"Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person"
A better question might be: how many companies actually know about this executive order? It took effect August 5, but Adobe is just now taking action on it. I'm pretty sure the company I work for has both free and paid Venezuelan customers and we (afaik) haven't cut off business with them.
I can't imagine how many art/film creators just lost their current/future livelihood. This stymies the growth of so many individuals, some of whom may have eventually migrated to the U.S. and applied their extraordinary skills to support its economy.
Pirating looks like the only option, if that is even still possible with all of the features now tied to the cloud.
This is a legitimate question. Even in developing countries that have much higher average income, paviating software is still super prevalent in commercial companies.
They have access to internet (although unreliable most of the times) so they can work online. Freelancing is very widespread among those who have the necessary skills. There are a bunch of spanish forums where this becomes pretty evident. They also open bank accounts in other countries so they can get paid in dollars and not be monitored by the government.
> Will still have access to the software via other means as usual
Piracy? Surely this doesn't count as a "solution". Just because you can evade a ban doesn't mean that they "still have access" - I mean they do but it's not legal.
Agree is not a "Solution" but it does not has the impact that most people are imagining.
I am just curious, what would be the right way for companies to tackle this, how would they know who is the family of a regime official for example? Most people's comments seem to be aimed at Adobe instead of the complexity that is dealing with this executive order.
Not in the U.S., no, but is it illegal in Venezuela? They are under no obligation to recognize U.S. copyright claims. Or any copyright claims, for that matter. And why would they, given that the U.S. is enforcing sanctions against them?
I was wondering this yesterday too - Is it stealing if it's not for sale (so there is no lost revenue)?
My gut reaction is that if Venezuela is apart of any of the international trade laws then it'd still be illegal but there's essentially no way in practice you'd get in trouble for it (Assuming you're a Venezuelan citizen and you aren't like blatantly selling it in the street or something).
It's not "stealing" regardless of whether the software is for sale. Whether it's illegal in Venezuela is a question of local Venezuelan law. If Venezuela is part of a treaty which requires them to enforce copyright laws then they can simply withdraw from that treaty; it's unlikely that they would be benefitting much from it at this point. Or, without withdrawing altogether, they might be able to get an international ruling that voiding U.S. copyright claims within their jurisdiction is a justified response to the U.S. trade sanctions—other countries have succeeded in that approach before. (I forget where but IIRC it had something to do with U.S. restrictions against online gambling, which is a lesser provocation than this general trade embargo.)
I think it's fair to say that people living in Venezuela have bigger problems than access to Adobe products.
They live in an extremely socialist country with crippling economic worldwide sanctions, massive inflation (300,000% or something like that). Their own money is worthless and most use US dollars to transact business.
Yeah, tell that to the freelancer who works from Maracaibo and uses US dollars to import the necessary stuff from Colombia, be it medicines or even food.
If I were venezuelan I'd just pirate the software and avoid this nonsense.
The executive order[1] targets the Government of Venezuela [2] not all Venezuelan companies and individuals. But I guess it's easier to deactivate everyone than try and verify if the account is related to the Government of Venezuela.
[1]https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/...
[2] the term ‘‘Government of Venezuela’’ includes the state and Government of Venezuela, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of Venezuela and Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA), any person owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the foregoing, and any person who has acted or purported to act directly or indirectly for or on behalf of, any of the foregoing, including as a member of the Maduro regime. For the purposes of section 2 of this order, the term ‘‘Government of Venezuela’
Er, given the structure of the socialist system in Venezuela, which companies or individuals can a US entity be sure are neither “owned or controlled, directly or indirectly” by the government or any instrumentality or agency thereof, including the central bank or national oil company, nor have ever acted directly or indirectly for or on behalf of any of those things?
What are the expected consequences for a private US firm applying the order too broadly? Too narrowly?
Right: to make the implication of the (most rhetorical) question more clear: the nature of the situation and the structure of the order and it's consequences very much encourage exactly what Adobe did, even if one might argue it is strictly not required.
In Venezuela you never know, when a company is owned by the state. In the US, on the other hand, we know that the state is owned by the companies. Much easier this way.
There are 2.8m[0] government employees out of a work force of 13m[1].. that's over 20% of the entire work force.
And that's just current active employees. From what you quoted, it includes past employees too.
They also own at least 500 companies that operate in a diverse number of industries[2]. And that wasn't found by disclosure from the government.. it required someone to research each of those companies. The actual count is almost certainly much higher. This is important because Adobe needs to know which of these companies are government owned, and the government does not make it easy to determine that. (I'm also not sure if employees of those are in the count above or not... I think not, except maybe the prominent ones like PDVSA.)
I think the fault here is Venezuela's... the government is so intermingled with the economy it's impossible for any reasonable person to determine where the government's reach ends.
The prohibitions in subsections (a)–(b) of this
section apply except to the extent provided by
statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or
licenses that may be issued pursuant to this
order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into
or any license or permit granted prior to the
effective date of this order.
They probably ran the numbers and it was cheaper to loose the dozen of legit clients they have there than to put some engineer hours to figure which one of them are government entities.
I wonder if Microsoft will pull something like this... or even cisco
> We are unable to issue refunds. Executive order 13884, orders the cessation of all activity with the entities including no sales, service, support, refunds, credits, etc.
Adobe is presumably using American banks. Those banks are bound by the same(if not more strict) rules that Adobe is, likely Adobes customers are just screwed out of the money unless the US solves this dispute. Hopefully this drives up adoption of other FOSS graphical processing programs like GIMP/Glimpse, Krita, InkScape, etc
Sure, today. I think Adobe would have preferred to get their continued monthly revenue from those users in the long run. I don't think they're quoting the law here because it benefits them.
Yeah true. Though they could have made a strict verifying process so that they ensure only non-govermental people can be their customers. However that would also be very expensive to implement.
If they could/wanted to do that, they could also use it to not deactivate non-governmental accounts in the first place.
(I can believe they could have wanted it, but it would take time, and I suppose getting compliant with an executive order of the President is something you want to do as fast as possible.)
Some days ago a big discussion here in HN was about FCPA preventing American companies overseas. Well, you don't need to be corrupt if your government always do the dirty work for you.
> (c) The prohibitions in subsections (a)–(b) of this section apply [...] notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.
What makes this even worse is that this is only a huge issue because Adobe moved to the whole 'Creative Cloud' thing rather than the old 'buy each product outright' model. With the old model, it wouldn't hurt these creators all that much if their accounts got deactivated, since the software would just not get updates.
Now on the other hand... they're screwed. It's a 'brilliant' example of how these 'cloud' based services are a bad deal for the user, because it puts them at the risk of getting locked out their own purchases due to legal hassles like this.
It also shows that Stallman was right from the beginning, it's just most people didn't believe such things could happen. The very basic right, the right to run the software, can be limited in an arbitrary way.
Honestly, it's not enough to just be able to run it. You need to be able to see it's source, and make modifications to it.
Not all software developers can handle all use cases that will be needed, and it's unrealistic to say, "if the use case is needed enough there would be market forces to implement it".
I wonder how many people even know what Stallman said about Minsky. Most of the media I read reported incorrect summaries that leave out critical details.
Well let's talk Minsky since you wanted to bring it up. Minsky and Stallman were long term friends. Minsky is dead and can't defend himself. Stallman, when directly asked about Minsky, said he didn't believe Minsky knew the girl was a sex slave, and Minsky believed the sex was consensual. It's a fair comment by Stallman. Legally it's also irrelevant since believing sex is consensual when it's not doesn't matter. Also there's the issue of it being statutory rape as well, age of consent in Virgin Islands is 18. But Minsky's dead so he can't be prosecuted for either charge anyway. Did Minsky know he was a rapist? Maybe not, Stallman points out. Fair enough. Was Minsky legally a rapist? Almost certainly so. Would have been a good follow up question to Stallman so he could clarify his thoughts. Are Stallman's opinions here objectionable? I don't find them so. Worth annihilating the reputation and life of someone who is possibly the most productive software developer in history? I think not.
I don't particularly want to engage further with what I consider a pure smear campaign, but it seems fair to at least take the time to share the information with you that the woman's deposition mentions she was 'directed to' have sex with Marvin Minsky, but not that she actually did, and there is an eyewitness testifying that Minsky turned her down.
"It's a 'brilliant' example of how these 'cloud' based services are a bad deal for the user..."
I've understood the whole point with SaaS software is that corporate buyers prefer operational expenditure to capital expenditure. It's not about an evil plot to screw consumers more. It's a strategy to charge corporate clients in a way that they like.
I thought the point was that the software was already so good that people would want newer versions less and less, so they had to change the business model to get a steady revenue.
This true. They have all discovered that the SaaS model is the best model for software sales —which is why the big players are all pushing everything into the SaaS model, which while convenient (financially and administratively), have drawback such as availability and of course the recurring nature of billing where you can’t choose to stay on an old version either because it’s good’nuff or because of compatibility reasons.
Yet, when google mail for business came out everyone hailed the idea; sigh... no more CALs, etc. which is true but now you have to pay recurringly (and msy have to keep former accounts live for compliance reasons)
I don’t see how shrinkwrapped SW would be a better revenue model. Whatever the sold already are in the books. At least with SaaS once sanctions are lifted they potentially have the market opened again. Also SW piracy isn’t unusual is places strapped for money. They surely wouldn’t get away with paying for Adobe SaaS with Petros (crypto currency).
I agree with your core point, but I think it would be unfair to avoid noting some of the clear ways that SaaS has benefited users.
Accessibility: Individuals/businesses who couldn't afford a large, upfront expenditure for software but can afford the smaller, monthly expense now have access to the best tool for the job.
Flexibility: for sporadic consumers ("I use Photoshop/Illustrator once a year to make my Groundhog Day card"), the ability to subscribe for the one month of the year they use the product and subsequently cancel is incredible.
The only benefit is in their marketing department and Adobe's bottom line. If you wanted to use photoshop once a year, you could download the trial version. (Let alone that adobe's apps are no easy to learn toys - you can't just use them once a year). I 'll give it 1 year before we start looking back at SaaS as the abomination that it is.
The I use this software once a year use-case was handled with free trials.
For the limited number of companies who need to spread out a 1000 dollars or less over a year putting it on a credit card would be the cheaper option over the year.
The only groups that benefits is those who want to access the product from many locations/computers or the one who doesn't want to install anything.
Yeah, I got sick of Adobe's subscription model. Every release it seems like PS gets slower and slower without adding any features of value to me. I hate that if I want to have a certain combination of 2 or 3 apps I have to pay for basically everything which includes 80% of stuff I don't need. Paying $600/yr for something I only occasionally use a few times a month is a joke. I've since switched to Affinity.
Designer will import Illustrator files (.ai) and PDF files. It can also export to PSD and PDF (but not to .ai).
Photo imports (and exports) to PSD file format.
Some Photoshop features that aren't available in Photo (e.g. smart objects) won't be editable in the same way when opening a PSD in Photo, but you'll still be able to open the PSD file.
If you have a lot of Illustrator and Photoshop files, best to try them out in the Affinity apps to see if you're happy with the import feature.
Tell me about it. I use only Lightroom for my personal needs, but I need to pay for PS as well even if I’ve never used it. I contacted their support a couple time about that and the chat person always become silent at some point.
Photoshop/Lightroom are $100/yr combined (sometimes less if you can get a deal on the subscription card). At that price, you're still looking at significantly less than if you used to upgrade your old software every 5 years.
If you wanted both Photoshop and Lightroom, yes. For those of us that just used Lightroom, and could use GIMP for any light editing, it's a significant increase. I'm still using my perpetually licensed copy of Lightroom 6, and I see no reason to upgrade any time soon. (I'll probably use the Adobe DNG converter as a free translator if I ever get a new body)
The new Dehaze and Texture sliders, plus improved highlight recovery are highly worth it. Also, the latest version is finally optimized and about 2-3x faster than all prior versions.
It's going to take more than some new features to make $100/yr worth it over $0/yr, but I see your point. I don't shoot as much as I used to; if I buy a new body at some point, I'll bite the bullet and do it.
Capture One is another alternative to Lightroom. I've since switched to that after Apple abandoning Aperture. I still vastly prefer Aperture's UI, but it's barely usable anymore after several years of OS updates.
Funny enough, there is another issue with exactly this on another thread on the front page right now — Mac OS Catalina, which got released today, is killing the last remaining perpetual Adobe CS6 licenses available.
This is just a different deployment and pricing scheme, you still get the same OS with same backwards compatibility.
Besides i do not see how they could do a "windows-as-a-service" offer without an OS, unless they convince every computer manufacturer to make their PC BIOSes a thin client for Microsoft's servers and you rent computing time/power from their datacenters running Windows (though even then, it'd still be Windows with the same backwards compatibility).
(of course all that sucks for us who want to buy a thing and keep it forever - or at least as "forever" as activation servers will allow you to - but i'm trying to ignore that aspect in this comment here)
Yep, it's the flip side of the cloud coin: you're no longer in control [of the thing you just bought]. Average users don't fully appreciate the distinction, until events like this underscore it.
Cloud software (especially iOS apps) has resulted in a huge decline in time I spend doing tech support for family/friends. It’s nice when stuff just works. Although, I agree, the subject of this thread is a huge drawback.
Yeah, like how Microsoft's HUP program used to let me buy full offline office through work for $15. Awesome deal.
A few months ago they discontinued that model and now I can get Office 365 at a discounted annual price. The enraging part was the email where they spun it like this change was great for me and that HUP is way better than it was before. What a crock, SaaS for consumers is cancer.
Other little things too. A long standing bug/limitation of PowerPoint Mac is that you can't embed fonts in a presentation. So you literally can't create a presentation on a Mac and know that it will display correctly on another machine.
The ticket was closed as 'fixed/implemented' with the launch of the most recent version of Office - but you can only embed fonts if you have an Office 365 account.
Its becoming 'subscribe to unlock basic features'.
The issue now is everything associated with their "Creative Cloud" account; artwork layers saved to use throughout the programs, etc. – not as catastrophic as the update itself, but redundant for sure. Publicly, their Behance profile going down is probably where it hurts most.
To be fair, and whether you agree with it or not, the point of the executive order was to screw them in this manner. So, it's a feature not a bug as far as the government is concerned.
It’s own vs rent and the internet has enabled tech firms to operate as rent seekers. I personally think owning is the way to go for important things, but many people don’t see the distinction any more.
not true, every adobe aplication have "portable" version and is installed on the host machine not cloud, they will loose cloud assets but apps will be fine
Well you can still buy downloadable DRM-free software and DRM-free (or DRM-freed :-P) ebooks just like your music (which i thin it is much easier and space effective).
That is what i do myself - i avoid anything with DRM (exceptions are some games that i wait for price drops to around the price of a coffee) and store everything on my external HDD.
