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
    2·
    2 years 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.

  • TokyoMonsterTrucker@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    2·
    2 years 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.

    • FlowVoid@midwest.socialEnglish
      1·
      2 years 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.

    • nakal@kbin.social
      1·
      2 years ago

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

          • realharo@lemm.ee
            1·
            2 years 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
        1·
        2 years 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
          1·
          2 years 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.comEnglish
        1·
        2 years 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.

  • Riyria@sopuli.xyz
    2·
    2 years 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
    1·
    2 years 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.

  • SnowBunting@lemmy.ml
    1·
    2 years ago

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

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      1·
      2 years ago

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

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        1·
        2 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?!