this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
903 points (99.9% liked)

Technology

37730 readers
384 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TokyoMonsterTrucker@lemmy.dbzer0.com 101 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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 40 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] min_fapper@iusearchlinux.fyi 62 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They didn't create Flash. They bought a company called Macromedia who had created Flash.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Proving they don’t understand web technologies...

[–] realharo@lemm.ee 17 points 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 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I remember when it was FutureSplash Animator, and my young mind was blown by the possibilities of animations in only a few kb.

[–] rckclmbr@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

Wow I've been in tech a long time, but only knew it from Macromedia. Crazy

[–] QHC@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 2 points 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 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And still it’s basically all Google.

[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only if you believe Apple is basically Google.

[–] Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

That's what they used to say about Microsoft.

[–] preciouspupp@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How would that be an antitrust issue?

[–] TokyoMonsterTrucker@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It’s far more likely that Adobe is just being lazy/cheap in not supporting a browser with a small market share.

Yeah, to be clear, I think Google should be the target of multiple antitrust actions. This is just a symptom.

[–] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

I loath Adobe but this is the correct answer.

[–] belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's because firefox wont support the drm protocol that chromium/webkit will be pushing

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 1 points 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.

[–] QHC@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

What does Google have to do with Adobe not supporting one specific browser not made by either company?