I usually find that DarkTable is best suited for retouching). Between these two I don’t feel the need for anything Adobe. Granted, I’m just a hobbyist so I can’t speak from a professional point of view.

  • ɔiƚoxɘup@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’ve been on the DRM bandwagon ever since they started making people log into their apps.

    For an admin, their license management crap takes so much extra time and effort that it’s not tolerable. They’re just not good people.

    Adobe is a curse word where I come from.

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

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

  • TokyoMonsterTrucker@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    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
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

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

          • realharo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            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
          0
          ·
          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
        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.

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      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
        1
        ·
        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
          1
          ·
          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.

            • Quokka@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No it’s not?

              Many websites are only ever tested to work on Chrome because companies don’t care about catering to the smaller userbases of the other browsers.