This is particularly brutal because for many Venezuelans, online freelancing work is their only way of accessing US dollars, which is their only way of accessing basic necessities. The quantities of dollars here are so low they would make your head hurt -- so places like Fiverr, while seeming like a place to do garbage work to someone in San Francisco, can be a near-literal lifeline to people with no access to other means of income. Fuck you Adobe
Yep. I haven't upgraded since CS6. It still does everything I need it to do. I probably would have upgraded by now though if it was even possible to just buy a newer version, as there are some nice-to-have features the newer versions have. But at least I don't have to worry about dumb crap like this.
Hence the benefit of open source products. Imagine if everyone who bought a photoshop subscription supported some great open source software. They’d get dividends on their investment as equal owners of the software!
And this is why I stopped using Adobe. Unfortunately, they've made so much more money milking their users than the customers they've lost so cloud stays.
And if you've just paid your yearly prescription last week, you aren't even getting what you paid for:
> You’ve charged me, when will I get my refund?
>We are unable to issue refunds. Executive order 13884, orders the cessation of all activity with the entities including no sales, service, support, refunds, credits, etc.
So no refunds either. Renting stuff in the cloud is just waiting to be screwed if the country you're in is on the hit list of the US government. And that's not a short list either, btw.
That's kind of a two-way wammy.. If anyone owned money to VISA or Mastercard in Venezuela, the creditcard companies would not be able to collect those debts either?
Credit and debit cards are specifically exempt from sanctions. That said, the card organizations may use sanctions as an excuse to not go forward with the chargeback process (as in, we will gladly take your money, but refund none of it because sanctions).
>If you purchased directly from Adobe, we will refund you by the end of the month for any paid, but unused services. We are working with our partners on the same.
I wonder what caused this. Did something important change, or did Adobe just overreact at first?
Even that doesn't fix it. Sure they got their money back. But they aren't allowed to subscribe again so all of the files are locked away in proprietary formats.
> It's a 'brilliant' example of how these 'cloud' based services are a bad deal for the user
It's a brilliant example of why proprietary software is bad for the user - how do users make sure their software doesn't have a kill switch? How do they ensure it doesn't phone home to validate their license?
Yes, we buy access only in many cases, not the actual product that can be used offline. You rent e-books, games, movies, songs, and even photos. In many cases if your account gets deactivated (please, do not assume that it will not, it can for arbitrary reasons, be it political or anything else), you will not be able to use the product. You cannot even play single player games without running Steam. Jeez.
It's missing some features that InDesign has and is a little slower, but it's a solid workhorse for laying out books and documents. I don't miss InDesign at this point.
Interesting. The near universal use of Microsoft Office--along with the later various SaaS products--really hollowed out the publication layout market between word processors that were pretty mediocre at layout and high-end design tools that mostly meant InDesign.
(And Scribus always seemed a steep learning curve too.)
I don't have a need at the moment but good to know there are still some tools that may make sense for more casual users.
I think Capture One Pro is superior to Lightroom in everything but the library system that is offered with Lightroom, though what is provided in Capture One Pro is still very good.
I always found the library system in Lightroom to be painful only because of how slow it is. It's hard to imagine enough features to make up for a UI that routinely takes >1s to render images onto the page.
I never got into the catalogs/sessions way of managing my library but Capture One is my favourite processing tool. So I use digiKam to manage my library and Capture One to process the individual photos.
Interesting. Capture One is a non destructive photo editor: how does that not force to use Capture One for managing your library as well? Is digiKam able to access the post-process images from Capture One?
I don't care as much about seeing the unedited thumbnail previews in digiKam as long as I can find what I'm looking for, and then edit and print from Capture One.
Capture One looks great but it's way more expensive than Lightroom. Lightroom is $120 a year. Capture One is $500 and $150 for an upgrade between versions or $240 a year.
Note that you can buy edition that are limited to one maker (Fujifilm or Sony) for quite a bit cheaper than the whole package. Combined with semi-regular sales/promo code (check the fujirumors or sonyrumors website), you can get a perpetual version for very interesting price: I reckon having bought the Fujifilm edition for about 125$.
I'm interested, but whatever DAM I eventually move to will in large part be driven by how well it can import my years of Lightroom library (including edits out of the xmp sidecar files and at least approximating Lightroom's RAW rendering). I know that's a big ask, don't suppose it's on your roadmap?
I imported a 70k item library into mylio and it ingested it fairly well, along with the xmp sidecar files. I try to avoid doing edits on my images, so I haven't tested how well it imports throughly although.
The current version added support for importing sidecar metadata. It does not apply LR edits to the previews it shows, though (which would require re-implementing swaths of LR...).
If you see something you want when you try the beta, please tell me!
Have you tried AfterShot Pro by Corel? I don't use it, but that's just because I still use (and love) Bibble 5 from 2011, which is the software that was bought by Corel and turned into AfterShot Pro. I had a quick glance at the manual of the latter, and it seems like the batch processing and other things are still intact, so I'm hopeful it still might be worth checking out.
I can't quite recommend Luminar over Ps/Lr because i've never used the latter, but Luminar seems good enough, and it also seems to be getting better.
I've been getting into photo editing recently, and searched online for a few hours to learn about the differences between the various options. From what i gathered, Luminar (which is a pay once for a lifetime license that you can have installed in up to five machines at a time) is a serious contender to Ps/Lr even at the professional level, let alone at the amateur/occasional user level.
I moved from Lightroom to Capture One Pro and eventually settled on Darktable.
It took a bit of getting used to (still not a fan of the UI and its obsession with "film rolls" every time I import something) but once I did it's quite nice. Images come out looking good and it has a handy Lua scripting environment and CLI with which you can automate many tasks.
Indeed. I used to use LR Classic on my Mac, but since the new LR got more and more features I switched to using my iPad almost exclusively. I don't think I used LR on my Mac in months.
Disagree. Designer doesn't hold a candle to Illustrator. I'm still on CS6, the last version before CC. Even that version, released in 2012, is superior to today's Affinity Designer.
I haven't explored the other ones as deeply but from what I have done, the features seem quite limited. For example, there's a translator for Photoshop plugins to work on Affinity Photo. Very very few plugins work with this translator. Why is there even such a middleware? Because the Affinity plugin ecosystem is very weak.
It's an alternative, not a "decent" alternative. It's the equivalent of Google Docs vs Microsoft Word. If you need something barebones, it gets the job done, and there are a few things it does better. But if you need just one feature of the better software, forget it.
I have Affinity Designer and Photo and disagree with your assessment. You're right that Affinity apps do not match all the features of Adobe's apps, but Designer and Photo are well above "bare bones" in comparison. I'd say that Photo's biggest missing feature is an equivalent to Photoshop's smart object feature.
As a former user of Illustrator, there's nothing I miss from that app, certainly not the clunky Illustrator UI. (Unfortunately, Designer also has some clunky aspects to it's UI.)
Anyone, who wants to make up their own mind about the Affinity apps can download a free trial from their website - the apps work on both Windows and Mac.
Also, take a look at the 'spotlight' section of the Affinity website to see some of the work possible with the apps.
> Anyone, who wants to make up their own mind about the Affinity apps can download a free trial
Because the discussion is not whether Affinity apps are good or not, but whether they are good relative to Adobe, anyone that wants to make up their own mind also can download a free trial of CC apps.
Pantone swatches, image trace, artboards, plugins are the 4 biggies. Especially plugins, of which I have a large variety and many custom scripts.
One other thing that stands alone and is absolutely critical, that would seem to work in Designer but doesn't, is export for embroidery. It is a quirk of my local shop but there is no vector export format from Designer that my shop can use. They end up importing ("digitizing") a jpeg. This causes many more steps in the approval workflow. With Illustrator I just export an eps and they import that and it comes out perfect basically the first time. Obviously Designer can export eps but the software on the other side doesn't like it. (And even though their software can handle native illustrator, import of that doesn't work either. Has to be eps, from Illustrator, not Designer.) I'm 100% sure it's their crap embroidery software (I mean, they are using win95 if that indicates anything), but it is what it is. It's especially odd because embroidery is very low resolution. jpeg should be perfectly fine!! I just get way better final results with the eps flow.
That embroidery issue doesn't come into my evaluation of the goodness or not of Designer as a standalone tool. I just mention it because it does affect me and I think it's an interesting point to bring up. I'm sure many many people are dependent on Illustrator for similar workflow/pipeline issues. It doesn't make the software good or bad, but does create the dependence.
I think the issue people have is they get insulted when you say the software they enjoy to use is not very good. But there are 2 kinds of good. Absolute and relative. Relative to Illustrator, Designer doesn't compare. That is my critique.
There are some things I do like very much about Designer. Personas. Slices. SVG support is much better (keep in mind tho I'm stuck on CS6). These things, however, do not begin to challenge Illustrator.
I understand why Serif would want to stand apart with their own feature set, but now I find myself using 2 tools. Oh how I, and many other non-professional users, would love to replace Illustrator.
Keep in mind, I believe I am in the target demographic for Designer. I am an occasional user, not a daily use professional. The price and pricing model is perfection. The ease of use is perfection. I dare say that the online userbase/forums and free tips and help you can get are much much better. But the lack of features is saddening.
It's interesting because Serif (the company) does not compete with Adobe (the company), even though at a surface level they would appear to. The cost difference between Illustrator and Designer is worlds apart. Maybe this is why they don't work on feature parity. They don't want to be on Adobe's radar.
With Catalina, I'm soon going to have to bail on Illustrator. I'll probably have to invest some time in Inkscape. I could pirate CC or I could use CS6 in Windows VM (again, technically pirating although many would justify it), but I'm not that person.
And if you want an alternative to Adobe Premiere, I highly recommend DaVinci Resolve. Free for most features, then just a one off payment of $299. One of the industry leaders in colour grading and has a composition suite (acquired from DFX Fusion) built right in.
Resolve is pretty nice. It still has 4k/HighDPI scaling issues (it's based on QT5 under the skin) that make things too large on some screens, but other than that it's pretty solid.
I started using Davinci Resolve a few years ago and its fantastic! It seemed too good to be true, and I kept waiting to find some dark secret or "catch" but nope, it's just really good software priced reasonably.
Seconded, I am not at all knowledgable about video editing but had to do some stuff which was beyond the capabilities of iMovie and was impressed by Resolve. It’s fairly complex and the UI is pretty non-standard (true of many “creative”/media applications) but fairly logical and there’s loads of help online. Plus it’s free if you don’t need larger than 4K export!
Thanks for the hint! Any experience with high FPS footage? My old Premiere version I still have around works fine for regular 30/60 fps footage, but 240 FPS stuff it just can't handle properly.
Good question, but sadly I don’t know. I know there a way to optimise your clips for editing to keep performance up. A bit like Proxies but I think simpler. Not sure if that applies to high FPS footage.
Since it doesn’t cost anything, it might be worth giving it a test.
Been using both designer and photo for about 2 years, to replace Photoshop mainly. While mostly great, some features are missing for vectors which makes layers broken down into tiny bits instead of groups.
The only way to solve it is to open the file in illustrator and save it as an .ai file to fix it. I've been told it works in Corel draw as well.
Hmm. How good are they with the "grunt work" stuff for professional print design? Color profiles, PDF export, scripts for text formatting, files loading a gigabyte worth of photos, etc? I'm desperately waiting for a proper Adobe replacement but they're sitting on that segment, not with flashy, new features but with a solid-as-hell base of tried and tested background functionality.
Profile support is fine, compatible with ICC profiles, does soft proofing and black point compensation. You'd have to go into more depth about your use cases as I know Adobe let some wild stuff happen, but if you just need to use and embed profiles and soft proof, you can do that.
Its PDF export is good, not great—again, Adobe allows for extreme granularity in PDF settings so I'd need to know specific use cases to advise. PDF import and placing PDF docs is surprisingly good, in some case shockingly so. If you're publishing books built from scratch in Affinity Publisher, there's nothing off the top of my head that I had to fundamentally change about my workflow in shipping 4-color books with layered artwork and columnar text with sidebars to prepress. If you're editing PDFs or converting from INDD, you can get away with a lot but you need to be careful since there are a few feature gaps (see the next paragraph in particular) that don't convert well or at all.
What you'll miss the most falls under what I think you mean by "scripts for text formatting". Publisher doesn't do grep styles or anything similar enough to replace that. It's the biggest feature I miss regularly. You'll miss the level of automation complexity and droplets in Photo too if you use those regularly in Photoshop.
I don't have any problems with large or complex layouts loading huge amounts of data for artwork, or massive text docs.
What I get that I didn't have in Adobe, and especially InDesign: pretty much full access from any of the component apps to vector drawing tools, raster and vector brushes, and shape tools, all of which behave consistently across the suite. No more having to flip my brain from Illustrator's vector drawing to Photoshop's to InDesign's, they all just work with each other and the same way, copy and paste across each other without any fuss, edit within each other easily when necessary, etc.
I miss some power features, especially around styles and Photo automation, but I've adapted, and I appreciate the hell out of how well-integrated the three apps are with each other in interface and functionality.
I use Affinity Designer all the time. I bought Affinity Photo but when I actually had to do real work a small nit made me go buy a Photoshop license. That nit was I had several hundreds PNG files I needed to edit. In PS I double click the PNG in the Finder/Explorer, the file opens in Photoshop, I edit, if I added layers I Ctrl/Cmd-Shift-E to collapse them then Cmd/Ctrl-S to save and it saves back to the .PNG. Affinity can only save to non Affinity file formats via "Export" which is brings up one or more serial dialogs and save as file selector. That minor difference was enough to make it worth it for me to pay Adobe $120 to save me from hours of tedium. I mean $120 is not "that" much money and so it was worth it for me to save me even a little frustration. Others have complained about this workflow issue to Affinity but I think so far it's fallen on deaf ears.
I know it's a minor nit and few people will probably care but it's annoying enough for people used to being able to more quickly edit screenshot .PNGs and or .JPGs that I hope Affinity listens eventually. Because of that though I've never gotten used to Affinity Photo where as I'm pretty happy with Affinity Designer
Agreed, across the board it's the automation features that I miss the most. Macro recording is about all they offer, and while you can do some batch runs I haven't been able to replicate anything but some pretty simple actions.
They seem to be focused on Photoshop plugin compatibility over other features at the moment, which is good for some specialized workflows, but I really want better automation in the whole suite.
I'll at least say the lack of automation has finally pushed me to learn more about what I can do with the likes of imagemagick, but the feature-specific use cases like you bring up will be a gap until they fortify those automation features.
Yes, there's a lot of stuff the GIMP doesn't have, but mostly it's just the annoying UX. I'm sure half of it is just that I'm used to Photoshop, but I'm also pretty sure the other half is GIMP.
I'm not sure how I haven't seen these before. Those apps look great! I've tried sketch, but it just feels too far from the adobe world I'm used to, especially for raster graphics work.
Not affected now, but being non-US is not a guarantee. Many European companies would like to trade with for example Iran, but can't since they also have a big market in the US, so they can be targeted.
The "best" method is to download the actual software through adobe cloud, and then use the dll method - that way you're using a single dll that's more easily verifiable and from a "trustworthy" source, instead the entire application. (You're still crossing your fingers for no viruses of course).
