Subject | grammar was: Adobe's Low hanging .... ? |
From | John McWilliams |
Date | 07/11/2014 19:48 (07/11/2014 10:48) |
Message-ID | <lpp81s$27t$1@dont-email.me> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Savageduck |
Followups | Savageduck (13m) > John McWilliams |
SavageduckWouldn't bring this up except the very word was discussed recently: s/b "affected"
On 2014-07-10 21:15:39 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:Eric StevensSavageduck
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/19/adobe_creative_cloud_2014_comment/
"one Adobe evangelist at the recent CC pre-launch press briefing suggested that it was the users own fault for logging out of their Adobe IDs when they experienced sign-in issues instead of following a convoluted workaround that no-one except Adobe knew about."
I wonder who that was?
What gets me about the Register and its reporting is just how anti-Apple, & anti-Adobe they are.
They are forever making less than factual statements, in the case of this particular article they have expanded their claim for the CC outage from about 24 hours, to more than 24 hours, to the "some 36 hours" in this report. The reality was the Cloud services were down for about 18 hours, and at no time did subscribers lose access to the CC Apps. It certainly effected those who were dependent on CC services for collaborative work and online publishing, however, what happened was not catastrophic.
There were always other means of delivering/sharing or collaborating while the CC services were down, DB, or Box for example. Particularly since the CC apps never stopped running.