12 mo. ago • 96%

Adobe tells you to use Chrome, not Firefox

Friend gave me access to his Adobe account (I'm never giving Adobe money again), and it looks like they don't even support Firefox. That means I'm not using even the one remaining browser-based Adobe service that's left.

Adobe forcing you to use Chrome instead of Firefox to use their service

49 comments

It's because they're using a chrome only API to interact with USB devices. This used to be a dedicated piece of software. I guess they don't even want to provide an electron app.

81
- Permanently Deleted
  
  38
  
  Honestly, I kinda hate the idea of a browser being able to access hardware devices.
  
  72
  
  That's their web dev documentation. The official position is no: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webusb
  
  33
- Is this an app for recording and editing podcasts? Why do they need usb access for that? On its website it doesn't says anything about usb.
  
  5
  
  Microphones, webcams, capture cards, etc
  
  7
- What do they need that for? Every bowser has a file picker/dragndop.
  
  4
  
  I see it as them interacting directly with microphones, webcams, and other peripherals.
  
  1
Have you tried spoofing your User Agent string?

33
- Can you do a screen recording of the process of what it looks like to spoof a user agent string?
  
  5
  
  You can use an extension or add an override in Firefox's about:config screen.
  
  25
  
  There are browser estensions that do it, don't remember the name though
  
  4
  
  I mean it's pretty straightforward but here you go
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aVFxvF3N_E
  
  3
Only somewhat related - I "joined" gnu/linux 10 days ago or so, actually moving my main pc to Ubuntu last week (PopOS). Anyway - being as green as I am, I did search for "beginner tips" or "things to do" when installing Ubuntu/Linux.

I was very surprised that publication websites listed "install Chrome"... and it pretty much made me ignore those guides. Linux forums, reddit, etc were fine and what I opted to follow.

27
- Welcome to the club! Happy to see a new user. Also you can usually just say PopOS and people will understand that it is Ubuntu based.
  
  3
That really shouldn't be a shock

12
- I think it should
  
  19
  
  For me it's a shock because I feel it shouldn't be possible. It's not a shock that Adobe would do something like this.
  
  5
https://www.photopea.com/ works fine on Firefox, you maybe don't need photoshop.

7
There’s hope. They do say while in beta. Maybe they’re working out issues on one before adapting to the other.

5
Permanently Deleted

4
I found out yesterday that Firefly AI also does not work with Firefox

3
Mildly infuriating = I have been parroting Firefox evangelism mindlessly.

This sub was complete shit on reddit too, why did I think it'll be any better here?

-33
- What does evangelism have to do with blatant monopolistic anti-consumer practices being forced on users?
  
  Why do I have to switch out Firefox, which CAN run anything that chrome can, just because some bullshit company said so.
  
  It's a blatant anti-consumer practice, that is becoming more and more common, just because Firefox can still block ads, while chrome cannot. It's bullshit and more people need to talk about it.
  
  25
  
  Meanwhile, Mozilla refuses to implement feature parity with chromium in certain places they seem to be too invasive.
  
  Also, chromium browsers can block ads.
  
  -11
- Username checks out. Bad take.
  
  4
- Definitely this. I am kind of tired of people. Mindlessly worshiping Firefox as if Mozilla doesn't have a bad financial track on It's CEOs giving themselves raises and also being relatively heavily funded by Google
  
  I want to enjoy Firefox and use it as my main browser, but it just simply isn't as polished as some of the chromium browsers out there. Which is saying a lot because Firefox used to be the number one browser 20 years ago.
  
  They have absolutely no audience in mind when developing Firefox aside from "everyone", and his other browsers continue implementing of a variety of different functions out of the box, Mozilla either:
  
  A. Implemented as a browser extension that gets abandoned (split screen tabs) B. Never gets implemented at all. So a third party steps in and makes an inferior version (tab groups)
  
  And then in some cases, removing functionality from the browser under some lame excuse like "nobody was using this", when in fact, someone was using that feature.
  
  All of that coupled with a lack of any transparency from the development team with something like a fleshed out road map or anything like that. Instead just a string of promises. Which would be fine and expected out of an open source project, if Mozilla wasn't a multi-million dollar corporation.
  
  Of course, on Lemmy, the open source federated network, everyone here will glorify and put Mozilla on a pedestal as The Lord and Savior of FOSS and the internet as a whole. When there is absolutely nothing that makes them special
  
  -19
  
  When there is absolutely nothing that makes them special
  
  Being the only viable non-Chromium browser on the market is pretty special.
  
  It's definitely popular to beat up on popular things online, for some reason. I don't get it, but it is. Keep in mind, though: your problems with Firefox are mild annoyances which are solvable (make an extension, contribute to the project, fork the repo). Chrome's problems (web integrity API, privacy sandbox, manifest v3) are inherently anti-consumer and have the potential to be disastrous for the web as a whole.
  
  19
  
  Mindlessly worshipping and understanding the advantage of a truly FOSS browser over one owned by the biggest data harvesting organization the world has ever seen are two pretty different things.
  
  Honestly it feels to me like there are some people here paid to be trolls by Google, because their arguments are so incredibly lame that I can't see any other reason they'd exist.
  
  18
  
  I think many people don't understand what a total chrome (or chromium) monopoly would mean for the internet, it would mean that google will have full control over everything on the internet, they could snap their fingers, implement some bullshit then dare people to do something about it. And I don't get the "firefox isn't polished" argument. What about it is less polished than chrome or anything chromium based?
  
  I do agree that mozilla isn't perfect, but for the better or for worst, it's the last thing preventing a total google monopoly on the internet...
  
  12
  
  Honestly, as a Firefox user, I agree. The Firefox evangelism gets too much for me that I'm genuinely concerned it's going cult-like. There's over-enthusiasm (in which I've fell victim to) and then there's hounding people for bothering to choose a Chromium-based browser.
  
  I use Firefox because it works best for most of my web-browsing workflows, but it has its issues - split screen tabs is one, it helps with my workflow for submitting database entries to MusicBrainz or RateYourMusic. Vivaldi has it, Firefox doesn't, so I'll use Vivaldi when I need to, even if I think Firefox has a bit more polish than Vivaldi. That being said, Vivaldi is more willing to add features that power users coming from Firefox or old, Presto-era Opera want.
  
  I do feel like the evangelism is actually toned down in the Firefox-specific Lemmy community, oddly enough (at least on lemmy.ml). In fact, the top post as of this comment is complaining about the privacy issues with Firefox's upcoming Fakespot integration, and the comments are in agreement.
  
  1

You've viewed 49 comments.