Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lightroom app update wipes users' photos and presets, Adobe says not recoverable

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 442 posts

Re: Lightroom app update wipes users' photos and presets, Adobe says not recoverable

#371

Post by jclardy »

Brajeshwar wrote: post #98

In another story, I needed Lightroom for about a week to do some photo work. I started with their subscription for the month and I wanted to let go if I'm done in the first month. While trying to cancel my subscription, I realize I can only do that after paying for the remaining 11 months (rough calculation). With no other option, I paid my penalty and left Adobe for good. I have deleted my 15+ year old Adobe account…

I got burned by this as well, but after 6 months. Just waited out the remaining 6 months and then cancelled (Which also was "broken" on their website, requiring me to contact support to cancel.)

Re: Lightroom app update wipes users' photos and presets, Adobe says not recoverable

#372

Post by swebs »

modo_mario wrote: post #365
swebs wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my experience every time Firefox updates these days through unattended-upgrades. The sad thing is that it handled it just fine without crashing up until a few years ago.

A quick scroll trough the settings page shows me you can turn the automatic updates off if you want. Also not something i've experienced. Have you checked whether the crash isn't caused by some weird addon or the like?

The problem is caused when Firefox is installed through your operating system's package manager. But after a bit of searching, it looks like you can just get a version of Firefox from Mozilla's website that contains its own updater and avoids this problem.

https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/b5jb7i/how_to_prev...

Re: Lightroom app update wipes users' photos and presets, Adobe says not recoverable

#373

Post by Aeolun »

maxerickson wrote: post #361
tobyhinloopen wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did the same. I just stopped paying and told my CC company to block transactions because I never agreed to them. Adobe is very unclear about what you’re actually agreeing to up until the point you’re cancelling. I just blocked transactions and never heard from them again (except for some emails). If they want to fight it, good luck winning it in Dutch courts when the conditions are unclear.

Have they changed their presentation? The details pages on https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html are clear enough that the lower prices are "Annual plan, paid monthly". It's hidden behind a click of course, but it isn't obscure.

Holy crap, that is some dark pattern :/ Every website allows you to choose between annual and monthly payments, but but adobe just presents their annual plan in two different ways.

Re: Lightroom app update wipes users' photos and presets, Adobe says not recoverable

#374

Post by ungzd »

c0l0 wrote: post #328

I'd wish for every disgruntled Adobe client who now switches to another tool that satisfies their requirements, saving a few (or considerably more) bucks in the process, to donate a small part of that to the FOSS, libre alternatives for much of Adobe's product portfolio: https://www.gimp.org/ https://inkscape.org/ https://darktable.org/ https://krita.org/ ... You could do so much good with relatively little! :) Thank…

Also http://rawtherapee.com/

Re: Lightroom app update wipes users' photos and presets, Adobe says not recoverable

#375

Post by kevincox »

This is clearly not ideal and reflects poorly on Adobe's QA process but this is about items that are not backed up. Of course most of these users probably had their iOS device "backed up" to Apple's servers but this backup is just replication. It helps if you lose your phone, but it doesn't help if an app has a bug or you make a mistake.

It would be very cool of Apple or Google device backups supported a point-in-time restore. (Ideally a per-app point-in-time restore).

Re: Lightroom app update wipes users' photos and presets, Adobe says not recoverable

#376

Post by maxerickson »

Aeolun wrote: post #373
maxerickson wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have they changed their presentation? The details pages on https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html are clear enough that the lower prices are "Annual plan, paid monthly". It's hidden behind a click of course, but it isn't obscure.

Holy crap, that is some dark pattern :/ Every website allows you to choose between annual and monthly payments, but but adobe just presents their annual plan in two different ways.

Yeah, I'm making a relatively dubious distinction between 'shitty' (which it is) and 'hard to find' (which it isn't particularly).

Re: Lightroom app update wipes users' photos and presets, Adobe says not recoverable

#378

Post by sjwright »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #185
Reelin wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's a free download it still might not fly. I suspect they would have to charge a reasonable fee for providing the specific functionality in order for that approach to work (otherwise the only "sale" was that of the original software).

If you focus specifically on the sale, sure. But if you look at what actually happens to the IP, there's a good argument that dolby has no right to any payment from a user that never touches their IP.

The license fee would be based upon the method of counting installed base. If Adobe wants to change the method of counting, Dolby should be allowed to change the fee.

Re: Lightroom app update wipes users' photos and presets, Adobe says not recoverable

#379

Post by chromedev »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #350
HeadsUpHigh wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>how much can you actually count on those backups being actual backups? You can not count at it at all. The only legit option glacier honestly.

The conversation went in exactly the same direction 3 days ago when we were discussing Canon's recent loss of user data. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24196557

G Suite is FedRAMP compliant. AWS isn't doing anything different or better and isn't any more trustworthy. Additionally, as I mentioned I also backup off-site using CrashPlan but may eventually change to another provider like Wasabi, B2 or potentially just JottaCloud.

Re: Lightroom app update wipes users' photos and presets, Adobe says not recoverable

#380

Post by Silhouette »

tremon wrote: post #367
Reelin wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's evidence that something was lost, but not a measure of the actual damages you suffered. Whose to say if you lost $100 or $100k? In the absence of the lost material there's most likely no way to demonstrate anything. In this case some sort of statutory deterrent would probably be a much more effective solution. I honestly doubt that regulation is a good solution here though - bugs like this are so severe from…

It's evidence that something was lost, but not a measure of the actual damages you suffered That has never stopped those other knights of IP theft, the RIAA and MPAA

My impression of the SOP of those organisations, which I stress is based entirely on online hearsay so may be wildly inaccurate, is that they write to someone who they suspect has probably ripped something illegally, make a song and dance about the huge statutory damages that can potentially be awarded (under US law), and then rely on the fact that defending a suit will also (under US law) probably cost them thousands even if they win, so settling may work out cheaper even if they really have done nothing wrong?

The analogous organisations don't tend to try that kind of stunt here in the UK. Unless the copyright infringement is criminal, in a civil action our legal system currently only provides for actual damages to be awarded, and it's usual for the winning party to be awarded their legal fees at the loser's expense.

So unless there are some kind of statutory/punitive damages available for each lost photo in a case like this, it doesn't seem to be a comparable situation.

Post reply on HN