Slashdot Mirror


Apple Hires Former Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch, Destroyer of iPhones

Nerval's Lobster writes "Why did Apple hire former Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch as vice president of technology? Adobe and Apple spent years fighting a much-publicized battle over the latter's decision to ban Adobe Flash from iOS devices. Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs was very public in his condemnation of Flash as a tool for rich-content playback, denigrating it in an April 2010 letter posted on Apple's Website as flawed with regard to battery life, security, reliability and performance. Lynch was very much the public face of Adobe's public-relations pushback to Apple's criticism; in a corporate video shot for an Adobe developer conference in 2009, he even helped run an iPhone over with a steamroller. (Hat tip to Daring Fireball's John Gruber for digging that video up.) As recently as 2010, he was still arguing that Flash was superior to HTML5, which eventually surpassed it to become the virtual industry standard for Web-based rich content. It's interesting to speculate whether Steve Jobs would have hired someone who so publicly denigrated Apple's flagship product. But Jobs is dead, and his corporate successors in Cupertino—tasked with leading Apple through a period of fierce competition — obviously looked at Lynch and decided he'd make a perfect fit as an executive."

20 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. Do you honestly believe.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you believe that everyone has a brand loyalty problem? A professional can see beyond all of this kind of noise while exploiting it to their will at the same time.
     
    It reminds me of a DJ from a classic rock station who got let go, he went on to a country station and was in all their ads about how the "new country" music was exciting and great. I know someone who met him and talked about it and the DJ's reply was along the lines of "It's just another gig. It's my job to make it sound like something you'll want to listen to." This really is no different. Even fanboys who are forced to move on eventually shrug off their old brand and act like whatever they were forced into is the best thing going. Some people thrive on making what they own is the best even if they know it isn't.
     
    Meh.

    1. Re:Do you honestly believe.... by AndreR · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Everyone's replying in agreement to you, but that is not the reason why people are concerned.

      The reason is that this guy wasn't an employee, he was CTO. As CTO, he had the power to influence decisions.

      He didn't have to follow the company's lead, he was the one dictating what that was.
      And he sucked at that.

  2. Re:Game of Thrones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or maybe it's just a guy who wants a well paying job and he knows all the technobabble is just that...
     
    I think too many geeks think that they world does really work out like a Game of Thrones scenerio. Thinking that one company needs to live for another to thrive and that any time someone jumps ship it's because the ship is sinking. I've seen this kind of talk around Slashdot for more than a decade and so far most of these entities that were suppose to turn belly-up at any minute are still around.
     
    Give up. Live a fulfilling life. You're wasting your time trying to get everyone to agree with you.

  3. Re:Game of Thrones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Would that make Steve Jobs Joffrey Baratheon?

  4. wonderful! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just announced: iPhones will now feature a permanent pop-up message that says "A new version of the IOS is available, do you want to install?"

  5. HTML5 has surpassed Flash? by Inoen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    HTML5, which eventually surpassed it to become the virtual industry standard for Web-based rich content

    I would disagree. Flash is still very much the de facto standard, like it or not.

  6. Tim Cook's at the helm now by Speare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe it's as simple as Jobs' advice to Cook: "I never want you to ask what I would have done. Just do what's right."

    Or maybe it's a cheap way to buy out an antagonist, let him spin his wheels in a harm-free zone for a couple years, and do what Apple does with less angst.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  7. It's all a game by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This summary is saying, "I won't choose you for me team because you scored lots of points against me. Politicians and execs don't really "care" about things. They are professionals doing a job.

  8. Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. by jjjhs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To be fair Flash is a piece of crud, on systems otherwise capable of playing videos, in full screen would use exponentially more CPU usually maxing the cpu/core making the video unwatchable in full screen. The higher your desktop resolution the more exponential cpu power Flash required to scale to fullscreen. It could be worked around by dropping the desktop resolution much lower say 800x600 or even 640x480. Silverlight didn't have any issues with cpu usage scaling to fullscreen. Sure they have gpu acceleration now but I suspect it's just to work around that issue.

  9. Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. by AC-x · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure they have gpu acceleration now but I suspect it's just to work around that issue.

    No GPU acceleration is the fix to the issue, not just a workaround. It's like deriding a 3D engine for having really slow CPU-only rendering and claiming that enabling 3D acceleration is "just a workaround" for a slow 3D engine.

  10. Where's the value in this? by MaWeiTao · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At the end of the day these guys usually are not much more than figureheads. They institute a vague vision and ambiguous goal that is mostly reactive to industry trends. It's the people beneath them who do the real thinking, who worry about specifics, implementation and execution. The only real benefit they bring is that they have intimate knowledge of the process, philosophy and goals of their previous employer.

    What else does he really bring to the table?

