5 ms·

> Adobe had a choice Oh, how so? You think that it pays for them to fight and defy a government order?

by gist 7y ago

will_pseudonym 7y ago
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.
xxxtentachyon 7y ago
They could have chosen to sell users the right to use a product in perpetuity, as this whole thread is about
ctdonath 7y ago
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.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Adobe customers also had a choice to purchase an uncrippled alternative.
  - jtbayly 7y ago
    Precisely. Everybody should vote with their wallets against all this subscription junk. And yet... For quite a few things, Adobe products are just irreplaceable.
    - dunstad 7y ago
      When you vote with your wallet, people with more money get more votes.
      - jtbayly 7y ago
        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.
        hoseja 7y ago
        At some point it's more profitable to put more money in marketing. Large portions of the market operate like this. People are easily swayed.
      - kgwxd 7y ago
        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.
  - flukus 7y ago
    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.
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  Their stock quadrupled since doing so, though. You might be proposing a bigger rebellion against capitalism than just illegally selling to Venezuela :)
cmroanirgo 7y ago
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.
- naniwaduni 7y ago
  > 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?
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    All potential infiltrations are non-Australian software? What do you mean by "the converse"?
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      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.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  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.
TallGuyShort 7y ago
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.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
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.

> Adobe had a choice Oh, how so? You think that it pays for them to fight and defy a government order?

by gist 7y ago

> Adobe had a choice Oh, how so? You think that it pays for them to fight and defy a government order?

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.

xxxtentachyon 7y ago

They could have chosen to sell users the right to use a product in perpetuity, as this whole thread is about

ctdonath 7y ago

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.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Adobe customers also had a choice to purchase an uncrippled alternative.
- jtbayly 7y ago
  Precisely. Everybody should vote with their wallets against all this subscription junk. And yet... For quite a few things, Adobe products are just irreplaceable.
  - dunstad 7y ago
    When you vote with your wallet, people with more money get more votes.
    - jtbayly 7y ago
      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.
      - hoseja 7y ago
        At some point it's more profitable to put more money in marketing. Large portions of the market operate like this. People are easily swayed.
    - kgwxd 7y ago
      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.
- flukus 7y ago
  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.
yourbandsucks 7y ago
Their stock quadrupled since doing so, though. You might be proposing a bigger rebellion against capitalism than just illegally selling to Venezuela :)

cmroanirgo 7y ago

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.

naniwaduni 7y ago
> 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?
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  All potential infiltrations are non-Australian software? What do you mean by "the converse"?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    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.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
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.

TallGuyShort 7y ago

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.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

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.