Adobe blocking other readers?

[lewmur]

I was in Wilder's forums trying to help someone read pdf form in Ubuntu only to discover that any reader but Adobe 9 displays a page saying you need a later version of the reader. I even went into Windows and used IE8 to download the file instead of opening it from the web site. Tried Foxit, Okular and CutePDF and all of them opened a page with the error message instead of the real page. They didn't crash or anything of that sort but merely displayed a page other than the correct one.Has anyone else had this happen and is there a way around it?

[zlim]

I don't have Adobe installed on my computers so I guess if it isn't on, it can't block other readers.I use an addon (in windows and linux) called pdf download.https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/636when I click on a pdf, I get a popup box with several choices: download it, open it, view as html or cancel.What happens when the person makes another reader the default for pdf?

Edited July 25, 2009 by zlim

[lewmur]

I don't have Adobe installed on my computers so I guess if it isn't on, it can't block other readers.I use an addon (in windows and linux) called pdf download.https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/636when I click on a pdf, I get a popup box with several choices: download it, open it, view as html or cancel.What happens when the person makes another reader the default for pdf?

It isn't blocking other readers from rendering all pdf files. 99.99% of files will work just fine. It is just files created with the latest version of Adobe Writer that won't work with other readers.

[zlim]

Have a link to the file?

[lewmur]

Have a link to the file?

Go here and then click on the IT14 form.

[Urmas]

Same o ' same o ':

The end of PDF as a "universally readable" format ? ("To view the full contents of this document, you need a later version of the PDF viewer.") Until now I always recommended to use PDF as a format to distribute documents in case the recipients don't need to alter them[1]. This supposedly guaranteed that the document would always look the same on any computer/platform. But today one of our customers (running Linux) contacted our support department requesting help because he was unable to view the contents of such a "portable document". To my surprise, I saw the following contents when opening the file with evince:

To view the full contents of this document, you need a later version of the PDF viewer. You can upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader from www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html For further support, go to www.adobe.com/support/products/acrreader.html

There doesn't seem to be anything "magic" in this document that I haven't seen in documents using the "older" format, so maybe this is just an attempt from Adobe to regain market shares by forcing you to use their product. On the other hand I always thought of PDF as an open standard so it's probably just a matter of time until the "competitors" catch up. At least a bug has already been filled for evince.

http://blog.crox.net/archives/52-The-end-o...DF-viewer..htmlFrom the bug report link:

> This is a problem on all pdf readers, except newer adobe products. I have> checked google's pdf reader, evince and foxit, which all seem to not work.> However adobe pdf reader 9 reads this file."Because it uses (more or less proprietary) technology from Adobe; the contentof the PDF is what is displayed by evince etc. What AR shows is something quitedifferent...

[lewmur]

Same o ' same o ': http://blog.crox.net/archives/52-The-end-o...DF-viewer..htmlFrom the bug report link:

This sort of nonsense really ticks me off. But Adobe, like MS, thinks they are big enough that they can push customers around and get away with it. This has been a problem with "computer standards" from day one. Instead of having standards bodies like IEEE or ANSI in control of things like this, we become dependent on solutions from proprietary co.s that they offer us "for free" and then want to complain when pull stunts like this. I just hope that this is a case like .jpg where people fight back and tell Adobe to stuff it.

[Tushman]

This sort of nonsense really ticks me off. But Adobe, like MS, thinks they are big enough that they can push customers around and get away with it. This has been a problem with "computer standards" from day one. Instead of having standards bodies like IEEE or ANSI in control of things like this, we become dependent on solutions from proprietary co.s that they offer us "for free" and then want to complain when pull stunts like this. I just hope that this is a case like .jpg where people fight back and tell Adobe to stuff it.

You're getting your shorts in a twist about nothing. By the way, what does it tell you when 3 different PDF readers could not open the file? Should tell you that it may be the fault of the document author and has nothing to do with Adobe.

[striker]

There are many pdf docs on the internet which show the same behavior. Just do an internet search with this term without the quotes:'To view the full contents of this document, you need a later version of the PDF viewer. You can upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader from www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html'One complainer here:http://blog.jamponi.net/2009/03/adobe-taxe...government.htmlBTW: the doc Lew is referring to was created with Adobe LiveCycle Designer ES 8.1. (seems to be discontinued acc. to http://reviews.cnet.com/desktop-publishing...-32571128.html)However, one sneeky workaround if using a Windows machine would be to download and install the trial version of the latest Adobe LiveCycle Designer ES available from: http://www.adobe.com/products/livecycle/Also, the search for the error message Lew stated above on the LiveCycle Designer ES forums resulted in this:http://forums.adobe.com/search.jspa;jsessi...+the+PDF+viewerI also tried PDF XChange Viewer (latest version) opening the file: result negative.I also tried opening the file in Scribus which has that availability: here's the screenshot of the result.Go figure.

