Adobe says that if you're using an older version of CC, you could be in trouble

[WolfShade]

Does anyone else find this to be totally ridiculous?  Or is it just me?

https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/14/adobe-creative-cloud-older-apps-warning/

So, if I'm using Adobe CC 2017 (I'm not, I'm using CS6) I could be in violation.

Other IDEs are looking better and better, all the time.  Thanks, Adobe.

V/r,

^ _ ^

[pziecina]

You obviously missed -

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2620830

I don't think Adobe is wrong in doing this, but for what Dw now offers I do think it Adobe is more likely to drop Dw. Simply because it now offers nothing that cannot be done cheaper or better by other products.

[WolfShade]

pziecina  wrote

You obviously missed -

No more legacy CC apps

No, I saw/read it the day Nancy wrote it.  Just her OP and a few responses, none of which explained _why_ Adobe was doing this (the whole Dolby thing).  It still doesn't help users who are using older versions ON PURPOSE because Adobe decided that the users didn't need certain tools, or decided that the users really wanted the tools to be altered from the original.

V/r,

^ _ ^

[pziecina]

WolfShade  wrote

It still doesn't help users who are using older versions ON PURPOSE because Adobe decided that the users didn't need certain tools, or decided that the users really wanted the tools to be altered from the original.

That's why I think Adobe is doing the right thing overall, (though it does not help Dw users).

By dropping older versions, hopefully all the products development teams can concentrate on improving future releases, (I did say 'hopefully'). Without users comparing features to how they use to work.

Dw is for me a different story when it comes to development of features, as no one appears to know, (in Adobe or the Dw team/managment)) what web developers require, both now or in the future. I doubt if Adobe will publish who are members of their Dw CAB team, (mainly ACP's) but upto 3 years ago less than 15% of them worked or had ever worked in web development. Most had never built anything beyond their own personal site, (often using templates) and only a few could code using html5/css3/server-side/modern-js.

The CAB members are supposed to be the ones to 'advise' the Dw team, (probably don't anymore).

[WolfShade]

pziecina  wrote

By dropping older versions, hopefully all the products development teams can concentrate on improving future releases, (I did say 'hopefully'). Without users comparing features to how they use to work.

I admire your optimism, but I'm fairly certain that you're familiar with Adobe thought process.  They don't give a hoot about what users want.  They simply make a decision and think that the users will love it.  Even after users complain about it.

Kind of like a joke about Micro$oft.

Q: How many Micro$oft execs does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None, they just light a candle and declare it the standard.

V/r,

^ _ ^

[Jon Fritz]

There's a short list of CC program versions that are no longer authorized and "could, potentially, lead to a legal issues with third parties (that Adobe won't help with now that they're unauthorized)".

DW did not make the list: Changes to Creative Cloud Download Availability and Usage

At the same time as the "unauthorized versions" email went out from Adobe's lawyers, Adobe also changed their "what's available through the CC Desktop App" policy to the current version and the one immediately previous to it as the only ones that will show in the app.

Most previous versions are not "unauthorized" they're simply no longer available through the app, so if you do have one, it's likely to work for years to come. An expected level of confusion came about because of the terrible timing of two separate policy changes.

[HARSHIKA_VERMA]

Hi all,

As @pziecina mentioned, there is an ongoing discussion regarding this topic. Please add your voice here: No more legacy CC apps

Thanks,

Harshika

[Nancy OShea]

WolfShade  wrote

So, if I'm using Adobe CC 2017 (I'm not, I'm using CS6) I could be in violation.

No you're not in violation.  Apart from the fact that CC desktop app no longer supports legacy CC going all the way back to CS6, this is all just a tempest in a teapot.   All versions of DW continue to be authorized.  So keep right on using them if you need to.

[WolfShade]

According to the Engadget article, Adobe has sent letters to users saying that if they stick to the older versions that they _could be_ "at risk of potential claims of infringement by third parties".  That doesn't sound authorized, to me.

An Adobe spokesperson informed AppleInsider: "Adobe recently discontinued certain older versions of Creative Cloud applications. Customers using those versions have been notified that they are no longer licensed to use them..."  That sounds an awful lot like not all Dw products are authorized.