Of course this method won't work if you can't access it in the first place....
Don't forget no longer being able to watch your favourite movies, when the studios decide the service you subscribe to is no longer profitable for them.
Your music library doesn’t disappear - if you bought music from iTunes. The music you bought would/could be on your computer. If you bought it within the last decade, it would be DRM free.
Ah yes my music! You mean songs that have been overwritten by whatever match they decide is close enough (in some cases). Or you mean my music, that I've listened two maybe 200 times each. Or do you mean my music, that the artists themselves gave to me.
I don't much care for your argument, even if you're legally correct.
This would be less of an issue if the way people actually acquired music was still by buying the album, but that's not the case in the vast majority of people's experiences.
I'm sorry, when was the last time you rented something to put into your "library".
The way they sell these subscription services doesn't make it at all clear to the users what they are buying.
P.S. plus think about who this model helps the most. It's surely not the artists themselves, especially if the songs I know and love can't be played anymore. What artist would want their work to become inaccessible to those who love it?
No of course we know they would go away if we stop paying, that's not my top issue. I've committed to paying $10/m (hoping prices don't change to much). Of course this isn't perfect, since it's not unimaginable that I'd need to stop paying for music monthly at some point.
What really offends me when music disappears while I'm paying monthly for the service.
TLDR; the entire subscription model is user hostile in most cases, like this one. And I'll argue it's also rather hostile to the artist here too.
Do you also get offended when you pay for any of the subscription video services and content is removed?
If you don’t like music going away, especially with Apple Music, just buy the music you don’t want to lose and add it to your library. It integrates with the subscription service.
I don't like seeing content just disappear from netflix. One of the worst features.
If I rent from the store I know how long I have. If I find something on netflix it could disappear while I'm still trying to get through it. If I save it chances are it won't be there in a few months.
In a far off land of yesteryear, you live happily and healthfully in a small settlement. Despite not being a farmer yourself you own a rooster who wakes you up in time for work every morning.
After years of being awoken by the same rooster, a salesman comes to you telling you of a fancy device which will wake you up at ANY time you wish, not just when the sun rises. You think, this is great! I'll buy one, and wake up later on the weekends (ironically forgetting you still own a rooster...) Of course you knew how to feed the rooster, but this magic device needs power and breaks sometimes... and the only person around to help is, of course, the same salesman. He goes way out his way for you at first, offering free power, and quick repairs. But as time goes on, and as the masses make use of these alarms, he's unable to keep up the same level of service to you. Well that and he's too busy spending all the coin you've given him.
Finally you find yourself with a dead rooster (oops) and a broken alarm clock, with the only repairman out on vacation, while you're missing work in the mornings. Sadly rooster alarm clocks have fallen out of style, and the thought of owning one sounds as crazy then as it does to us now.
That's a very inaccurate story. Let me correct it.
First of all, you don't buy an alarm clock, you rent one and pay a monthly subscription. The salesman is all happy to elaborate on the benefits of this arrangement - you won't have to worry about batteries and repairs and such. You're a smart farmer, in your head a CEO of a farming corporation, so you buy the "capex vs opex" argument.
Secondly, the alarm clock doesn't break. You pay the fee, and it works. Except they replace it every two weeks with a slightly different one. Prettier, the salesman says. Over time it loses all the ergonomic handles and knobs, and becomes a flat pane of glass. Better UX, the salesman says. Sometimes weird things happen - you have an impression that it never shows 4:20 PM, or that alarms only fire on even numbered minutes. This may have to do with some contractual kerfuffle between the alarm clock provider and their "partners", because apparently time is intellectual property now.
Then one day you notice that the alarm clock has a camera and a microphone. When cornered, the salesman admits it had one from the very earliest model, and defends themselves by asking how else would they know how to make the product better (and no big deal about the 180 advertising partners; all they care about is making sure your day is even better by getting right products to you). Disgusted, you cut the microphone and tape up the camera (and get accused of stealing revenue from "honest companies").
Then one day your alarm clock bricks itself, because your government said or did something wrong in relation to oil prices and the US government decided your country can go to hell - and since your alarm clock is provided by a US company, it gets stuck forever showing 6:66 AM.
iTunes has had bugs that try to remove duplicates and end up deleting peoples' own remixed material.
Amazon discovered they didn't have the rights to a book in Canada and deleted it off people devices. The book? 1984.
I think the iTunes issues have been fixed, but it's still stupid to not have your own backup independent of stuff accessible by "cloud" services.
I buy everything I can off bandcamp and download it to my machine. I occasionally buy off Amazon music, but I really hate it when that's the only option an artists has and would prefer to buy/rip a physical CD at a show. I keep my music on a 512GB microSD card (crazy these things exist now) and I always keep my own backups of my own content; buy DRM free whenever I can on Gog/Humble over Steam.
I prefer to have things I own, not licenses to software and content that can be revoked at any time.
Amazon’s books contain DRM. iTunes music that you bought within the last decade was DRM free and could be played and backed up anywhere. Apple couldn’t “revoke” DRM free music that you backed up.
Sure, I do have a local backup. But restoring from backup is inconvenient, and an important part of why I bought on itunes instead of ripping my own cd's was to reduce hassle and make my life more easy.
EDIT: And to restore from backup you have to know you're missing it. They never gave me any errors or warnings. Just a few things were missing. They're basically gaslighting their users.
The knowing it's missing is a great point! I was going crazy because I felt like my music was changing but I couldn't really tell, since I mostly play on shuffle. Took a little while to notice what was going on.
No watermarking besides the standard AAC tags saying who the owner is.
Steve Jobs argued for DRM free music as a means to interoperability instead of licensing FairPlay way back in 2007 in his “Thoughts on Music” post. He argued that most music was already DRM free and easily copied and only a small percentage of music on most iPods was bought from iTunes.
Along with the free software movement, I would be here with a movement that allows us to return to self-hosted, native and peer-to-peer services. There seem to be a smattering of them out there but they are disorganized and not united under one banner like FOSS is.
The "Fediverse" is close, but I think we need to go a step further and build a community of self-hosted, peer-to-peer services. While federation is a great first step, it still requires _someone_ to manage a server of N users...
The problem with pure peer-to-peer, is privacy. While now only one server knows what you do, in a peer-to-peer it changes to almost everyone who are connected.
You can can indeed improve privacy, but it normally means giving up speed (like Tor).
Additionally, there are other issues of p2p as a main solution. For example, phone battery or often being blocked in routers of public spaces etc.
I think that a mix between Fediverse and P2P would be nice.
A power user can choose to be a node, knowing the price. But the common user would use some server/service to access it. But those must be planned such that switching is easy.
As unpopular as it is in general-subject tech forums, the solution is data stores that provide decentralization and censorship resistance through distributed consensus enabled by crypto-economics, namely the blockchain.
One day, the provision of every electronic service in the world could be coordinated in a censorship resistant manner on the blockchain. Before that happens, the cryptoasset/blockchain space's software suite needs to be improved, with solutions to problems like stolen and lost private keys, and scalability needs to improve a few orders of magnitude, but seeing all of the development on dApps and smart wallets, and all the work happening to enable layer 1 sharding and to develop layer 2 scalability mechanisms like zk roll-up, I suspect it's inevitable.
I don't think it'll help with anything except perpetuating the artificial scarcity.
The most basic proof of ownership is the fact of having that something, and there being no party claiming that you took it from them. Copying bits is so cheap everyone can get a copy from someone else who volunteered their copy and there's no point in even metering that. There's arguably little sense to have a market for digital data, yet we persist at trying. What you're seeking with blockchain is proof of compliance with a complex and somewhat arbitrary set of regulations.
Bandwidth and storage are both scarce resources and metering them out so producers are compensated is necessary to enable an economically sufficient quantity of both to be produced.
I agree that intellectual property rights might reduce overall efficiency due to the artificial complexity and friction it adds.
I think I agree with you, at least in principle. But there's a lot of ground to cover, and powerful forces who would like to remain in control, and new bad actors looking for new ways to gain control. Nothing's going to be as clean and easy as we'd like it to be :(
>>We are unable to issue refunds. Executive order 13884, orders the cessation of all activity with the entities including no sales, service, support, refunds, credits, etc.
this is ridiculous.. No refunds? if their cycle starts on 1st of Oct, they have paid for entire month(let alone annual subscriptions) but cant use any and cant get a refund..
As an indirect response to this, if you'd like to see impartial predictions for the next election - turn to Vegas [1]. People betting have a financial incentive, not a political one - so it tends to be a great way to avoid potential bias. If you're not familiar with betting terminology something like "+110" (current odds on Trump) means if you bet $100, you will win $110 in profit. By contrast something like -450 (Clinton's odds on the morning of the election in 2016) means you need to bet $450 to win $100 in profit.
So the smaller a number, the more likely it is to happen. Factored into this is going to be a bit of juice. Trump's currently on +110 so Vegas is saying the next election is basically a coin flip. For an example of this revealing things that regular polls might not, it's also showing that Biden is a pretty sizable dog to Warren (+550 vs +375).
You can now use these numbers to see how close your predictions come to what the market is suggesting. So for instance let's imagine you think Trump has a 50% chance of winning. What would be your expected value if you bet $100 on this? It's: 0.5 * -$100 + 0.5 * $110 = $5. So you have expected value there of a 5% gain, so you're slightly more optimistic than Vegas - though once you factor in the juice/vig/'tax' it's about even.
Now let's imagine that you think Biden or Warren stand a 60% chance of winning (30% a piece) with 40% for Trump, and so you put $100 on each of them. We can again work out the math. 0.4 * -$200 + 0.3 * $550 + 0.3 * $375 = $197.5. That means that if your expectation is accurate, you would have an expected value of doubling any wager. So you are going pretty far away from what the market thinks, and if you believe this to be objectively accurate - it'd be a terrific wagering opportunity.
If by "they" you mean the electoral college, then yes. But if you mean "they" as in The People, then no - they voted for Hillary Clinton. I'm not a fan of either, for the record; but even with the voting irregularities which indicate fraud in favor of Trump, > 50% of the popular vote was for Clinton.
Trump's campaign was finely tuned to win the electoral college, because that was the winning condition. If there was no electoral college, his campaign would've been different, and he might've won either way.
I'm against Trump, but you can't move the goalposts after an election. There is no reason to think he would not have had a different strategy had the system been on popular vote instead of using the electoral college
Not traditionally. Executive Orders are essentially out-of-band governmental actions. Normally (the normality that preceded the current administration and even the previous one), Congress would produce bills which sometimes would become laws. Those would be the significant policy changes.
Now there are comparatively few Congressional effects and more Executive Orders.
It's the way it works today, and the way it has worked in the last two presidencies as well. Yes, I'd love a big crackdown on EOs (a drum I've been beating since the Bush presidency).
It's not really true that it's "not traditionally" the way that government works. The first half of the 20th century is the watermark.
Not that I remotely disagree with you in principle, just want to make the point that this isn't some recent development that we can swing back towards normalcy --- it's been this way and there's no going back.
This insanity started much earlier than that. For one extreme example see executive order 6102 [1]. In 1933 FDR passed an executive order that made it a criminal act for Americans to possess any private gold coins, bullion, or certificated ownership. They were required to turn over all their gold to the government in exchange for about $400 per ounce in inflation adjusted prices. Refusing to do so was punishable by up to a $194,000 fine and ten years in prison. And this was topped off by the "gold reserve act" [2] passed the following year which let the government artificially set the price of gold. FDR chose a 75% increase.
Makes modern executive orders look downright tame by comparison, and this is from a president that would go down extremely positively in history.
Can we put this into perspective? The Venezuelan economy is in shambles, a hyperinflationary crisis that has forced millions out of the country as food is so scarce people are forced to eat zoo animals and pets. The government is illegitimate and destroying aid trucks trying to bring food and medical supplies to their people.
But here we are, complaining that the well-connected wealthy at the top of this mess can't get a refund for their purchase of Adobe Photoshop. Given that Maduro has nationalized nearly all of the major corporations in the nation, you necessarily can't be wealthy enough to own this software without being an open ally.
This action hurts people in that country, but it's supposed to hurt because until they get rid of their self-destructive government things won't begin to get better.
Being unable to get a refund for Photoshop is clearly not the biggest problem in Venezuela right now, but it's still a problem, and it's relevant to OP's link. We are allowed to talk about problems even if they're relatively small.
> But here we are, complaining that the well-connected wealthy at the top of this mess can't get a refund for their purchase of Adobe Photoshop.
I'd be more concerned that, e.g.,non-regime-aligned publishers can't continue using Creative Cloud that they've paid for than that anyone can't get a refund.
Are there any non-regime-aligned publishers around in Venezuela? I suspect you start doing that sort of thing and you find yourself facing bigger problems than Adobe Creative Cloud.
More like ”90% of the people affected by this are the ones with their boots on the necks of their fellow citizens, so how about no Photoshop for them.”
Even if you're correct, how is denying these people Photoshop doing anything and why is Adobe punishing the other 10%? Otherwise I can't imagine how you could frame graphic artists as the true enemy of the people.
The executive order is only against the government and their associates. Adobe has declined to put the effort into identifying which of their Venezuelan customers are covered by the sanctions.
> The executive order is only against the government and their associates
Under the plain text of the order, that's true only for a very expansive definition of “associates”, since it includes anyone who has (past tense, without limitation as to time window) acted, even indirectly, on behalf of the government or any of the identified individuals and entities, or on behalf of any entity that is, even indirectly, owned or controlled by the government or any of the named entities or individuals.
As far as I can tell this is a blanket generalization of Venezuelan Adobe account holders. Any student body, civil society NGO or independent media outlet that relies on registered copies of Photoshop, InDesign or Acrobat will be impacted.
You’re going to find a lot of assumptions here. Lots of wealthy, upper class Venezuelans who don’t live there but “have family” there with anti-Madurai attitudes.
I'd like to see what Adobe's plans are for the profits they receive in not refunding their clients (however small). A donation to a Venezuela emergency appeal would go down well.
Edit: deleted "Can't apologise after you drop a sales nuke" in favour of a more measured comment.
That perpetual license would mean bunk if you're suddenly prohibited from accessing that content (or more specifically: a provider is prohibited from allowing you to access that content) by an Executive Order.
A perpetual license would still activate the software you had received prior to having access prohibited. That is the issue in question. People have loaded software on their machines and they cannot use it. You are bringing up another important aspect of reproduction and the importance of maintaining access to software installers, but that is a different conversation.
The company sells a license for the use of the software into perpetuity as opposed to selling a subscription which limits the window of time the software may be used. A perpetual license would mean that the company could not legally withdraw your ability to use the software and could be held civilly liable.
Yeah, I've worked on several video games that only exist on probably a handful of individual's Wiis (WiiWare) or old iPhones, or maybe in a torrent somewhere now. And yet I worked on a Playstation Portable game that you can still get from eBay for pretty cheap, over a decade after the company shut down.