[zlim]

I clicked on the form and first selected download and got the "you need a newer version of adobe". No way will I do that because Adobe Reader has unpatched holes at the present time.Next I tried the FF option of viewing as an html and this is what came up

Unable to convert PDF to HTML.Most likely the document author has secured this document to prevent modification. This may be to protect his/her intellectual property, or to ensure the document is viewed “as intended” in a compliant PDF viewer.To download the document for offline viewing please click here.For more information on PDF security and how to secure your own documents using Nitro PDF Professional, please visit http://www.nitropdf.com/professional/pdf-security.htm

So it appears that my addon wants to sell me something.I also clicked the link where it says click here and got the same Foxit alert that I need a newer version of Adobe!Thanks lewmur for alerting us to what Adobe is trying to do. At least now when someone complains about not being able to open a pdf, I might have a clue as to what is facing them.I just checked my Foxit and I'm not running the latest version. Maybe my addon would work if I ran v3.I'm going to look at the other computers; one of them might be running v3. Edited July 27, 2009 by zlim

[striker]

I'm not sure yet Adobe is to blame here. I downloaded three other docs from the link above and they just opened fine. Only some of the docs on the site refuse to open. Two of the docs I downloaded were created with Corel Draw (huh? never knew that one could create a PDF too...well, never too old to learn something new ) and the other one was created with Adobe InDesign CS4 (6.0). These three just open up fine. The problem seems to be where the doc is created with this LiveCycle Designer ES thing, so I still think it would be the smartest to just get the trial version of that application (see link in previous post) and open it up in there. However you will have to have access to a Windows based machine.

[lewmur]

I'm not sure yet Adobe is to blame here. I downloaded three other docs from the link above and they just opened fine. Only some of the docs on the site refuse to open. Two of the docs I downloaded were created with Corel Draw (huh? never knew that one could create a PDF too...well, never too old to learn something new ) and the other one was created with Adobe InDesign CS4 (6.0). These three just open up fine. The problem seems to be where the doc is created with this LiveCycle Designer ES thing, so I still think it would be the smartest to just get the trial version of that application (see link in previous post) and open it up in there. However you will have to have access to a Windows based machine.

Live Cycle is Adobe. So if you are going to use Adobe why bother downloading something special instead of just using the latest Adobe reader? And why aren't you sure the problem is Adobe when you, yourself, point out the all of the offending pdfs were created with the Adobe product?

[striker]

Well, the problem is I don't know Adobe LifeCycle Designer program at all to begin with. It could very well be some setting in that program preventing opening in some other program a macro or maybe some obscure JavaScript thing, I just don't know. However, I'm not a friend of Adobe, far from that. I won't touch anything from them with a ten feet pole. On the other side it's just ridiculous one gets forced to use their software to be able to open up a document. Who is forcing here is the question, the author of the document or Adobe, I just don't know, so that's why I'm cautious to lay the blame on anyone.

[lewmur]

Well, the problem is I don't know Adobe LifeCycle Designer program at all to begin with. It could very well be some setting in that program preventing opening in some other program a macro or maybe some obscure JavaScript thing, I just don't know. However, I'm not a friend of Adobe, far from that. I won't touch anything from them with a ten feet pole. On the other side it's just ridiculous one gets forced to use their software to be able to open up a document. Who is forcing here is the question, the author of the document or Adobe, I just don't know, so that's why I'm cautious to lay the blame on anyone.

It is Adobe that is doing the "forcing." It is the same thing MS does in giving away "development" software to educational and govt entities to develope web sites and documents that then require the end user to use their products. They (MS and Adobe etc.) will always claim that the products don't "fit" the "standards" because they are adding "features." Yeah. Sure. If you go through the sites that have the "bug," notice how many of them are govt sites. Want to efile your taxes? Guess what? You have to use Adobe!! (This isn't true in all countries but it is in some.)

[striker]

If you go through the sites that have the "bug," notice how many of them are govt sites.

Yes you're absolutely right there!

[Tushman]

Some of the attitude here on this thread "Oh how dare Adobe do this to us...." is getting a bit stale. Let's put this in perspective here shall we? First of all, there's no "perfect software" out there and it's funny how some people play armchair quarterback on forums such as this one, criticizing a software maker every time they find a flaw. Let me ask you this. Have you guys ever written a piece of software and realize how difficult it can be? I surely haven't but I've talked to programmers in the past who all agree on the same thing - it's not easy to squash bugs in your code.I also don't see anything nefarious or suspicious in "what adobe is trying to do". What are they trying to do? Is there some evidence that they are upto something sneaky? It looks like to me their Live Cycle application was buggy (resulting in some PDFs that could only be opened by Adobe Reader) and they discontinued it afterwards.It's one thing to exercise a little caution and say I'm not going to use adobe reader because it has security holes. I would say it's going a bit overboard to color Adobe as a bad company because of one product (out of several) that did not perform well.

[striker]

I would say it's going a bit overboard to color Adobe as a bad company because of one product (out of several) that did not perform well.

Who said that?

[Tushman]

Who said that?

Striker,Read the posts by Lew and Zlim again. I said that their comments convey a negative bias towards Adobe. And Lew makes it blatantly obvious he does not like Adobe in any shape or form. See his quote below.

