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.

  • @MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    792 years 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
      142 years 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
        6
        edit-2
        2 years 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
          5
          edit-2
          2 years 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
              2
              edit-2
              2 years 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.

  • CrystalEYE
    link
    fedilink
    152 years ago

    @galaxi What version of FF are you using? I can access Adobe Express perfectly fine (116.0.1 on Win 11 Pro)

    • frog 🐸
      link
      fedilink
      72 years ago

      I just checked it out on mine. The regular version of Adobe Express works just fine in Firefox, but the “new Adobe Express (beta)” throws up an “unsupported browser” error in Firefox.

      OP, look around for “use prior version” links on Adobe Express’s website, as that will send you into the version that works in Firefox.

    • LeighM
      link
      fedilink
      92 years 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
        32 years 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.

        • LeighM
          link
          fedilink
          12 years 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?

    • Echo Dot
      link
      fedilink
      232 years ago

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

      • @redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        92 years 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?!

      • meseek #2982
        link
        fedilink
        212 years 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
          22 years 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.

            • @antimidas@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              2 years 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.

    • djquadratic
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      I can’t believe I never thought about that - gotta try this later today

    • @dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      32 years 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
        32 years 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).

  • @SnowBunting@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    242 years ago

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

  • @Redsylum@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    802 years ago

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

  • Stefen Auris
    link
    fedilink
    English
    692 years ago

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

    • Chemical Wonka
      link
      fedilink
      172 years ago

      Because many companies and users were deliberately turned into illiterates about tech by big tech

        • Chemical Wonka
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          They were never but with the growth of big tech it seems that things became even worse.

        • Chemical Wonka
          link
          fedilink
          72 years ago

          I guess the first step is to ask yourself about the services that you use daily , this was my first step to understand the importance of free software and all correlate topics but each person will have its own pathway to literation.

    • @belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      They bought all competition for their creative suite. They werent “allowed” to survive, they made sure they were the only viable game in town and locked businesses into contracts.

    • Frog-Brawler
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      Because the folks doing the work aren’t the folks paying the bills. You’ve gotta invade some country and exploit the shit out of them for several years if you expect to have enough money to have a voice!

    • @renard_roux@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Unless you’re a professional and want stuff like being able to set the white point of an image. 8 years and counting, stopped holding my breath.

      Also, I think it’s noteworthy that they touted “Pay once, free updates forever!”, and then they release Version 2 which requires a new license. Oh, and has a new price.

      I paid $100 for Designer, Photo and Publisher in 2021. The “full package” of V2 now costs $220 (although 25% off with existing license). Still cheaper than 4 months of Adobe sub, but I can’t use it for anything when they won’t implement simple features like white point selection, which I need multiple times daily.

      I think this comment from the forum link above speaks volumes as to why serious graphic designers need to steer clear:

      Another two years down the line - I bought Photo v2 and still there’s no picker to set white and black. Affinity’s ethos (with Photo Publisher and Designer) is clearly to de-monopolise Adobe and take a market share from Photoshop Illustrator and InDesign but when professionals have to Google just about every single new task, it’s very frustrating. I get the impression Affinity designers have spent too much time in the world of Linux where manipulating software is the challenge and bending it to your will is the achievement. We ex-Photoshop users want developers who help us to create images and documents. The endless puzzle of how to do things with Affinity Photo doesn’t interest us.

      There are still so many bugs in the UI - annoying little things like having to click twice to activate a dialog, or typing in a value only to have the first digit ignored. Most of the tool icons are meaningless, jpg compression is so poor, native file sizes are so big, why can’t I simply open a jpg edit it and close with a save? Why can’t I batch save images as WEBP? I cannot move from the Develop Persona to Edit without committing the changes - and yet I can hit Undo when back to Edit - it’s just clunky geeky sloppy stuff that smells of Linux.

      We all hate Adobe and their monopolistic dictatorial empire, I think we all want to love Affinity but jeez it’s really not working out for me. I could never recommend this to any of my clients.

      • 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑥𝑖OP
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        Yeah, it’s a bit hard when you’re dealing with industry standards. I’m provided CC through work so it’s not really my choice, but it sounds like Affinity still isn’t a 1:1 option. I’ve been interested in it so I’m glad to hear the other side of things. It’s easy to go FOSS for most personal things, but not as much when it comes to doing business.

    • M. Orange
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      They dropped it in the desktop browser after a while, but I think you can do it with an extension or something.

    • @5ubieee@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      decided to check out of curiosity and couldn’t see the pref from the article listed in my config (im on 116.0), ~i’d imagine theres a chance it would work if manually adding that pref and setting to true but i have no idea where i could test it since i don’t use any sites that would need that pref to work.~

      wonder if user agent spoofing would work, probably wouldn’t hurt to try that as well

  • Chemical Wonka
    link
    fedilink
    30
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    So the inevitable future begins. This will be the standard web very soon.

      • Sanjana
        link
        fedilink
        142 years ago

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

      • @Neve8028@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        282 years ago

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

        • Pat
          link
          fedilink
          242 years 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
            102 years 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.

      • Chemical Wonka
        link
        fedilink
        82 years 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
      92 years 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.

  • kbity
    link
    fedilink
    81
    edit-2
    2 years 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
      32 years 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.

    • Avid Amoeba
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      Except the supported browsers aren’t a broken, dysfunctional mess on a technical level.

      • kbity
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        Well, the ones based on Chromium aren’t, anyway. I’ve heard some major criticisms of Safari in the last few years, for what that’s worth.

        • Avid Amoeba
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          True. Safari’s only there as a function of Apple’s market mobile prevalence.

  • @MSids@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    12
    edit-2
    2 years 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 years 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.

  • Powderhorn
    link
    fedilink
    382 years ago

    Last Adobe product I used was CS6. That’s what the company stuck with, presumably, to avoid shit like this.

    • Annoyed_🦀
      link
      fedilink
      52 years 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.