So, yes, according to the Engadget article, you can continue using them.  But at a risk.

Now, how likely is a third party to discover you're using an older version?  IDK.  But does anyone really want to risk being in that one-percent group?

V/r,

^ _ ^

[Nancy OShea]

If you look at the list of unauthorized products I posted above, that is the official list Adobe sent out.  Effected products are mostly form the audio, video and photography divisions.  Dreamweaver is not on the list.   OK?  So stop worrying about it. 

[WolfShade]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea  wrote

Dreamweaver is not on the list.   OK?  So stop worrying about it. 

While this s**tshow may not affect me, directly, what Adobe is doing _does_ affect other users using other software.  Just because I used Dw as an example in my original post doesn't limit the scope of Adobe's erroneous actions to just Dw.  The fact that Adobe is doing this seems to primarily stem from Adobe thumbing their nose at third-parties and not paying what Adobe owes to said third-parties.  Just because this doesn't affect me directly doesn't mean there isn't cause for concern.

This speaks directly to Adobe's character and mindset.

V/r,

^ _ ^

[pziecina]

Don't know if it is helpfull, but the announcement from Adobe, also ties in with the Announcement from Oracle last year, in that they said they would no longer authorise the use of older versions of the Java runtimes, from this year, (I also seem to remember a few posts in the forums about the same time).

The reason given by Oracle was security concerns regarding the old run times. So maybe the unauthorised products Adobe are listing used those older runtimes, and the third party liability is also refering to Adobe product users clients, (possibility of viruses, hacking, etc of files created using them).

[WolfShade]

Maybe, maybe not.  The article specifically mentioned Dolby as at least one of the third-parties referenced.

V/r,

^ _ ^

[ProDesignTools]

Adobe is giving zero details about the third-party litigant. Any article mentioning Dolby is just speculation.

In any event, something very similar was announced by Avid (an Adobe competitor) in late March:

Changes to Avid Media Composer Licenses in 2019

"Due to licensing reasons, Avid will be updating Media Composer licenses and subscriptions, which will impact the software versions that you can run. Beginning May 30th, 2019, new perpetual and subscription licenses will only be able to run Media Composer version 2018.9 or higher. In addition, existing subscriptions will only be able to run Media Composer 2018.9 or higher upon renewal."

[WolfShade]

Actions like this make NotePad++ look better and better.  Or, heck, even just plain NotePad, although it would suck to lose some of the support that I've been used to.

V/r,

^ _ ^

[ProDesignTools]

At least until Notepad gets patent-trolled, anyway.

[WolfShade]

Tru dat.

[Nancy OShea]

WolfShade  wrote

he fact that Adobe is doing this seems to primarily stem from Adobe thumbing their nose at third-parties and not paying what Adobe owes to said third-parties.  Just because this doesn't affect me directly doesn't mean there isn't cause for concern.

This speaks directly to Adobe's character and mindset.

I don't see things quite the same way.  Maybe because I'm more informed about the technology lawsuits filed in California since 2016.  Without naming names or getting too specific, let me ask why would any company want to be mired in a long drawn out patent / intellectual rights dispute over a technology that was previously free to use?  Litigation wars are expensive.  Throwing good money after bad is not fiscally responsible, especially over legacy products that few people want anymore.  I'm sure Adobe's legal team knows exactly what they're doing and why they need to do it.   The mindset is simply survival. 

[ProDesignTools]

As Nancy mentioned, no version of Dreamweaver is on the "Unauthorized" list... Same goes for Illustrator, as well as InDesign since CC 2014.

Some of the articles tend to lump everything together because it's confusing. But the details can be important:

Adobe Limits Software Version Downloads, Including Some Direct Links

[Paul-M]

in a nutshell, Adobe are basically saying use the older, unauthorised versions at your own risk, legal issues that are shrouded in mystery at the moment.

[Nancy OShea]

Fortunately, the legal issues have nothing to do with Dreamweaver or the technologies that Dreamweaver uses in its software.   So we are in good shape.