I'm no longer a big fan of games just being in the cloud, or even the rights not being freed up once the company dissolves.
This is true for photoshop, but for any other piece of software (le’ts say Outlook), just not getting security updates would be a huge deal.
Also I wonder if DRM servers stay available in this case. If not, it could stop any new installs, or stop existing instances from running when the current token is expired.
Back in high school, my best friend wanted to have a legal copy of Photoshop (we were broke kids and pirated everything back then). He eventually found a copy of Photoshop 2 on eBay for cheap, got it and it's CD key and then purchased the upgrades to eventually get to Photoshop 5. I think he was able to pull it off for under $100 or pretty close (I think it retailed for like $300~$400 back then?).
I too miss when you owned a copy of the software, licensed to a single machine, that was on a physical transferable medium. Jetbrains at least allowed a fallback license, which Adobe doesn't have (and honestly that's because Jetbrains couldn't get away with that shit with a tech focused customer base).
Take about crippling certain business in Venezuela. All this is going to do is encourage piracy (and potentially malware).
It might have been an unopened box... I did something similar with an old copy of Adobe Premiere that I got on clearance for a couple of bucks, then upgraded.
A (somewhat) serious question: since Autodesk, Adobe, etc. can use Shrinkwrap/Clickwrap/Browserwrap to distinguish between a sale and a license what's stopping users from doing it right back?
What if my browser sent custom headers to Adobe saying that by serving me a webpage Adobe has agreed to sell me, not license, a copy of each new edition of any software they release for $1 in perpetuity and that a breach of contract would result in liquidated damages of $10,000 per undelivered copy.
If I'm bound by Adobe's Terms of Service before I've had a chance to read them by nature of the my browser's request then surely Adobe would be similarly bound to my Terms of Servers(TM) by nature of their response?
Wouldn't work, as custom headers are not reviewed by a person at any point.
If I'm bound by Adobe's Terms of Service before I've had a chance to read them by nature of the my browser's request then surely Adobe would be similarly bound to my Terms of Servers(TM) by nature of their response?
You're not bound until you have had the opportunity to review the TOS. Meaning that merely accessing a page from somewhere else (i.e., a link or url) isn't enough--but once you're on (or revisiting) their website, if you interact with it in any matter beyond visiting the TOS page the TOS would apply even if you chose not to read it.
This is not crippling any businesses in Venezuela. Anyone using Photoshop has already been pirating it because it's ludicrously expensive relative to local wages. They are instead being crippled by the barely functioning and heavily rationed power grid, food shortages, hyperinflation, etc.
> (we were broke kids and pirated everything back then)
Why brag or joke about that? And why does it matter if you were 'broke kids'?
> Take about crippling certain business in Venezuela. All this is going to do is encourage piracy (and potentially malware).
Do you understand what is going on here? Adobe is complying with a government order. And the government issued it in order to achieve an objective in a country where I believe (I only know what I see and read) there are significant problems.
> All this is going to do is encourage piracy (and potentially malware).
Apparently they have no supplies in hospitals and rampant inflation. They have much bigger issue than piracy and malware.
> Why brag or joke about that? And why does it matter if you were 'broke kids'?
You may have been reading too far into this. It sounds to me like a statement of fact, not a brag or a joke.
> Apparently they have no supplies in hospitals and rampant inflation. They have much bigger issue than piracy and malware.
Having a job is part of the solution, and the use of software is part of many jobs that have international value (i.e. from countries whose currency is not inflating rampantly).
Don't pretend like the US government has a good justification for this. It's purely another attempt to destabilize the country even more.
The entire purpose of these sort of sanctions is to hurt the public enough that they start putting pressure on their government to make a change that the sanctioning government wants. In this case the US wants Venezuela's government to be replaced with one who would be more friendly to US oil companies taking all of their oil and paying a small portion of it's value to the politicians who allowed them in.
The main reason Venezuela has been solvent up til now is that they have a lot of oil, which the government sells and uses to pay for social programs. But since the price of oil went down they've been having some money trouble. Combine that with the fact that Maduro knows as much about monetary policy as Trump knows about tariffs and you've got a deflating economy that's only made worse by sanctions, which again, is their entire purpose. They are specifically trying to ensure that Venezuela's government collapses so that US companies can move in and rob the region of it's resources.
Don't get me wrong, the best thing Venezuelans could do is probably throw Maduro out on his ass, but replacing him with some US-friendly bootlicker is worse than no solution.
As a Venezuelan I disagree, I can tell you that the people here dream of the day when a US military intervention takes place and the US(or really anyone not communist) take the country.
Mh that is not really my experience of talking with Venezuelians in Colombia. At all. They sure want Maduro out but certainly don't want the US in, that would be the recipe for ending up like El Salvador in 10 years.
What a coincidence I'm in Colombia too, Anyway I'm not saying that everybody wants to be a US colony but that is a better alternative than the status quo.
I can tell when you don't have electricity, gasoline, water or food anything is an improvement.
> I too miss when you owned a copy of the software, licensed to a single machine, that was on a physical transferable medium.
I only purchase music on CDs and vinyl. In each case I legally have the right to listen to the music forever, and even can sell the album if I tire of it.
Digital downloads are not that way at all and because of that I will never buy one. Likewise with ebooks.
I also will never personally purchase software on a subscription model.
Why are digital downloads not similarly 'forever'? Do WAVs and MP3s have DRM capabilities? Asking legitimately - for any new vinyl that I buy I use the download codes that come with albums rather than ripping them manually, as it's very convenient for e.g. listening at work.
There’s nothing wrong with digital music from a “keep it for life” perspective, as long as you’re on top of your backups.
WAV and MP3 do not have DRM capability. Even music purchased through iTunes has been available DRM-free for a decade [1].
For example, I’ve got a lot of albums, bought through Bandcamp, which I downloaded as FLAC and burned to CDs. Same quality as a retail CD, and no one can take it from me without physically stealing it.
but since he owns the 100% digital copies this ain't a concern, he can burn them again (not very ecological TBH, I've would rather put it on some big storage player)
> Take about crippling certain business in Venezuela. All this is going to do is encourage piracy (and potentially malware).
Adobe doesn't really have a choice here. They're doing this to comply with sanctions, not because they have any dog in fighting Maduro.
If Venezuelans pirate Photoshop, then Adobe can go and say "hey, these people are using it without our permission, which means we're still in compliance".
> Adobe doesn't really have a choice here. They're doing this to comply with sanctions, not because they have any dog in fighting Maduro.
Adobe had a choice when they chose to stop selling software in favor of cloud services. This is a perfect illustration of why that choice was anti-consumer. It shouldn't be possible to revoke access to software functions that don't fundamentally require remote server support.
What would you say Adobe should do differently in this situation? If nothing then I think the person you are replying is right when they say Adobe doesn't really have a choice here.
It would be fascinating if Adobe quietly started selling license keys and offline-friendly software again. They couldn’t sell directly to Venezuela, but software, ah, finds a way.
Selling actual software licenses again that don't require connecting to a remote server to use? Like the had for over a decade. They could still do point release updates on-line, but the software itself should come with a license key that just works without needing to validate over the Internet.
Even if they didn't want to do that, they could do the Jetbrains perpetual fall-back license model where if you hold a license for version x for a year, you get to keep version x. You still get version y when it comes out, but if you cancel before a certain time, it will fall back to your license for x forever, until you pay your subscription again.
Obviously there are many ways Adobe could have improved their licensing model from the start but the person I was replying implied that there were obvious alternative actions that they could take now. I agree with you but it still seems the case that there "isn't much they could do here".
Users have a choice to not use Photoshop, yet it's still the standard. Creative Cloud really isn't an issue for most people, it takes exceptional circumstances for this type of DRM to become a hassle.
I'm not remotely saying I agree with it, but its been transparent enough that their user base hasn't revolted and found something better, so this will be more and more common with software.
I'm not sure about the rest of CC, but adobe has a near-monopoly with photoshop. I personally use Pixelmator for all my image editing needs, but I am not an image-editing pro... if I was Pixelmator would NOT cut it... my only real choice would be photoshop.
> their user base hasn't revolted and found something better,
If no viable alternatives exist, the choice is not do it or pay whatever they ask. Which is why many cc users feel like hostages.
I am not saying that the Affinity suite of apps is at full feature parity with Adobe, but they are certainly targeting the pro market with their offerings.
I worked in design for almost 15 years before getting into software development. I have a few former colleagues who moved over to Affinity. It's got really good reviews so far. When my copy of CS3 stops activating (probably next pc upgrade), I'll probably buy a copy.
On a personal note, I really wish they would have done a Linux release.
Their choice was before the sanctions. If they had chosen "Media + Key" = Adobe software access, instead of "Subscription", people would still have access to those applications.
Adobe chose to link operation of paid copies to the say-so of a remote server, rather than allow independent operation of paid copies. Had they chosen the latter, the gov't order would have been largely moot; what they chose proved devastating.
Designing a fail-safe system involves acknowledging that you may not know why the system may fail, just that something must be done to mitigate the problem if it does. International sanctions proved to be such an unexpected point of failure.
When you vote with your wallet the way that I described, the companies that act badly get fewer dollars. If they want to raise their prices more and more until 1 person is paying $1mil/year for their software, and he gets all the votes, that's fine by me.
You can also vote with your application of skill. Don't build products using crippled software for people with lots of money. They sure as hell aren't going to build it themselves.
Lately I keep seeing variations of the argument "I can't switch to x because the would be inconvenient somehow, so I'll just stick with y". Eg, "I can't switch to linux, because some games won't work so I'll just live with telemetry".
Until people learn to face some inconvenience and limitations they'll just keep being abused by these companies. Changing the world requires some personal pain.
This executive order seems to be a passive aggressive way of declaring war against a country that has done nothing against the US directly. That said, I understand that adobe is a US company.
As an Aussie, I look at these international companies as that: international. Should I now start considering all forms of non Aussie software /tech a matter of potential infiltration?
I hope Adobe understand they are now complicit in an international fracas, where there's a lot of innocent people in Venezuela likely feeling an immediate financial crush, simply because the software they were using stopped. They can't work now. No money means they can't feed their kids.
They will blame Adobe for this, and not some executive order.
What about the day when some US order outlaws my country? This is a very sad day for international tech.
> As an Aussie, I look at these international companies as that: international. Should I now start considering all forms of non Aussie software /tech a matter of potential infiltration?
Considering the converse is already true, why not?
I think by "the converse" GP means that apparently, thanks to recent Australian laws, all Australian software companies are legally required to facilitate government surveillance.
As an Aussie, I look at these international companies as that: international. Should I now start considering all forms of non Aussie software /tech a matter of potential infiltration?
Yes! And if they were truly internatonal as you thought they were, it would be even worse, because they would be immune from any legal action. Corporations acting as if they were sovereign powers would be even worse than they are today.
> there's a lot of innocent people in Venezuela likely feeling an immediate financial crush, simply because the software they were using stopped. They can't work now. No money means they can't feed their kids.
That's, unfortunately, the whole point of sanctions. They work by inflicting enough civilian damage to get people to bully their own government into submitting to the will of party issuing the sanction.
> What about the day when some US order outlaws my country? This is a very sad day for international tech.
Most of your SaaSes you depend on will stop working. This is a reminder why SaaS as practiced today is a bad idea.
I too hope Australia is never like those countries. The countries that the US targets sanctions on, no coincidence, are always near the bottom of the Democracy Index (and typically very high on corruption rankings).
Short list of liberal democracies that have zero fear of falling under comparable US sanctions today:
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Ireland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Slovakia, Czechia, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and so on.
The reason why so many powerful, influential, affluent, liberal nations cooperate with the US so frequently on sanctions - and have for much of the post WW2 era - is because they know they are under zero threat from the US sanctioning them and they also know the US has exclusively targeted sanctions at non-democratic, extremely high-corruption nations.
It's really simple in fact, here's the Democracy Index. On average the higher countries rank, the less they ever need to be concerned about US sanctions being directed at them.
I wonder whether "dictatorship" is actual reason. I see your list:
> Russia: dictatorship. Cuba: dictatorship. Iran: theocratic dictatorship. Venezuela: dictatorship. North Korea: dictatorship. Syria: dictatorship. Sudan: recently a military junta.
I read it as: Russia: enemy ex-superpower, second biggest net oil exporter. Cuba: stole our oil refineries half a century ago, we're still mad about it. Iran: in top 10 of net oil exporters (also, tried to take them over and fucked up). Venezuela: top ten of net oil exporters. North Korea: old enemy, though also universally considered evil. Syria: US wants to force a government change and supports the rebels; there could be an indirect oil-related angle in here.
It may be that I've just been reading too much about energy economics recently and am getting all consipracy-theorist. Even if so, I absolutely don't buy that there's any higher good for any of those sanctions.
Though the OP is mostly correct. You're response is straining reality.
Russia is technically a democracy, but given that Putin controls the press directly, murders opposition members, and thwarts opponents from running in elections, it's a de-facto dictatorship.
Those are all terrible, terrible places frankly we shouldn't trade with them purely on a moral basis - but we would tolerate them if they played nice.
FYI: Cuba did not 'steal oil' this is false. And nobody cares about Iran's Oil power, they care that Iran has a publicly stated objective literally of overthrowing the USA. And Syria has no oil, your points verge on conspiracy theory. The US would love to rid itself of any entanglement in Syria, and frankly Iran if it could.
> Those are all terrible, terrible places frankly we shouldn't trade with them purely on a moral basis - but we would tolerate them if they played nice.
The Saudis are the same and they also didn't play nice.
> FYI: Cuba did not 'steal oil' this is false.
I wrote "oil refineries", and I must be misunderstanding Wikipedia then, when it says:
"on October 19, 1960 (almost two years after the Cuban Revolution had led to the deposition of the Batista regime) the U.S. placed an embargo on exports to Cuba except for food and medicine after Cuba nationalized American-owned Cuban oil refineries without compensation and as a response to Cuba's role in the Cuban missile crisis. On February 7, 1962 the embargo was extended to include almost all exports.[1]"
Doubtful, given the amount of oil they have and export.
> they care that Iran has a publicly stated objective literally of overthrowing the USA.
Which is entirely because of the "tried to take them over and fucked up" thing I mentioned.
> And Syria has no oil, your points verge on conspiracy theory.
Of course it has oil, it's even an exporter. But here I thought about the longer-term US involvement over the last decades. They didn't start messing with countries in the region because of terrorists or WMDs.
(I don't claim to be an expert in geopolitics, I'm just saying how the "look at these sanctions, they're all against dictatorships!" claim upthread reads to me, with my mind currently primed on worldwide energy economy.)
The state of Saudi Arabia absolutely does play nice with the rest of the world - that's why we support them even though they are ugly internally. They are a source of stability in the region, the opposite of Iran.