Thanks lewmur for alerting us to what Adobe is trying to do.

What is Adobe trying to do? I've yet to see any compelling evidence they are trying to push Foxit or Evince out of market or force users to use Adobe products only. Has been a repeated pattern of behavior by Adobe?... I very much doubt Adobe is any bit concerned about Foxit or Evince. The small minority of users is not enough to pose a threat to a large company like Adobe.

This sort of nonsense really ticks me off. But Adobe, like MS, thinks they are big enough that they can push customers around and get away with it. ....we become dependent on solutions from proprietary co.s that they offer us "for free" and then want to complain when pull stunts like this. I just hope that this is a case like .jpg where people fight back and tell Adobe to stuff it.

I sure would like to know what they are getting away with. I'll be sure to join in your chorus of telling Adobe to go "stuff it" when I'm convinced.

[Urmas]

Striker,Read the posts by Lew and Zlim again.

What about me? Little ol' me?I DID say "same o' same o'" :"> ... and another of those same o's was directed towards Adobe:

On January 29, 2007, Adobe announced its intent to release the full Portable Document Format (PDF) 1.7 specification to AIIM, the Enterprise Content Management Association, for the purpose of publication by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). During 2007 and into early 2008 that intent was turned into a reality. ISO published the approved ISO 32000-1 standard based upon PDF 1.7 in July 2008. ISO will also produce future versions of the PDF Specification. Since ISO 32000 is equivalent to Adobe's PDF 1.7, Adobe is not producing a PDF 1.8 Reference. However, Adobe is publishing a document specifying what extended features for PDF, beyond ISO 32000-1 (PDF 1.7), are supported in its newly released products. This makes use of the extensibility features of PDF as documented in ISO 32000 in Annex E. Note that PDF documents conforming to ISO 32000 carry the PDF version number 1.7. Documents containing extended features still carry the PDF base version number 1.7 but also contain an indication of which extension the PDF producer application followed during document creation.

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/pdf/pdf_reference.htmlClear as mud, isn't it? Who said it is difficult to sit on two chairs if you you only have one... :"> donkey? So... PDF is open, but the bits and pieces Adobe has bolted into it (LifeCycle Designer etc.) aren't.My another same o' ? It's this:

If you go through the sites that have the "bug," notice how many of them are govt sites.

Same o' indeed... some "govt sites" can be only accessed with IE, here we have an "Adobe Reader monopoly". As a biased penguin, I very much agree with this document (PDF, but it WORKS! :"> ):

Open source and open formats are often considered the only practical way to protect customers' rights. In particular, the main claims associated to the adoption of open software and open standards and formats can be summarized as follows:

Users can inspect the source code and check that it does not accomplish unsafe or undesired operations.Users can take full control of software. They can change the company in charge of maintaining it. They can develop, fix, change, improve, and redistribute the code without restrictions and limitations.The adoption of open standards (e.g. standard communication protocols) allows systems developed by different technology providers to interoperate. Therefore, a user or organization is not forced to use products from a single provider, and different users or organizations can communicate even if they use products from different providers. In particular, the adoption of open formats makes the users free to change a program without loosing data and information. Moreover, anybody can access the information without necessarily purchasing or acquiring non-free programs. Open standards and formats are needed in order to avoid the "lock in" problem.

These claims are particularly relevant when applied to public administrations. They store critical personal and government data. Moreover, they offer "public" services to the entire population and must therefore guarantee equal access to everybody, and neutrality with respect to technology and service providers.Indeed, the needs and requests underlying the above-mentioned claims are legitimate and more than reasonable. Nevertheless, requiring software and formats to be "only" open is in some cases unnecessary, and in others impossible to obtain and, therefore, unrealistic or discriminatory.( -----------------------------------------------------------------)Openness is even more important for document formats, since it involves the ownership of the information being represented through the format. Certainly, the contents of a document or of a data base are not owned by the developer of the package used to create and store them. A novelist is the exclusive owner of the story he/she wrote, independently of the word processor that was used to write it. Similarly, the information about citizens stored by a public administration in a data base are a "public" resource, whose control cannot be limited or influenced in any form by the developer of the data base management systems. Similarly, citizens cannot be forced to purchase a specific product to access information and data published or released by a public administration. It is therefore essential to identify means to protect the rights of the owner of any specific information stored or manipulated by a software system.

http://alfonsofuggetta.org/mambo/images/st...rs/openness.pdf

[goretsky]

Hello,Have you considered contacting the provider of the PDF file in question, explaining to them that the file they have provided does not work with older versions of Adobe Reader, and asking them if they will update the document so it will be compatible with older PDF readers? Regards,Aryeh Goretsky

[lewmur]

Hello,Have you considered contacting the provider of the PDF file in question, explaining to them that the file they have provided does not work with older versions of Adobe Reader, and asking them if they will update the document so it will be compatible with older PDF readers? Regards,Aryeh Goretsky

Do you really think a govt bureaucracy is going to change how they do things because someone complains?

[goretsky]

Hello,No idea, really, I guess you would have to try it and see what the results are.Regards,Aryeh Goretsky