[Macworld]

Post your comments for Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch resigns to work at Apple here

[leicaman]

I remember Lynch as a bit of a whiner over the Flash issue. He must have had a change of attitude, eh?

Is it any wonder Adobe's revenues are down, considering their pushing people to subscriptions, not giving people who still buy the boxed versions updates they give to the subscription people (for no good reason but to punish them for not joining the overpriced subscription party). And the refusal to allow people to skip versions. I'm surprised Adobe isn't doing worse.

If I wasn't a pro photographer, I'd give Adobe the boot.

This post has been edited by leicaman: 19 March 2013 - 05:01 PM

[sportyguy209]

I used to upgrade all the time, but haven't since the subscriptions took effect. I don't like software subscriptions, and, I suspect, most people don't which is why revenues are down.

[davebarnes]

Sad.
Sad that Apple hired a loser from Adobe.
Adobe - home of overpriced, crappy software.

[wardoggie]

davebarnes, on 19 March 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

Sad.
Sad that Apple hired a loser from Adobe.
Adobe - home of overpriced, crappy software.

If it makes you feel any better, he came to Adobe in the Macromedia acquisition.

[RamaFan]

It it makes any of you feel better. Adobe is actually pretty reasonable for software subscriptions from my experience.

Consider our AutoCAD subscriptions. First you have to buy the product at full price; about $5000 for our version (AutoCAD Architecture). Then you put it on subscription THE SAME YEAR for around $650; which will, of course, soon be going up. And then you have to deal with going through a pushy dealer for the software and their constant 'encouragement' to upgrade all of your subscriptions to the even more expensive Building Design Suite Premium (of course because the standard suite does not offer Revit...and you 'need' Revit).

Also consider our financial software. It's purchase was $12,000 and the subscription is $1,200 a year...and we've only got 12 people to use it.

[Steve_S]

wardoggie, on 19 March 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

If it makes you feel any better, he came to Adobe in the Macromedia acquisition.

Why would that matter? He was still the dope pushing the Flash agenda at Adobe years after it was clear there was no future in it. I just hope Apple sees potential in him beyond what he has displayed publicly. On the surface, this doesn't appear to be a good move for Apple.

[wardoggie]

Steve_S, on 20 March 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

wardoggie, on 19 March 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

If it makes you feel any better, he came to Adobe in the Macromedia acquisition.

Why would that matter? He was still the dope pushing the Flash agenda at Adobe years after it was clear there was no future in it. I just hope Apple sees potential in him beyond what he has displayed publicly. On the surface, this doesn't appear to be a good move for Apple.

Gee, a CTO defending his company's software? Color me shocked. I'm sure now that he's an Apple employee, he'll be free to speak his mind if he doesn't like how Cook is running Apple.

My comment speaks to his accomplishments before he joined Adobe. Clearly, he's a capable manager. And as a VP, that's what he'll be doing. If Cook hired him to replace Sir Ive, I'd agree with you. But the article says he'll be a VP reporting to Mansfield. If his management style blends well with Apple's corporate culture, he'll probably do well in that position. If it doesn't, or if he just doesn't deliver the goods, they'll get rid of him like they did the guy who was in charge of the retail division (whose name escapes me).

[Steve_S]

wardoggie, on 20 March 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

Gee, a CTO defending his company's software? Color me shocked.

No, if he's a developer that is just towing the company line, that's one thing. As the CTO, he was defining the company position on this topic. As such, he doesn't get a pass. If he disagreed with this company direction, he wouldn't have made a fool of himself trying to defend it publicly. All efforts should have been on Adobe embracing HTML 5 based tools, etc. instead of just dabbling in it as they have. Besides being technically competent, a person in this position needs vision. Likewise, again, I question Apple's decision here.

[ingus]

Lee Brimelow, Adobe evangelist: "Go screw yourself Apple" 4/9/2010.
Apple: "Mission Accomplished!" 3/18/2013

[ingus]

Quote

wardoggie said
Gee, a CTO defending his company's software? Color me shocked. No, if he's a developer that is just towing the company line, that's one thing. As the CTO, he was defining the company position on this topic. As such, he doesn't get a pass. If he disagreed with this company direction, he wouldn't have made a fool of himself trying to defend it publicly. All efforts should have been on Adobe embracing HTML 5 based tools, etc. instead of just dabbling in it as they have. Besides being technically competent, a person in this position needs vision. Likewise, again, I question Apple's decision here.