Iran is a hostile, belligerent state, trying to obtain nuclear weapons, they are actively threatening Saudi Arabia trying to turn it into Syria-like chaos. Conversely, Saudi Arabia is not trying to overthrow the Iranian state. Iran is actively trying to overthrow Israel (Hezbollah, Hamas, bases in Syria, control of Lebanon). Iran has troops all over Syria and Iraq. They are holding ships in the Gulf hostage, playing tricky military games, threatening everyone's shipping.
Iran's source of Oil wealth is an important factor in their ability to make money - but nobody in Saudi or the West cares about it in the sense that they will ever have access to it. There are zero 'Oil Contracts' for Exxon, Halliburton, Total or anyone else in the future.
The American 'embargo' of Cuban Oil is irrelevant - Cuba does not have meaningful oil resources, moreover, the term 'embargo' is misapplied: the US does not 'embargo' Cuba. Cuba can sell to the entire world, just not the USA. Again, it's irrelevant because there's very little oil and the US would be just one customer.
Syria doesn't have any meaningful Oil reserves to the point wherein it rises to being part of the geopolitical equation - ergo - nobody cares. Iran doesn't care about Syria 'because of Oil' - and nobody else does either. It's a small part of their economy, just like anything else. Like the 'Cuban oil' point, it's not going to factor into the regional equation.
'Human Rights' progress can only be made when areas are relatively stable, so if you care about that, then look to have the hostile regimes aborted.
You might already have read this, but Daniel Yergin's The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power is a great overview of all the ways lust for oil has messed with so much of recent history. He also wrote follow-up, The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World which I have not read but also may be of interest regarding energy economics.
Yet, Saudi Arabia is an ally of US and purchases billion dollars of American weapons that kills civilians. You know very well that the sanctions has nothing to do with the democracy index. It is just another tool in the toolbox of the empire to force its hegemony throughout the world.
The Saudis are defending their nation from direct attacks by violent forces just across the border, fully supported and instigated by Iran. Iran recently wiped out 50% of Saudi refining capacity (5% of world output), which is basically shocking.
Now - Saudi Arabia is not keen on human rights in general, and does not play very nice with their weapons, but the clear reality is that they would be happy to stay put at home.
The Saudi Government is not actively trying to destabilise the region or the world, they play nice with the West, and work closely with the US etc. to hunt down terrorists, and of course they have Oil which they sell freely on world markets, with no strategic dealings with others (i.e. China, Russia) - that's why they are an ally. So yes, democracy is obviously not the entire motivation for US sanctions, but it's part of the equation.
No, Saudi Arabia is invading Yemen because their puppet politician, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, lost power in a popular revolution. It's a clear-cut war of aggression - which the Saudis are losing. Among other things, they like to use child soldiers [2] and intentionally caused a famine [3], with over 85k starved children:
>Saudi Arabia was reported to be deliberately targeting means of food production and distribution in Yemen[47] by bombing farms,[48][49] fishing boats,[50] ports,[51] food storages, food factories,[52][53] and other businesses[54] in order to exacerbate famine. These actions led to the UN accusing the Saudi-led coalition of committing war crimes and having a "complete disregard for human life"
>On August 3, 2019, a United Nations report said the US, UK and France may be complicit in committing war crimes in Yemen by selling weapons and providing support to the Saudi-led coalition which is using the starvation of civilians as a tactic of warfare
This is not true, and your reference links actual deny your own argument.
The Saudis have no real interest in being in Yemen - it's obviously very costly to them, and they would rather the historical status quo. This is not a contentious statement.
It's really an impossible argument to make that Saudi Arabia actually wants some kind of military action in Yemen. They have absolutely no reason to want that.
I'm not denying they are doing terrible things. They are playing ugly in an ugly war. This is par for the course in most of the world. And the UN's 'Human Rights' council is made up of some of the world's worst offenders (including Saudi) - so I don't believe that the UN has any credibility there.
Saudi Arabia is generally a benign state actor: they play nicely with the rest of the world. They do not want war. They are not a belligerent. The fact that Saudi Arabia was attacked by Iran last week and the response was 'not much' illustrates this. (FYI I'm speaking of the state, not the internal individuals who support terrorism financially)
Iran is a hostile, belligerent state, bent on gaining nuclear weapons, destabilising the region, they support terrorist etc..
And yes, I recognise that though both are theocratic states, that Iran is actually more tolerant and open than Saudi - but this is not my point.
So if you want salvation for the Yemenis - and frankly Palestinians and everyone else - then you want Iran to be cornered and for that regime to be dismantled. Without antagonism from them, there would be no war in Yemen at this scale and so many other important issues would come to the fore. Even in Israel, as long as they are under legitimate threat (and they are, largely due to Iran i.e. Hezbollah, Hamas, bases in Syria, control over Lebanon politics), there will be no real progress on the Palestinian issue.
If the Australian Telecommunications Act were strictly enforced, would that result in banning US companies that refused backdoor access to encrypted systems?
It's the same choice you have when deciding whether or not to implement end to end encryption. If you intentionally cripple the security of your system, I don't entirely buy it when you blame the government for serving unjust warrants against your system. You made it so they could do that, and either assumed they wouldn't or thought that was the best option.
This is entirely the consequence of them switching to subscription model. Take heed, and realize the same applies to any SaaS you may be using. SaaS may be a profitable business model, but has underappreciated downsides like this.
The problem is this seriously undermines their business model in most of the world which the US may in the short term decide to levy sanctions against as part of its bullying process. Venezuela and Syria have never harmed the US or threatened us in any way whatsoever, yet find themselves on our "shit list". Turkey may soon be there as well, and they are a member of the EU. Who knows which EU nation may be next.
If you buy US software it's not yours and we can take it from you at any moment.
Who wants that sort of software upon which their data depends?
Not a single person in the world with the least bit of sense.
Adobe should fight this as it undermines their business model.
That they are cowards who choose not to means they get what they deserve.
photopea.com is pretty great and doesn't require you to install anything. Ever since I found it I never used gimp anymore. I'm only use it for light editing though (light touch up, removing background, etc), so I have no idea if it can replace photoshop for professional users.
I've been using GIMP since I was 9 years old mate, I've tried using Photoshop and I find it to be a nightmare, can you even get GMIC on Photoshop? It's all just a matter of what you first used.
I am confused. Executive Order 13884 concerns only the government of Venezuela & about 150 specific people/companies in Venezuela. Am I misreading this order or did Adobe?
Probably, it is easier and safer for them to ban Venezuela completely, than to determine whether or not one of their customers is one of those 150.
But, they don't want to say that. They want to blame it all on the government.
A lot of companies do this. Claim that their own business decisions about how to implement government regulations were forced by the government, when in truth it is their own commercial decisions around cost of compliance and risk appetite which were determinative, not the government regulation alone.
I mean, what do you expect them to do? If it costs them more to serve a country than business from the country is worth due to regulations, do you expect them to keep serving the country at a loss? Is the regulation somehow not at fault? It's not like Adobe wants to stop taking people's money in exchange for the service.
They could just come out and say something like: "Although the sanctions only strictly speaking apply to the government and 150 individuals/entities, we have determined that the financial cost and legal risk of determining whether a customer is one of the sanctioned entities is commercially unfeasible, therefore we have decided that the only commercially feasible way for us to implement the sanctions is to block the country of Venezuela entirely."
i.e. Do the same thing they are doing now, just be more open and honest about their reasons.
> Although the sanctions only strictly speaking apply to the government and 150 individuals/entities,
They officially apply to anyone who has ever, directly or indirectly, done anything on behalf of the government, or of those identified individuals and entities. So, if they made your presentation, it would be an inaccurate minimization of the plain language of the executive order.
So Apple hides a Taiwan flag and HN thinks the Software Engineer should have done something, they should rebel and fight against oppression of the Chinese government.
Imagine my surprise here seeing so many people supporting Adobe.
HN isn’t a single person. There’s always a variety of opinions. It’s too easy to find contradictions between two different threads for this to be a helpful critique.
Nor does everyone here feel the need to take strong political stands on a hacker forum. So it’s a tough thing to gauge.
An issue where you are able to view contacts on an iPhone without entering the passcode is an unmitigated civilization ender, while no one cares that many Android phones don’t get any security updates for a large part of their typical lifespan.
See also the stories about working conditions in the ‘Apple factories’, which really are Foxconn factories that build hardware for just about any major manufacturer.
There are a lot of design companies running CS4 (the last DVD based software) on El Capitain, the last version of the Mac OS that runs it. Adobe make efforts to render the serial number checks a problem, particularly for CS3, to encourage upgrades to their rental model. The era of students learning on pirated Adobe products and 'growing' into consumers of their products is over though.
I really miss the Kai's Power Tools era when Adobe was an interesting and innovative platform company http://kai.sub.blue
Specifically (for the benefit of those who've flagged the above comment to death), Stallman and the FSF have opposed the proliferation of DRM and SaaS for this exact reason: because a company can - for any reason - pull the plug on the software for which you've paid.
There are free-as-in-free-speech alternatives to most (if not all) of Adobe's software products. If they're "not good enough", then it's in our best interests to fix that, whether by contributing code to the existing replacements or creating new ones (perhaps forked from the existing ones). In the meantime, even if they're "not good enough", at least they can be used, unlike Adobe's "good enough" tools, so perhaps setting aside those issues in favor of tools that get you most of the way there without the potential to suddenly disappear from you with zero recourse would be prudent?
What I’m saying is that there are alternatives for some traditional desktop apps. There are few alternatives for the big SaaS productivity apps most users use.
No good ones when somebody suddenly pulls the plug on you, because you lose access to all your data and the network - both of which SaaS companies control in order to justify recurring payments.
The people still have some time to get their data, in this case.
Also, people need to realize they don't own data that's not stored on their HW. Cloud is at best a convenience, but I wouldn't trust it to make it so that it's the only place, where my data are stored.
You need to keep control of your data if you want choice in SW.
Inkscape is one of the best examples of open source done well (make sure to use the latest version if your distribution bundles an old one); even when I still had (pirated) versions of Adobe I preferred Inkscape over the Adobe offerings.
Audacity is another great program from experience, and the success of Blender speaks for itself.
Gimp, on the other hand, is a UX nightmare. There's a tutorial on how to draw a line, and you'll need it, because it requires a non-discoverable keyboard shortcut. Its feature set is either ages behind Photoshop, or there but non-discoverable due to bad UX, and the UX makes basic tasks excruciatingly painful.
Photoshop and IrfanView are the two tools I miss most from Windows, the latter even more than the former. Trivial tasks like "crop picture in clipboard and put it back on the clipboard/into a file" are pure pain on Linux, because the only thing that at least works reliably is Gimp with its horrible UX. One of the "lighter" (Paint.NET equivalent) tools left parts of its UI in my saved image. Others don't support the clipboard. IrfanView with Wine just isn't the same either.
I always wondered about Gimp. I use it all the time, but for VERY basic things. But anytime I want to do ANYTHING, even like just add a word to an image or draw a line, I need to go Google how to do it. The newest version seems better, but the UX is just crazy.
I'm starting to think GIMP's problem is that it is too similar to Photoshop. People open GIMP, see a different dialog for the exactly same thing in Photoshop and go "this UX is a nightmare". They don't approach it as a new piece of software that they have to learn how to use effectively.
As a counterexample to all the GIMP bashing in this thread, I'm using it extensively, don't find its interface crazy and in rare occasions that I use Photoshop or PaintShop Pro I find that my experience in GIMP translates reasonably well.
I have never, ever used Photoshop, and have used Gimp since one of its earliest versions (but not frequently) and I'd still pull out Gimp as the textbook example of a non-intuitive UI with poor discoverability. It's gotten better, but it took many years for it to add the hint of pressing shift to draw lines, for example.
The point is that a paint application is not something most of us expect to have to spend time learning how to use effectively for the most basic features, because conceptually painting is very simple.
A lot of people expect the simplicity to be the default, and for the complexity to build from that.
A very simple way of making Gimp far more approachable would be to have a "basic" toolbar with a simplified sets of tools and dedicated tools for things like drawing a line, and ask on first startup if you want the basic toolbar or "advanced" toolbars, and tell you how to access additional toolbars.
But there are many other warts as well, such as the Save vs. Export distinction which gives you an error and tells you to use Export if you try to Save with another extension, instead of just bringing up the export options and maybe warning on the first go. 90% of the time when I use Gimp, I have no interest in saving as xcf, and I'd expect that to be the case for a lot of users. Yes, I understand it's worth warning users if they risk losing information, but to then instead telling people effectively "I can see what you're trying to do - it's very obvious, so I'll tell you how to do it instead of doing it" is just annoying.
I've only used Photoshop very rarely but always disliked its UI. On the other hand i used PSP since the Win3.1 days up until PSP7 and then switched to GIMP which i used for 15+ years.
I never really had an issue on doing anything with GIMP, but in terms of UX i vastly prefer PSP7 which IMO is the last good version of PSP. After many years of using GIMP alone, i reinstalled PSP7 on my PC and i immediately felt much better using it than GIMP (even though GIMP is better on a technical level - faster filters, better alpha support, etc).
I still cannot use Photoshop - or Krita for that matter since they copy Photoshop a lot.
I was a GIMP/Inkscape user first. I have access to the full Creative Cloud Suite but I usually reach for GIMP or Inkscape first because (for me) they are simpler.
I think one area where GIMP/Inkscape are far better is in the export options. Photoshop & Illustrator barely give you any options for jpeg compression or PNG output. GIMP's JPEG export lets me control color subsampling, optimization, and more. Photoshop just gives me 0% - 100% quality.
> Photoshop & Illustrator barely give you any options for jpeg compression or PNG output
It may have been in a different submenu, but the Photoshop JPEG/PNG optimizer was the most powerful/configurable that I've ever seen. Down to letting you configure the palette for PNG.
I looked it up, and it's under "Save for web". It doesn't seem to provide direct chroma subsampling control for JPEG, but the PNG tooling is insane.
i switched from irfanview to xnview about 15 years ago (now under linix), and never looked back. mind you, i don't know about irfanview's developments in that time.
I've used Photoshop so much that the GIMP interface is unusable. It is close enough that I think I know what to do, and far enough that I am always wrong about what to actually do.
Yesterday I tried to apply a soundtrack to a video (cut video, cut audio, join together). Latest blender allowed me to add two sources to the timeline, but stutters and freezes killed my i7-8700, so I was unable to match timecodes or do anything. I could not even find play button to preview any sensible result. Resorted to cli ffmpeg -ss -t, which did it well.
I don’t know blender (nor any adobe video editing sw), but as a power user noob in it I expected at least something.
532 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 385 ms ] thread"Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include: (a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and (b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person"
Pirating looks like the only option, if that is even still possible with all of the features now tied to the cloud.
This people is trying to survive.
Piracy? Surely this doesn't count as a "solution". Just because you can evade a ban doesn't mean that they "still have access" - I mean they do but it's not legal.
I am just curious, what would be the right way for companies to tackle this, how would they know who is the family of a regime official for example? Most people's comments seem to be aimed at Adobe instead of the complexity that is dealing with this executive order.
