So tired of Adobe. They're part of the problem.
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.
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.
Chargeback time.
Hello Bank? Yes I'd like to issue a stop payment
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.
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.
I would be surprised if eveything works correctly. Generally they don't just decide that something isn't supported for no reason
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.
This is seriously deserving of an antitrust investigation. An open web is essential.
Adobe has already proved they don't understand web technologies when creating Flash.
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.
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.
"We can't track you using this browser. Please use one of the following that we have agreements with."
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.
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.
Could you just get an extension that changes your user agent? They exist. I wonder if it would work.
I bet it would because Firefox supports pretty much everything Chrome supports. Sometimes a little better.
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.
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?!
I don't understand why Adobe was allowed to survive as a company when Flash player had like 500 security vulnerabilities daily.
and Acrobat too.
Because many companies and users were deliberately turned into illiterates about tech by big tech
When were they ever tech literate?
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.
Because marketing people wanted animatios.
Users wanted games to play, too. Couldn't do that in HTML4
Adobe has been on the DRM bandwagon since forever.
This is honestly why I have more then two browsers installed. But it is sad this DRM stuff is spreading.
Last Adobe product I used was CS6. That's what the company stuck with, presumably, to avoid shit like this.
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.
What happens if you spoof the user agent?
So the inevitable future begins. This will be the standard web very soon.
Only if people continue to give money to Adobe.
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.
I’d stop using the web if this happened everywhere. I do use a user agent switcher or Ungoogled Chromium in a pinch though.
Thankfully I am not required to use any Adobe products. Seeing this would seriously insult me.
Go Affinity/Serif. Haven't looked back.
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.
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.
You could use a user agent switcher to pretend that you are running chrome, edge or anything else
Not if Google's web DRM thing goes through
https://www.thurrott.com/cloud/web-browsers/mozilla-firefox/246039/tip-use-firefox-for-web-apps
I haven't tried this yet, and the page is from 2021. Perhaps the feature is still experimental or lost. Otherwise I use chromium to avoid the Google bloat.
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
I've run into multiple websites like this in the last 6 months. It sucks.
What in the actual fuck is this, thank you for bringing this up I will never use an Adobe product ever
Oh, this shit again.
Remember when websites required the Internet Explorer? It didn't follow Web Standards back then.
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?
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.
@galaxi What version of FF are you using? I can access Adobe Express perfectly fine (116.0.1 on Win 11 Pro)
What are people using to edit/sign PDFs. Adobe is a nightmare and I’d rather use anything else
Foxit Reader has decent PDF editing built in. I use it all the time. I think they call the pen mode "comments", but you can also load your signature as an image file.
The only time I use (pirated) Adobe Acrobat is when I need to edit existing content in PDFs, like fixing layout or editing text.
I don't get why PDFs are so hard to open. The format has been around for ever. Why does Adobe have such a grasp on it, and why isn't it as common to open as a txt?
There are free programs that'll open it, but it's few and far between. It's a pain in the ass to find one.
On all my Macs, Preview is set as the default app for handling PDFs, and I use it for signing, adding text, rearranging and deleting pages; works flawlessly. Fuck Acrobat Reader / Pro.
If I need to do something more complicated, I'll open it in Illustrator.
I have used Foxit/Phantom both personally and professionally for years now with no complaints
Thanks, might switch. I'm tired of Adobe running ten tons of crap in the background.
Preview on macOS can do it. While it obviously doesn’t help everyone I’m not sure some Mac users realize there’s a built in tool for it
I’ve tried it in preview, it’s just not great. Or maybe I just haven’t mastered it yet… but it never intuitively does what I want it do
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.
the only thing I'll accept using one of those browsers for is installing a new OS on my phone, as ff just does not support that. aside from that, idc
Why do you need a browser on a PC to install new OS on your phone?