If you're expecting personal integrity to trump the company position, it doesn't happen at those ranks very often. There's always other factors involved. And he's not alone. Scott Forstall anyone?

This post has been edited by ingus: 20 March 2013 - 07:56 AM

[wardoggie]

Steve_S, on 20 March 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

wardoggie, on 20 March 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

Gee, a CTO defending his company's software? Color me shocked.

No, if he's a developer that is just towing the company line, that's one thing. As the CTO, he was defining the company position on this topic. As such, he doesn't get a pass. If he disagreed with this company direction, he wouldn't have made a fool of himself trying to defend it publicly. All efforts should have been on Adobe embracing HTML 5 based tools, etc. instead of just dabbling in it as they have. Besides being technically competent, a person in this position needs vision. Likewise, again, I question Apple's decision here.

Yes, he was defining his company's position on the topic. Did you seriously expect him to throw in the towel? "Yep, Steve's right. Flash is a piece of excrement and the world is better off without it. All of you people who spent years and perhaps thousands of dollars sharpening your Flash development skills were suckers of the first degree. We can't give you your lives back, but here's a complete refund on any and all Flash training you received. We're sorry."

I agree that Adobe took the wrong position on HTML5 at the time, but HTML5 is not even a stable recommendation right now. If I were in Lynch's position or the CEO's position back then, I would've said, "We are disappointed that Apple is not allowing us on iOS and are working hard to optimize our mobile plugin. Until they change their minds, we remain committed to being the premier content creation and development platform for mobile and desktop systems, whether they run native code, Flash or HTML5." It would've been so easy, but what's done is done.

Ultimately, though, we can respectfully disagree on the move because it's not our call to make, so we're just armchair quarterbacking here.

[Steve_S]

wardoggie, on 20 March 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Yes, he was defining his company's position on the topic. Did you seriously expect him to throw in the towel?

Seeing as though that's exactly what happened eventually, yes. If the CTO is the last person in the industry to see this coming, then it's clear that person doesn't have the proper vision and is not suited for that position. We can sit back and call this armchair quarterbacking, etc. and of course hindsight is 20/20, but I (like practically everyone else) certainly saw the fate of Flash coming long before he did. He didn't have to throw in the towel immediately, but he should have shifted the company's focus to HTML 5 much sooner. He also didn't have to publicly make a fool of himself publicly by doubling down (repeatedly) on the wrong path.

Quote

I agree that Adobe took the wrong position on HTML5 at the time, but HTML5 is not even a stable recommendation right now. If I were in Lynch's position or the CEO's position back then, I would've said, "We are disappointed that Apple is not allowing us on iOS and are working hard to optimize our mobile plugin. Until they change their minds, we remain committed to being the premier content creation and development platform for mobile and desktop systems, whether they run native code, Flash or HTML5." It would've been so easy, but what's done is done.

It wouldn't have been easy? Huh? Taking the position you mentioned is the obvious and rational position that everyone would have respected and understood. Taking the position that Lynch took made him look like an idiot. He arrogantly thought he had the upper hand in forcing the direction of the industry.

Quote

Ultimately, though, we can respectfully disagree on the move because it's not our call to make, so we're just armchair quarterbacking here.

When people make their career decisions publicly, they invite scrutiny and criticism. I don't claim to know everything about him. However, what I do know about him isn't positive. Hence, my original comments on this topic: "I just hope Apple sees potential in him beyond what he has displayed publicly. On the surface, this doesn't appear to be a good move for Apple. "

[lhudd]

Of course he defended Adobe's flash position. Flash was a proprietary product that they had 100% control over. Not to mention all that money they threw at Macromedia to buy it. It's not like everybody is still clinging to Dreamweaver. He was forced to defend it. Personally, the final death of Flash cant get here fast enough for me. I'm sick of the new "update" scheme where i'm constantly having to update Flash on all of my various machines because i'll hit an occasional website that still requires it. The security "feature" where it blocks access to the plugin once it figures out you're not using the current version is the most maddening thing of all. yeah, great, i wanted to look at one stupid video, and now i have to stop everything so i can download yet ANOTHER Flash update....