Not in the U.S., no, but is it illegal in Venezuela? They are under no obligation to recognize U.S. copyright claims. Or any copyright claims, for that matter. And why would they, given that the U.S. is enforcing sanctions against them?
My gut reaction is that if Venezuela is apart of any of the international trade laws then it'd still be illegal but there's essentially no way in practice you'd get in trouble for it (Assuming you're a Venezuelan citizen and you aren't like blatantly selling it in the street or something).
They live in an extremely socialist country with crippling economic worldwide sanctions, massive inflation (300,000% or something like that). Their own money is worthless and most use US dollars to transact business.
If I were venezuelan I'd just pirate the software and avoid this nonsense.
[1]https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/... [2] the term ‘‘Government of Venezuela’’ includes the state and Government of Venezuela, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of Venezuela and Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA), any person owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the foregoing, and any person who has acted or purported to act directly or indirectly for or on behalf of, any of the foregoing, including as a member of the Maduro regime. For the purposes of section 2 of this order, the term ‘‘Government of Venezuela’
Er, given the structure of the socialist system in Venezuela, which companies or individuals can a US entity be sure are neither “owned or controlled, directly or indirectly” by the government or any instrumentality or agency thereof, including the central bank or national oil company, nor have ever acted directly or indirectly for or on behalf of any of those things?
What are the expected consequences for a private US firm applying the order too broadly? Too narrowly?
Broadly, you lose customers. Narrowly, you’re fighting criminal charges for sanctions evasion.
And that's just current active employees. From what you quoted, it includes past employees too.
They also own at least 500 companies that operate in a diverse number of industries[2]. And that wasn't found by disclosure from the government.. it required someone to research each of those companies. The actual count is almost certainly much higher. This is important because Adobe needs to know which of these companies are government owned, and the government does not make it easy to determine that. (I'm also not sure if employees of those are in the count above or not... I think not, except maybe the prominent ones like PDVSA.)
I think the fault here is Venezuela's... the government is so intermingled with the economy it's impossible for any reasonable person to determine where the government's reach ends.
0. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-worker...
1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-economy/we-all-...
2. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas...
I've seen stats from several countries and they varied from 15-40%. So 20% is not only relatively normal, it's on par with the USA's 17-18%.
* https://www.statista.com/statistics/192356/number-of-full-ti... * https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/21955...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_se...
Most of the countries on the list I would consider living in are in the 20-30% range.
Most of the low range countries tend to be poor and underdeveloped, with the odd exceptions of Japan and South Korea with 10%.
Also interesting to see some of the countries with the highest quality of life are generally in the 30% range.
The few countries over 40% (Cuba Belarus China Kuwait Russia) aren't ones I'd personally favor for living.
I wonder if Microsoft will pull something like this... or even cisco
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-wage/v...
I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that there aren't too many people paying for Creative Cloud licenses there.
Was your reactionary comment sponsored by the PSUV?
> We are unable to issue refunds. Executive order 13884, orders the cessation of all activity with the entities including no sales, service, support, refunds, credits, etc.
(I can believe they could have wanted it, but it would take time, and I suppose getting compliant with an executive order of the President is something you want to do as fast as possible.)
Page 1 of https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/...
Kinda seems like there's no excuse for going about it this way.
Now on the other hand... they're screwed. It's a 'brilliant' example of how these 'cloud' based services are a bad deal for the user, because it puts them at the risk of getting locked out their own purchases due to legal hassles like this.
Not all software developers can handle all use cases that will be needed, and it's unrealistic to say, "if the use case is needed enough there would be market forces to implement it".
This is an argument people can't distinguish the man from the idea, or his software, or his organization, etc.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20909030
I don't find anything objectionable about Stallman's opinions here either. Quite the contrary in fact.
I don't know how the people who caused this can look at their reflection in the mirror with a straight face.
I've understood the whole point with SaaS software is that corporate buyers prefer operational expenditure to capital expenditure. It's not about an evil plot to screw consumers more. It's a strategy to charge corporate clients in a way that they like.
Yet, when google mail for business came out everyone hailed the idea; sigh... no more CALs, etc. which is true but now you have to pay recurringly (and msy have to keep former accounts live for compliance reasons)
I wonder how much recurring revenue Adobe just had wiped off their books.
What about when your government sanctions your biggest market?
Accessibility: Individuals/businesses who couldn't afford a large, upfront expenditure for software but can afford the smaller, monthly expense now have access to the best tool for the job.
Flexibility: for sporadic consumers ("I use Photoshop/Illustrator once a year to make my Groundhog Day card"), the ability to subscribe for the one month of the year they use the product and subsequently cancel is incredible.
For the limited number of companies who need to spread out a 1000 dollars or less over a year putting it on a credit card would be the cheaper option over the year.
The only groups that benefits is those who want to access the product from many locations/computers or the one who doesn't want to install anything.
Those are two big groups.
Photo imports (and exports) to PSD file format.
Some Photoshop features that aren't available in Photo (e.g. smart objects) won't be editable in the same way when opening a PSD in Photo, but you'll still be able to open the PSD file.
If you have a lot of Illustrator and Photoshop files, best to try them out in the Affinity apps to see if you're happy with the import feature.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21184387
Bad day for Adobe. Or a good one? I'm not sure, but definitely an interesting one.
Well, was. They're pushing pretty hard on this evergreen "windows-as-a-service" thing.
Besides i do not see how they could do a "windows-as-a-service" offer without an OS, unless they convince every computer manufacturer to make their PC BIOSes a thin client for Microsoft's servers and you rent computing time/power from their datacenters running Windows (though even then, it'd still be Windows with the same backwards compatibility).
(of course all that sucks for us who want to buy a thing and keep it forever - or at least as "forever" as activation servers will allow you to - but i'm trying to ignore that aspect in this comment here)
A few months ago they discontinued that model and now I can get Office 365 at a discounted annual price. The enraging part was the email where they spun it like this change was great for me and that HUP is way better than it was before. What a crock, SaaS for consumers is cancer.
The ticket was closed as 'fixed/implemented' with the launch of the most recent version of Office - but you can only embed fonts if you have an Office 365 account.
Its becoming 'subscribe to unlock basic features'.
am I being blithe about this? I don't think I am, but feel free to inform me if I'm missing something.
That is what i do myself - i avoid anything with DRM (exceptions are some games that i wait for price drops to around the price of a coffee) and store everything on my external HDD.
Everything’s a trade off.
Being able to pay as you go with no long term commitments can be liberating as well.
But companies do not seem to realise this.
> You’ve charged me, when will I get my refund?
>We are unable to issue refunds. Executive order 13884, orders the cessation of all activity with the entities including no sales, service, support, refunds, credits, etc.
So no refunds either. Renting stuff in the cloud is just waiting to be screwed if the country you're in is on the hit list of the US government. And that's not a short list either, btw.
>If you purchased directly from Adobe, we will refund you by the end of the month for any paid, but unused services. We are working with our partners on the same.
I wonder what caused this. Did something important change, or did Adobe just overreact at first?
It's a brilliant example of why proprietary software is bad for the user - how do users make sure their software doesn't have a kill switch? How do they ensure it doesn't phone home to validate their license?
https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/
Affinity is European, and thus not affected by the executive order. Also, all of their products are buy-once-own-forever.
It's missing some features that InDesign has and is a little slower, but it's a solid workhorse for laying out books and documents. I don't miss InDesign at this point.
(And Scribus always seemed a steep learning curve too.)
I don't have a need at the moment but good to know there are still some tools that may make sense for more casual users.
https://www.captureone.com/en/store
You do have to commit to camera brand though.
https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/78025-when...
If they do make one, it may or may not have editing features built in (vs shipping you out to Affinity Photo).
But I'm in the same boat. Stuck on CS6, couldn't stand DarkTable, haven't bothered trying any other alternatives.
If you see something you want when you try the beta, please tell me!
https://www.darktable.org
I've been getting into photo editing recently, and searched online for a few hours to learn about the differences between the various options. From what i gathered, Luminar (which is a pay once for a lifetime license that you can have installed in up to five machines at a time) is a serious contender to Ps/Lr even at the professional level, let alone at the amateur/occasional user level.
It took a bit of getting used to (still not a fan of the UI and its obsession with "film rolls" every time I import something) but once I did it's quite nice. Images come out looking good and it has a handy Lua scripting environment and CLI with which you can automate many tasks.
I haven't explored the other ones as deeply but from what I have done, the features seem quite limited. For example, there's a translator for Photoshop plugins to work on Affinity Photo. Very very few plugins work with this translator. Why is there even such a middleware? Because the Affinity plugin ecosystem is very weak.
It's an alternative, not a "decent" alternative. It's the equivalent of Google Docs vs Microsoft Word. If you need something barebones, it gets the job done, and there are a few things it does better. But if you need just one feature of the better software, forget it.
As a former user of Illustrator, there's nothing I miss from that app, certainly not the clunky Illustrator UI. (Unfortunately, Designer also has some clunky aspects to it's UI.)
Anyone, who wants to make up their own mind about the Affinity apps can download a free trial from their website - the apps work on both Windows and Mac.
Also, take a look at the 'spotlight' section of the Affinity website to see some of the work possible with the apps.
https://affinityspotlight.com/articles/recent/
Because the discussion is not whether Affinity apps are good or not, but whether they are good relative to Adobe, anyone that wants to make up their own mind also can download a free trial of CC apps.
Where does it fall short for you? Out of interest.
One other thing that stands alone and is absolutely critical, that would seem to work in Designer but doesn't, is export for embroidery. It is a quirk of my local shop but there is no vector export format from Designer that my shop can use. They end up importing ("digitizing") a jpeg. This causes many more steps in the approval workflow. With Illustrator I just export an eps and they import that and it comes out perfect basically the first time. Obviously Designer can export eps but the software on the other side doesn't like it. (And even though their software can handle native illustrator, import of that doesn't work either. Has to be eps, from Illustrator, not Designer.) I'm 100% sure it's their crap embroidery software (I mean, they are using win95 if that indicates anything), but it is what it is. It's especially odd because embroidery is very low resolution. jpeg should be perfectly fine!! I just get way better final results with the eps flow.
That embroidery issue doesn't come into my evaluation of the goodness or not of Designer as a standalone tool. I just mention it because it does affect me and I think it's an interesting point to bring up. I'm sure many many people are dependent on Illustrator for similar workflow/pipeline issues. It doesn't make the software good or bad, but does create the dependence.
I think the issue people have is they get insulted when you say the software they enjoy to use is not very good. But there are 2 kinds of good. Absolute and relative. Relative to Illustrator, Designer doesn't compare. That is my critique.
There are some things I do like very much about Designer. Personas. Slices. SVG support is much better (keep in mind tho I'm stuck on CS6). These things, however, do not begin to challenge Illustrator.
I understand why Serif would want to stand apart with their own feature set, but now I find myself using 2 tools. Oh how I, and many other non-professional users, would love to replace Illustrator.
Keep in mind, I believe I am in the target demographic for Designer. I am an occasional user, not a daily use professional. The price and pricing model is perfection. The ease of use is perfection. I dare say that the online userbase/forums and free tips and help you can get are much much better. But the lack of features is saddening.
It's interesting because Serif (the company) does not compete with Adobe (the company), even though at a surface level they would appear to. The cost difference between Illustrator and Designer is worlds apart. Maybe this is why they don't work on feature parity. They don't want to be on Adobe's radar.
With Catalina, I'm soon going to have to bail on Illustrator. I'll probably have to invest some time in Inkscape. I could pirate CC or I could use CS6 in Windows VM (again, technically pirating although many would justify it), but I'm not that person.
Since it doesn’t cost anything, it might be worth giving it a test.
The only way to solve it is to open the file in illustrator and save it as an .ai file to fix it. I've been told it works in Corel draw as well.
Profile support is fine, compatible with ICC profiles, does soft proofing and black point compensation. You'd have to go into more depth about your use cases as I know Adobe let some wild stuff happen, but if you just need to use and embed profiles and soft proof, you can do that.
Its PDF export is good, not great—again, Adobe allows for extreme granularity in PDF settings so I'd need to know specific use cases to advise. PDF import and placing PDF docs is surprisingly good, in some case shockingly so. If you're publishing books built from scratch in Affinity Publisher, there's nothing off the top of my head that I had to fundamentally change about my workflow in shipping 4-color books with layered artwork and columnar text with sidebars to prepress. If you're editing PDFs or converting from INDD, you can get away with a lot but you need to be careful since there are a few feature gaps (see the next paragraph in particular) that don't convert well or at all.
What you'll miss the most falls under what I think you mean by "scripts for text formatting". Publisher doesn't do grep styles or anything similar enough to replace that. It's the biggest feature I miss regularly. You'll miss the level of automation complexity and droplets in Photo too if you use those regularly in Photoshop.
I don't have any problems with large or complex layouts loading huge amounts of data for artwork, or massive text docs.
What I get that I didn't have in Adobe, and especially InDesign: pretty much full access from any of the component apps to vector drawing tools, raster and vector brushes, and shape tools, all of which behave consistently across the suite. No more having to flip my brain from Illustrator's vector drawing to Photoshop's to InDesign's, they all just work with each other and the same way, copy and paste across each other without any fuss, edit within each other easily when necessary, etc.
I miss some power features, especially around styles and Photo automation, but I've adapted, and I appreciate the hell out of how well-integrated the three apps are with each other in interface and functionality.
The forums are a good place to ask about or research feature implementations and requests, especially https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/forum/52-feature...
I know it's a minor nit and few people will probably care but it's annoying enough for people used to being able to more quickly edit screenshot .PNGs and or .JPGs that I hope Affinity listens eventually. Because of that though I've never gotten used to Affinity Photo where as I'm pretty happy with Affinity Designer
They seem to be focused on Photoshop plugin compatibility over other features at the moment, which is good for some specialized workflows, but I really want better automation in the whole suite.
I'll at least say the lack of automation has finally pushed me to learn more about what I can do with the likes of imagemagick, but the feature-specific use cases like you bring up will be a gap until they fortify those automation features.
They usually do a black friday sale but you can get it here for half price.
Of course this method won't work if you can't access it in the first place....
http://web.archive.org/web/20161009002305/https://helpx.adob...
(View source or disable CSS if the scripting is funny, and you'll see the loot.)
And my chat service (iMessage) won't let me talk with outside people... yes I know SMS still works.
And my photos slowly become fuzzy, surely this is a bug when it happens, right!?
And my backups are in proprietary encryption file systems. Well I changed that by moving off macOS at this point.
What's next, I don't even want to imagine anymore.
I don't much care for your argument, even if you're legally correct.
This would be less of an issue if the way people actually acquired music was still by buying the album, but that's not the case in the vast majority of people's experiences.
As opposed to music that is part of a subscription where you explicitly knew was being rented.
The way they sell these subscription services doesn't make it at all clear to the users what they are buying.
P.S. plus think about who this model helps the most. It's surely not the artists themselves, especially if the songs I know and love can't be played anymore. What artist would want their work to become inaccessible to those who love it?