  11. Flash by Cloud+K · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I trust this doesn't mean they'll be bringing Flash back though *shudder*

    It's one of those interesting points with Steve Jobs. At the time, the decision seemed awful and a lot of people were cheering on alternatives such as Android for including it. But a couple of years on it would seem that many share my view of: hey, he was right! Flash IS an awful resource drain, and because of him banning it from iOS there's been great progress towards HTML5 and the drive for efficiency. I seem to recall even Adobe have agreed it's the correct move at this point. Android has had Flash for a while but the latest versions have dropped it. It'd be so ironic if (unlikely) iOS gained Flash and everyone flocked to Android to get away from it this time.

    1. Re:Flash by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Flash was never intended to be a universal code interpreter to run across all systems (like Java was supposed to do). Flash was initially developed as an artist's animation tool to help create small-size low-bandwidth movies without making them full video files. It's still wildly popular among artists for that reason. That you could use Flash to do things like play video and make (clunky) websites was an accidental side benefit. It was never intended to do those things.

      HTML5 was intended to do those things. So it was pretty much inevitable that sites would move to HTML5 for that sort of thing. However, as I said, Flash is still wildly popular among artists (so much so that it's been used to produce several animated TV shows and movies). I don't see it going away any time soon.

  12. Flash ban was never about battery/performance by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs was very public in his condemnation of Flash as a tool for rich-content playback, denigrating it in an April 2010 letter posted on Apple's Website as flawed with regard to battery life, security, reliability and performance.

    That was just PR to keep the masses thinking Apple was on their side. The real reason they ddin't support Flash was because it was a code interpreter. i.e. It let you run external code. That meant if iOS supported Flash, you could use it to run apps on your iOS device without having gotten them via the App Store.

    At the time, Apple had a very strict policy against code interpreters. They've loosened their stance somewhat since then, but it's still pretty restrictive. It's their garden, and they want to keep it walled off. On the one hand this does improve the security of their devices somewhat. On the other it means all executables which are bought and sold for the device have to go through their App Store and 30% cut.

    Battery life, reliability, and performance were all red herrings because in most Android browsers, the Flash plugin wouldn't play by default. If you went to a web page with embedded Flash, an image of a stylized F would show up in its place, and you had to click on it before the Flash would actually play. No hit to the device's performance unless you specifically wanted the Flash to play.

    1. Re:Flash ban was never about battery/performance by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs was very public in his condemnation of Flash as a tool for rich-content playback, denigrating it in an April 2010 letter posted on Apple's Website as flawed with regard to battery life, security, reliability and performance.

      That was just PR to keep the masses thinking Apple was on their side. The real reason they ddin't support Flash was because it was a code interpreter. i.e. It let you run external code. That meant if iOS supported Flash, you could use it to run apps on your iOS device without having gotten them via the App Store. At the time, Apple had a very strict policy against code interpreters. They've loosened their stance somewhat since then, but it's still pretty restrictive. It's their garden, and they want to keep it walled off. On the one hand this does improve the security of their devices somewhat. On the other it means all executables which are bought and sold for the device have to go through their App Store and 30% cut. Battery life, reliability, and performance were all red herrings because in most Android browsers, the Flash plugin wouldn't play by default. If you went to a web page with embedded Flash, an image of a stylized F would show up in its place, and you had to click on it before the Flash would actually play. No hit to the device's performance unless you specifically wanted the Flash to play.

      Don't think you understand how these technologies work. Apple has adopted HTML5 capabilities such as local storage, offline caching, and web workers as fast as anyone. You can make fantastic mobile web apps on top of HTML5 completely bypassing the app store. Flash is an abomination and needed to go. There was no ulterior motive here. It was a terrible technology that needed to be put down.

  13. Re:Game of Thrones by Abreu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, but HBO feels they'll have more rating if they show them having sex while explaining their reasons for stabbing each other in the back.

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  14. Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    On my old G4 PowerBook, both QuickTime and VLC could play back full screen and windows H.264 at 720p (just about) or lower (easily, using 25-50% of the CPU). Flash couldn't even handle standard definition video. GPU acceleration is fine, but there's no excuse for Flash performance. Adobe claimed that it was because Apple didn't provide adequate APIs for accessing the GPU, but this ignored two things:
    • Apple did provide an API for decoding H.264 and sending the result to a layer, which could then be composited in hardware.
    • Even without this API, Flash was a factor of 2-4 slower than other CPU-only implementations.

    It turned out that their preferred design for GPU offload involved decoding H.264 on the GPU, copying the frames back to main memory, compositing them on the CPU, and then copying the resulting frames back to the CPU. As you can imagine, this was a long way from being the fastest possible solution.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  15. Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. by fredprado · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cute. Now we have a Godwin's law's nazi police!

  16. Re:Business as usual by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Funny

    This guy is willing to go to the mat with vitriolic lies to defend his company's inferior technology in a world that is moving beyond it. What other qualifications does he need to work at the new Apple?

  17. Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3

    This is a point many don't understand. An open source application uses Apple's APIs correctly while Adobe could not. I think that this had to do with how Adobe coded Flash. Since they wanted it to be universal, they may have simply ported sections of code from Windows that handled decoding/coding without out actually looking at the API and using the standard calls.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.