The iTunes Music Store where you buy music and pay a one time cost has been around since 2003 and has been completely DRM free since 2009.
That’s like saying people don’t know content isn’t on Netflix forever.
What really offends me when music disappears while I'm paying monthly for the service.
TLDR; the entire subscription model is user hostile in most cases, like this one. And I'll argue it's also rather hostile to the artist here too.
If you don’t like music going away, especially with Apple Music, just buy the music you don’t want to lose and add it to your library. It integrates with the subscription service.
If I rent from the store I know how long I have. If I find something on netflix it could disappear while I'm still trying to get through it. If I save it chances are it won't be there in a few months.
In a far off land of yesteryear, you live happily and healthfully in a small settlement. Despite not being a farmer yourself you own a rooster who wakes you up in time for work every morning.
After years of being awoken by the same rooster, a salesman comes to you telling you of a fancy device which will wake you up at ANY time you wish, not just when the sun rises. You think, this is great! I'll buy one, and wake up later on the weekends (ironically forgetting you still own a rooster...) Of course you knew how to feed the rooster, but this magic device needs power and breaks sometimes... and the only person around to help is, of course, the same salesman. He goes way out his way for you at first, offering free power, and quick repairs. But as time goes on, and as the masses make use of these alarms, he's unable to keep up the same level of service to you. Well that and he's too busy spending all the coin you've given him.
Finally you find yourself with a dead rooster (oops) and a broken alarm clock, with the only repairman out on vacation, while you're missing work in the mornings. Sadly rooster alarm clocks have fallen out of style, and the thought of owning one sounds as crazy then as it does to us now.
First of all, you don't buy an alarm clock, you rent one and pay a monthly subscription. The salesman is all happy to elaborate on the benefits of this arrangement - you won't have to worry about batteries and repairs and such. You're a smart farmer, in your head a CEO of a farming corporation, so you buy the "capex vs opex" argument.
Secondly, the alarm clock doesn't break. You pay the fee, and it works. Except they replace it every two weeks with a slightly different one. Prettier, the salesman says. Over time it loses all the ergonomic handles and knobs, and becomes a flat pane of glass. Better UX, the salesman says. Sometimes weird things happen - you have an impression that it never shows 4:20 PM, or that alarms only fire on even numbered minutes. This may have to do with some contractual kerfuffle between the alarm clock provider and their "partners", because apparently time is intellectual property now.
Then one day you notice that the alarm clock has a camera and a microphone. When cornered, the salesman admits it had one from the very earliest model, and defends themselves by asking how else would they know how to make the product better (and no big deal about the 180 advertising partners; all they care about is making sure your day is even better by getting right products to you). Disgusted, you cut the microphone and tape up the camera (and get accused of stealing revenue from "honest companies").
Then one day your alarm clock bricks itself, because your government said or did something wrong in relation to oil prices and the US government decided your country can go to hell - and since your alarm clock is provided by a US company, it gets stuck forever showing 6:66 AM.
Amazon discovered they didn't have the rights to a book in Canada and deleted it off people devices. The book? 1984.
I think the iTunes issues have been fixed, but it's still stupid to not have your own backup independent of stuff accessible by "cloud" services.
I buy everything I can off bandcamp and download it to my machine. I occasionally buy off Amazon music, but I really hate it when that's the only option an artists has and would prefer to buy/rip a physical CD at a show. I keep my music on a 512GB microSD card (crazy these things exist now) and I always keep my own backups of my own content; buy DRM free whenever I can on Gog/Humble over Steam.
I prefer to have things I own, not licenses to software and content that can be revoked at any time.
Generally, if the book I'm looking for is sold DRM-free, I'll buy the ebook for convenience. Otherwise, I'll go look for a used paper copy.
I talked with support and they explained that as I had bought them when I was living in another country I could no longer download them.
EDIT: And to restore from backup you have to know you're missing it. They never gave me any errors or warnings. Just a few things were missing. They're basically gaslighting their users.
More seriously, what prevented an Apple user from uploading it on Torrents? Was it watermarked so Apple would find the culprit?
Steve Jobs argued for DRM free music as a means to interoperability instead of licensing FairPlay way back in 2007 in his “Thoughts on Music” post. He argued that most music was already DRM free and easily copied and only a small percentage of music on most iPods was bought from iTunes.
You can can indeed improve privacy, but it normally means giving up speed (like Tor).
Additionally, there are other issues of p2p as a main solution. For example, phone battery or often being blocked in routers of public spaces etc.
I think that a mix between Fediverse and P2P would be nice.
A power user can choose to be a node, knowing the price. But the common user would use some server/service to access it. But those must be planned such that switching is easy.
One day, the provision of every electronic service in the world could be coordinated in a censorship resistant manner on the blockchain. Before that happens, the cryptoasset/blockchain space's software suite needs to be improved, with solutions to problems like stolen and lost private keys, and scalability needs to improve a few orders of magnitude, but seeing all of the development on dApps and smart wallets, and all the work happening to enable layer 1 sharding and to develop layer 2 scalability mechanisms like zk roll-up, I suspect it's inevitable.
The most basic proof of ownership is the fact of having that something, and there being no party claiming that you took it from them. Copying bits is so cheap everyone can get a copy from someone else who volunteered their copy and there's no point in even metering that. There's arguably little sense to have a market for digital data, yet we persist at trying. What you're seeking with blockchain is proof of compliance with a complex and somewhat arbitrary set of regulations.
I agree that intellectual property rights might reduce overall efficiency due to the artificial complexity and friction it adds.
Very true. I often gloss over that harsh aspect of reality.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-th...
What are you referring to here? The switch to retina display which makes all the old photos seem fuzzy if displayed at the same "resolution" ?
this is ridiculous.. No refunds? if their cycle starts on 1st of Oct, they have paid for entire month(let alone annual subscriptions) but cant use any and cant get a refund..
So the smaller a number, the more likely it is to happen. Factored into this is going to be a bit of juice. Trump's currently on +110 so Vegas is saying the next election is basically a coin flip. For an example of this revealing things that regular polls might not, it's also showing that Biden is a pretty sizable dog to Warren (+550 vs +375).
You can now use these numbers to see how close your predictions come to what the market is suggesting. So for instance let's imagine you think Trump has a 50% chance of winning. What would be your expected value if you bet $100 on this? It's: 0.5 * -$100 + 0.5 * $110 = $5. So you have expected value there of a 5% gain, so you're slightly more optimistic than Vegas - though once you factor in the juice/vig/'tax' it's about even.
Now let's imagine that you think Biden or Warren stand a 60% chance of winning (30% a piece) with 40% for Trump, and so you put $100 on each of them. We can again work out the math. 0.4 * -$200 + 0.3 * $550 + 0.3 * $375 = $197.5. That means that if your expectation is accurate, you would have an expected value of doubling any wager. So you are going pretty far away from what the market thinks, and if you believe this to be objectively accurate - it'd be a terrific wagering opportunity.
[1] - http://www.lasvegassportsbetting.com/2020-US-Presidential-El...
Now there are comparatively few Congressional effects and more Executive Orders.
It's not really true that it's "not traditionally" the way that government works. The first half of the 20th century is the watermark.
Not that I remotely disagree with you in principle, just want to make the point that this isn't some recent development that we can swing back towards normalcy --- it's been this way and there's no going back.
Makes modern executive orders look downright tame by comparison, and this is from a president that would go down extremely positively in history.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act
But here we are, complaining that the well-connected wealthy at the top of this mess can't get a refund for their purchase of Adobe Photoshop. Given that Maduro has nationalized nearly all of the major corporations in the nation, you necessarily can't be wealthy enough to own this software without being an open ally.
This action hurts people in that country, but it's supposed to hurt because until they get rid of their self-destructive government things won't begin to get better.
I'd be more concerned that, e.g.,non-regime-aligned publishers can't continue using Creative Cloud that they've paid for than that anyone can't get a refund.
Sure it’s in the name of Executive order but still leaves a bad taste. It says you can’t trust Adobe.
Under the plain text of the order, that's true only for a very expansive definition of “associates”, since it includes anyone who has (past tense, without limitation as to time window) acted, even indirectly, on behalf of the government or any of the identified individuals and entities, or on behalf of any entity that is, even indirectly, owned or controlled by the government or any of the named entities or individuals.
https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-...
Edit: deleted "Can't apologise after you drop a sales nuke" in favour of a more measured comment.
Unfamiliar with these things, I read the executive order and was pleasantly surprised to discover that this is actually possible:
---
Sec. 5. Nothing in this order shall prohibit:
(b) transactions related to the provision of articles such as food, clothing, and medicine intended to be used to relieve human suffering.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/07/2019-17...
This is how Steam works for example.
Think Steam.
I'm no longer a big fan of games just being in the cloud, or even the rights not being freed up once the company dissolves.
Also I wonder if DRM servers stay available in this case. If not, it could stop any new installs, or stop existing instances from running when the current token is expired.
I could see a given country limiting some specific things but something so broad, I don't know what value that is.
I too miss when you owned a copy of the software, licensed to a single machine, that was on a physical transferable medium. Jetbrains at least allowed a fallback license, which Adobe doesn't have (and honestly that's because Jetbrains couldn't get away with that shit with a tech focused customer base).
Take about crippling certain business in Venezuela. All this is going to do is encourage piracy (and potentially malware).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
Of course, the person selling the software would be in trouble if they put the physical media up for sale without deleting all local copies.
Has anything changed since then? It seems Adobe CC was created not long after, so... maybe not a coincidence?
This is the Wikipedia page about the case (to make it easier for others):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.
What if my browser sent custom headers to Adobe saying that by serving me a webpage Adobe has agreed to sell me, not license, a copy of each new edition of any software they release for $1 in perpetuity and that a breach of contract would result in liquidated damages of $10,000 per undelivered copy.
If I'm bound by Adobe's Terms of Service before I've had a chance to read them by nature of the my browser's request then surely Adobe would be similarly bound to my Terms of Servers(TM) by nature of their response?
If I'm bound by Adobe's Terms of Service before I've had a chance to read them by nature of the my browser's request then surely Adobe would be similarly bound to my Terms of Servers(TM) by nature of their response?
You're not bound until you have had the opportunity to review the TOS. Meaning that merely accessing a page from somewhere else (i.e., a link or url) isn't enough--but once you're on (or revisiting) their website, if you interact with it in any matter beyond visiting the TOS page the TOS would apply even if you chose not to read it.
https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/transfer-...
Why brag or joke about that? And why does it matter if you were 'broke kids'?
> Take about crippling certain business in Venezuela. All this is going to do is encourage piracy (and potentially malware).
Do you understand what is going on here? Adobe is complying with a government order. And the government issued it in order to achieve an objective in a country where I believe (I only know what I see and read) there are significant problems.
> All this is going to do is encourage piracy (and potentially malware).
Apparently they have no supplies in hospitals and rampant inflation. They have much bigger issue than piracy and malware.
You may have been reading too far into this. It sounds to me like a statement of fact, not a brag or a joke.
> Apparently they have no supplies in hospitals and rampant inflation. They have much bigger issue than piracy and malware.
Having a job is part of the solution, and the use of software is part of many jobs that have international value (i.e. from countries whose currency is not inflating rampantly).
The entire purpose of these sort of sanctions is to hurt the public enough that they start putting pressure on their government to make a change that the sanctioning government wants. In this case the US wants Venezuela's government to be replaced with one who would be more friendly to US oil companies taking all of their oil and paying a small portion of it's value to the politicians who allowed them in.
The main reason Venezuela has been solvent up til now is that they have a lot of oil, which the government sells and uses to pay for social programs. But since the price of oil went down they've been having some money trouble. Combine that with the fact that Maduro knows as much about monetary policy as Trump knows about tariffs and you've got a deflating economy that's only made worse by sanctions, which again, is their entire purpose. They are specifically trying to ensure that Venezuela's government collapses so that US companies can move in and rob the region of it's resources.
Don't get me wrong, the best thing Venezuelans could do is probably throw Maduro out on his ass, but replacing him with some US-friendly bootlicker is worse than no solution.
I can tell when you don't have electricity, gasoline, water or food anything is an improvement.
I only purchase music on CDs and vinyl. In each case I legally have the right to listen to the music forever, and even can sell the album if I tire of it.
Digital downloads are not that way at all and because of that I will never buy one. Likewise with ebooks.
I also will never personally purchase software on a subscription model.
WAV and MP3 do not have DRM capability. Even music purchased through iTunes has been available DRM-free for a decade [1].
For example, I’ve got a lot of albums, bought through Bandcamp, which I downloaded as FLAC and burned to CDs. Same quality as a retail CD, and no one can take it from me without physically stealing it.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Store#Digital_rights_ma...
Not the same "overall" quality, to be honest. Burned CDs have much shorter life.
In many jurisdictions, you still have that right. You just have no legal way to exercise that right.
https://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/den9r5/adobe_cierra_o...
Adobe doesn't really have a choice here. They're doing this to comply with sanctions, not because they have any dog in fighting Maduro.
If Venezuelans pirate Photoshop, then Adobe can go and say "hey, these people are using it without our permission, which means we're still in compliance".
Adobe had a choice when they chose to stop selling software in favor of cloud services. This is a perfect illustration of why that choice was anti-consumer. It shouldn't be possible to revoke access to software functions that don't fundamentally require remote server support.
Even if they didn't want to do that, they could do the Jetbrains perpetual fall-back license model where if you hold a license for version x for a year, you get to keep version x. You still get version y when it comes out, but if you cancel before a certain time, it will fall back to your license for x forever, until you pay your subscription again.
"Failure" in this case is legal, not technical (distinction without a difference to users).
I'm not remotely saying I agree with it, but its been transparent enough that their user base hasn't revolted and found something better, so this will be more and more common with software.
I'm not sure about the rest of CC, but adobe has a near-monopoly with photoshop. I personally use Pixelmator for all my image editing needs, but I am not an image-editing pro... if I was Pixelmator would NOT cut it... my only real choice would be photoshop.
> their user base hasn't revolted and found something better,
If no viable alternatives exist, the choice is not do it or pay whatever they ask. Which is why many cc users feel like hostages.
On a personal note, I really wish they would have done a Linux release.
Oh, how so? You think that it pays for them to fight and defy a government order?
Designing a fail-safe system involves acknowledging that you may not know why the system may fail, just that something must be done to mitigate the problem if it does. International sanctions proved to be such an unexpected point of failure.
For quite a few things, Adobe products are just irreplaceable.
Until people learn to face some inconvenience and limitations they'll just keep being abused by these companies. Changing the world requires some personal pain.
You might be proposing a bigger rebellion against capitalism than just illegally selling to Venezuela :)
As an Aussie, I look at these international companies as that: international. Should I now start considering all forms of non Aussie software /tech a matter of potential infiltration?
I hope Adobe understand they are now complicit in an international fracas, where there's a lot of innocent people in Venezuela likely feeling an immediate financial crush, simply because the software they were using stopped. They can't work now. No money means they can't feed their kids.
They will blame Adobe for this, and not some executive order.
What about the day when some US order outlaws my country? This is a very sad day for international tech.
Considering the converse is already true, why not?
What do you mean by "the converse"?
Yes! And if they were truly internatonal as you thought they were, it would be even worse, because they would be immune from any legal action. Corporations acting as if they were sovereign powers would be even worse than they are today.
> there's a lot of innocent people in Venezuela likely feeling an immediate financial crush, simply because the software they were using stopped. They can't work now. No money means they can't feed their kids.
That's, unfortunately, the whole point of sanctions. They work by inflicting enough civilian damage to get people to bully their own government into submitting to the will of party issuing the sanction.
> What about the day when some US order outlaws my country? This is a very sad day for international tech.
Most of your SaaSes you depend on will stop working. This is a reminder why SaaS as practiced today is a bad idea.
List of the countries under consequential US sanctions attention and their systems of government:
Russia: dictatorship. Cuba: dictatorship. Iran: theocratic dictatorship. Venezuela: dictatorship. North Korea: dictatorship. Syria: dictatorship. Sudan: recently a military junta.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions
I too hope Australia is never like those countries. The countries that the US targets sanctions on, no coincidence, are always near the bottom of the Democracy Index (and typically very high on corruption rankings).
Short list of liberal democracies that have zero fear of falling under comparable US sanctions today:
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Ireland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Slovakia, Czechia, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and so on.
The reason why so many powerful, influential, affluent, liberal nations cooperate with the US so frequently on sanctions - and have for much of the post WW2 era - is because they know they are under zero threat from the US sanctioning them and they also know the US has exclusively targeted sanctions at non-democratic, extremely high-corruption nations.
It's really simple in fact, here's the Democracy Index. On average the higher countries rank, the less they ever need to be concerned about US sanctions being directed at them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Some of the countries near the bottom of that democracy list: Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela.
> Russia: dictatorship. Cuba: dictatorship. Iran: theocratic dictatorship. Venezuela: dictatorship. North Korea: dictatorship. Syria: dictatorship. Sudan: recently a military junta.
I read it as: Russia: enemy ex-superpower, second biggest net oil exporter. Cuba: stole our oil refineries half a century ago, we're still mad about it. Iran: in top 10 of net oil exporters (also, tried to take them over and fucked up). Venezuela: top ten of net oil exporters. North Korea: old enemy, though also universally considered evil. Syria: US wants to force a government change and supports the rebels; there could be an indirect oil-related angle in here.
It may be that I've just been reading too much about energy economics recently and am getting all consipracy-theorist. Even if so, I absolutely don't buy that there's any higher good for any of those sanctions.
Russia is technically a democracy, but given that Putin controls the press directly, murders opposition members, and thwarts opponents from running in elections, it's a de-facto dictatorship.
Those are all terrible, terrible places frankly we shouldn't trade with them purely on a moral basis - but we would tolerate them if they played nice.
FYI: Cuba did not 'steal oil' this is false. And nobody cares about Iran's Oil power, they care that Iran has a publicly stated objective literally of overthrowing the USA. And Syria has no oil, your points verge on conspiracy theory. The US would love to rid itself of any entanglement in Syria, and frankly Iran if it could.
The Saudis are the same and they also didn't play nice.
> FYI: Cuba did not 'steal oil' this is false.
I wrote "oil refineries", and I must be misunderstanding Wikipedia then, when it says:
"on October 19, 1960 (almost two years after the Cuban Revolution had led to the deposition of the Batista regime) the U.S. placed an embargo on exports to Cuba except for food and medicine after Cuba nationalized American-owned Cuban oil refineries without compensation and as a response to Cuba's role in the Cuban missile crisis. On February 7, 1962 the embargo was extended to include almost all exports.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...
> And nobody cares about Iran's Oil power,
Doubtful, given the amount of oil they have and export.
> they care that Iran has a publicly stated objective literally of overthrowing the USA.
Which is entirely because of the "tried to take them over and fucked up" thing I mentioned.
> And Syria has no oil, your points verge on conspiracy theory.
Of course it has oil, it's even an exporter. But here I thought about the longer-term US involvement over the last decades. They didn't start messing with countries in the region because of terrorists or WMDs.
(I don't claim to be an expert in geopolitics, I'm just saying how the "look at these sanctions, they're all against dictatorships!" claim upthread reads to me, with my mind currently primed on worldwide energy economy.)
The state of Saudi Arabia absolutely does play nice with the rest of the world - that's why we support them even though they are ugly internally. They are a source of stability in the region, the opposite of Iran.
Iran is a hostile, belligerent state, trying to obtain nuclear weapons, they are actively threatening Saudi Arabia trying to turn it into Syria-like chaos. Conversely, Saudi Arabia is not trying to overthrow the Iranian state. Iran is actively trying to overthrow Israel (Hezbollah, Hamas, bases in Syria, control of Lebanon). Iran has troops all over Syria and Iraq. They are holding ships in the Gulf hostage, playing tricky military games, threatening everyone's shipping.
Iran's source of Oil wealth is an important factor in their ability to make money - but nobody in Saudi or the West cares about it in the sense that they will ever have access to it. There are zero 'Oil Contracts' for Exxon, Halliburton, Total or anyone else in the future.
The American 'embargo' of Cuban Oil is irrelevant - Cuba does not have meaningful oil resources, moreover, the term 'embargo' is misapplied: the US does not 'embargo' Cuba. Cuba can sell to the entire world, just not the USA. Again, it's irrelevant because there's very little oil and the US would be just one customer.
Syria doesn't have any meaningful Oil reserves to the point wherein it rises to being part of the geopolitical equation - ergo - nobody cares. Iran doesn't care about Syria 'because of Oil' - and nobody else does either. It's a small part of their economy, just like anything else. Like the 'Cuban oil' point, it's not going to factor into the regional equation.
'Human Rights' progress can only be made when areas are relatively stable, so if you care about that, then look to have the hostile regimes aborted.
Now - Saudi Arabia is not keen on human rights in general, and does not play very nice with their weapons, but the clear reality is that they would be happy to stay put at home.
The Saudi Government is not actively trying to destabilise the region or the world, they play nice with the West, and work closely with the US etc. to hunt down terrorists, and of course they have Oil which they sell freely on world markets, with no strategic dealings with others (i.e. China, Russia) - that's why they are an ally. So yes, democracy is obviously not the entire motivation for US sanctions, but it's part of the equation.
>Saudi Arabia was reported to be deliberately targeting means of food production and distribution in Yemen[47] by bombing farms,[48][49] fishing boats,[50] ports,[51] food storages, food factories,[52][53] and other businesses[54] in order to exacerbate famine. These actions led to the UN accusing the Saudi-led coalition of committing war crimes and having a "complete disregard for human life"
>On August 3, 2019, a United Nations report said the US, UK and France may be complicit in committing war crimes in Yemen by selling weapons and providing support to the Saudi-led coalition which is using the starvation of civilians as a tactic of warfare
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_takeover_in_Yemen
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/27/serious-ques...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_Yemen_(2016%E2%80%93...
This is not true, and your reference links actual deny your own argument.
The Saudis have no real interest in being in Yemen - it's obviously very costly to them, and they would rather the historical status quo. This is not a contentious statement.
It's really an impossible argument to make that Saudi Arabia actually wants some kind of military action in Yemen. They have absolutely no reason to want that.
I'm not denying they are doing terrible things. They are playing ugly in an ugly war. This is par for the course in most of the world. And the UN's 'Human Rights' council is made up of some of the world's worst offenders (including Saudi) - so I don't believe that the UN has any credibility there.
Saudi Arabia is generally a benign state actor: they play nicely with the rest of the world. They do not want war. They are not a belligerent. The fact that Saudi Arabia was attacked by Iran last week and the response was 'not much' illustrates this. (FYI I'm speaking of the state, not the internal individuals who support terrorism financially)
Iran is a hostile, belligerent state, bent on gaining nuclear weapons, destabilising the region, they support terrorist etc..
And yes, I recognise that though both are theocratic states, that Iran is actually more tolerant and open than Saudi - but this is not my point.
So if you want salvation for the Yemenis - and frankly Palestinians and everyone else - then you want Iran to be cornered and for that regime to be dismantled. Without antagonism from them, there would be no war in Yemen at this scale and so many other important issues would come to the fore. Even in Israel, as long as they are under legitimate threat (and they are, largely due to Iran i.e. Hezbollah, Hamas, bases in Syria, control over Lebanon politics), there will be no real progress on the Palestinian issue.
'US company' is to the rest of the world becoming a liability in many ways fast.
Individual creators cannot be presumed to be in business with the government. The sanctions only concern people doing business with the government.
Adobe's lawyers are idiots and just screwed over a bunch of people.
Don't buy cloud shit.
The problem is this seriously undermines their business model in most of the world which the US may in the short term decide to levy sanctions against as part of its bullying process. Venezuela and Syria have never harmed the US or threatened us in any way whatsoever, yet find themselves on our "shit list". Turkey may soon be there as well, and they are a member of the EU. Who knows which EU nation may be next.
If you buy US software it's not yours and we can take it from you at any moment.
Who wants that sort of software upon which their data depends?
Not a single person in the world with the least bit of sense.
Adobe should fight this as it undermines their business model.
That they are cowards who choose not to means they get what they deserve.
Maybe some are honeypots, but probably not all.
I'd rather use Photoshop 1998 than Gimp.
Photoshop, ergg.. what a confusing tool!, who would use a 'cloud service' for your important data.. lol.
PDF: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/...
But, they don't want to say that. They want to blame it all on the government.
A lot of companies do this. Claim that their own business decisions about how to implement government regulations were forced by the government, when in truth it is their own commercial decisions around cost of compliance and risk appetite which were determinative, not the government regulation alone.
i.e. Do the same thing they are doing now, just be more open and honest about their reasons.
They officially apply to anyone who has ever, directly or indirectly, done anything on behalf of the government, or of those identified individuals and entities. So, if they made your presentation, it would be an inaccurate minimization of the plain language of the executive order.
Seems like not much of a stretch to consider all citizens controlled by the Gov.
Imagine my surprise here seeing so many people supporting Adobe.
Nor does everyone here feel the need to take strong political stands on a hacker forum. So it’s a tough thing to gauge.
An issue where you are able to view contacts on an iPhone without entering the passcode is an unmitigated civilization ender, while no one cares that many Android phones don’t get any security updates for a large part of their typical lifespan.
See also the stories about working conditions in the ‘Apple factories’, which really are Foxconn factories that build hardware for just about any major manufacturer.
There are free-as-in-free-speech alternatives to most (if not all) of Adobe's software products. If they're "not good enough", then it's in our best interests to fix that, whether by contributing code to the existing replacements or creating new ones (perhaps forked from the existing ones). In the meantime, even if they're "not good enough", at least they can be used, unlike Adobe's "good enough" tools, so perhaps setting aside those issues in favor of tools that get you most of the way there without the potential to suddenly disappear from you with zero recourse would be prudent?
Heavens to Murgatroyd.
Also, people need to realize they don't own data that's not stored on their HW. Cloud is at best a convenience, but I wouldn't trust it to make it so that it's the only place, where my data are stored.
You need to keep control of your data if you want choice in SW.
https://inkscape.org
http://mypaint.org
https://krita.org/en/
https://www.blender.org/features/video-editing/
https://kdenlive.org/en/
https://www.audacityteam.org
I've been very impressed with the UI redo in Blender 2.8 I would love to see a similar rethink in a few of these other apps.
https://www.gimp.org
https://inkscape.org
http://mypaint.org
https://krita.org/en/
https://www.blender.org/features/video-editing/
https://kdenlive.org/en/
https://www.audacityteam.org
https://archive.org/details/mypaint-cdtv
There's also a Sega CD version
Audacity is another great program from experience, and the success of Blender speaks for itself.
Gimp, on the other hand, is a UX nightmare. There's a tutorial on how to draw a line, and you'll need it, because it requires a non-discoverable keyboard shortcut. Its feature set is either ages behind Photoshop, or there but non-discoverable due to bad UX, and the UX makes basic tasks excruciatingly painful.
Photoshop and IrfanView are the two tools I miss most from Windows, the latter even more than the former. Trivial tasks like "crop picture in clipboard and put it back on the clipboard/into a file" are pure pain on Linux, because the only thing that at least works reliably is Gimp with its horrible UX. One of the "lighter" (Paint.NET equivalent) tools left parts of its UI in my saved image. Others don't support the clipboard. IrfanView with Wine just isn't the same either.
I always wondered about Gimp. I use it all the time, but for VERY basic things. But anytime I want to do ANYTHING, even like just add a word to an image or draw a line, I need to go Google how to do it. The newest version seems better, but the UX is just crazy.
As a counterexample to all the GIMP bashing in this thread, I'm using it extensively, don't find its interface crazy and in rare occasions that I use Photoshop or PaintShop Pro I find that my experience in GIMP translates reasonably well.
The point is that a paint application is not something most of us expect to have to spend time learning how to use effectively for the most basic features, because conceptually painting is very simple.
A lot of people expect the simplicity to be the default, and for the complexity to build from that.
A very simple way of making Gimp far more approachable would be to have a "basic" toolbar with a simplified sets of tools and dedicated tools for things like drawing a line, and ask on first startup if you want the basic toolbar or "advanced" toolbars, and tell you how to access additional toolbars.
But there are many other warts as well, such as the Save vs. Export distinction which gives you an error and tells you to use Export if you try to Save with another extension, instead of just bringing up the export options and maybe warning on the first go. 90% of the time when I use Gimp, I have no interest in saving as xcf, and I'd expect that to be the case for a lot of users. Yes, I understand it's worth warning users if they risk losing information, but to then instead telling people effectively "I can see what you're trying to do - it's very obvious, so I'll tell you how to do it instead of doing it" is just annoying.
I never really had an issue on doing anything with GIMP, but in terms of UX i vastly prefer PSP7 which IMO is the last good version of PSP. After many years of using GIMP alone, i reinstalled PSP7 on my PC and i immediately felt much better using it than GIMP (even though GIMP is better on a technical level - faster filters, better alpha support, etc).
I still cannot use Photoshop - or Krita for that matter since they copy Photoshop a lot.
I think one area where GIMP/Inkscape are far better is in the export options. Photoshop & Illustrator barely give you any options for jpeg compression or PNG output. GIMP's JPEG export lets me control color subsampling, optimization, and more. Photoshop just gives me 0% - 100% quality.
It may have been in a different submenu, but the Photoshop JPEG/PNG optimizer was the most powerful/configurable that I've ever seen. Down to letting you configure the palette for PNG.
I looked it up, and it's under "Save for web". It doesn't seem to provide direct chroma subsampling control for JPEG, but the PNG tooling is insane.
Anything comparable on Linux?
I don’t know blender (nor any adobe video editing sw), but as a power user noob in it I expected at least something.