Why did Apple hire Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch? - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreyfus2 

 

Um, if 'blackmailing people to update, just to get bug fixes for stuff that has been not working since the day it was released' is what you mean by 'brutal efficiency', then yes. There is nothing Apple can learn from Adobe, at least nothing that would make Apple better.

I think he was refering to the Adobe Suite and particularly the much loved and very good Photoshop, which gets updated every year with great new stuff evert year.

He was hired to bring a skeuomorphic Flash player to iOS.  End of Story.

While I agree with the concern over hardware guy vs. software guy, a senior exec doesn't get all that involved in the nitty gritty - they're mainly hired for their overall management skills:  managing budgets, teams, resources, etc.     Look at most CEOs:   they tend to jump around industries that have very little to do with each other.   Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.   

In addition, when working for any specific company, you have to support the company's product strategy whether you agree with it or not.    So the fact that he worked on Flash doesn't mean all that much - he might have actually agreed that Flash wasn't a good way to go.

I'm been consulting for a tech company for years and I disagree with almost everything they do.    That doesn't mean that I wouldn't be a valuable addition to another company.   Besides, everyone has been concentrating on what Adobe does badly.    But Photoshop was and remains a groundbreaking application that the majority of high-end professional photographers still use.    I've never been a fan of Illustrator, but most pro graphic designers are.    InDesign is still used by many print and magazine publishers although I personally preferred the old Pagemaker.     PremierePro is considered to be a worthy competitor to other video editing software (although  I don't personally use it).   You might consider their products to be too expensive, but other than that, Adobe has done a pretty good job IMO, aside from some delays in supporting new versions of the Mac OS.     People complain that Apple seems to drop interest in software after it matures, but Adobe releases updates on a pretty regular schedule - so regular that many complain about paying for those upgrades.    

And it's been reported today that Adobe has beaten estimates, largely due to their new subscription program, which really surprises me, but if it works, it works. 

Originally Posted by anantksundaram 
LOL. That makes no sense at all.....

It's quite simple. They can't work for two companies at once. Therefore THEY work for THEM and not for Apple. 

Originally Posted by msimpson 
He was hired to bring a skeuomorphic Flash player to iOS.  End of Story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazoobee 
There is more difference (relatively speaking) between Pages 4.2 and Pages 4.3 than there is between CS3 and CS5..  

Come on...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Originally Posted by anantksundaram 
LOL. That makes no sense at all.....

 

It's quite simple. They can't work for two companies at once. Therefore THEY work for THEM and not for Apple. 

I see. And your claim is that there is no more THEY there, because THEM took the one black guy, five Indian guys and the three women that Apple could have picked.....

Got it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaneur 

By the way, I would say it's the perception of Apple's incompetence that's tanking the stock as much or more than any actual fumbling. If you deny that, I would understand, because right now you're part of that perception.

You're certainly welcome to your blind devotion. That is your wont.

I happen to see issues from a somewhat more balanced perspective (although one that is heavily titled in favor of all things Apple, as any reasonable assessment of my posting history will show).

My views are based on reasonable surmise, none of which you've offered thus far, except for non sequiturs like "you don't work there, so you couldn't know". That is pretty much the equivalent of "you can't lay an egg, so don't criticize the omelette."

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmarcoot 

Really? Did I mention share price?  

You probably thought Browett was a good choice too.  If you think Cooks ability to pick Apples' VP leadership for the next decade is not questionable than the only one here that should be ignored is you. 
 

I have skin in the game, I want Apple to do great. And this guy is not a great choice.
 

This guy isn't working for Cook.  How do we know Cook Picked him?

Originally Posted by anantksundaram 
I see. And your claim is that there is no more THEY there, because THEM took the one black guy, five Indian guys and the three women that Apple could have picked.....

 

Got it.

Is your claim that Apple doesn't hire non-white males? Or just that I'm claiming that? Because both are ludicrous.

I don't give a flying frick who or "what" you are; if you can't do the job, you shouldn't be in the position. The executive team at Apple is what it is because those are the people at that company best suited for their respective jobs. In no way is that a statement against anyone else against the company under any condition, relevant to job or no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Is your claim that Apple doesn't hire non-white males? Or just that I'm claiming that? 

Don't be silly. Of course not.

I am not dumb enough to claim something like that, and I assume that neither are you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreyfus2 

 Forstall (who, IMHO, was right not to apologize for Maps, was Apple's best presenter after Jobs, and did a hell of a Job managing iOS) 

So you find it acceptable that Forstall allowed the release of software with faulty firmware that destroyed wifi, Bluetooth and/or sound functions on numerous phones, cost folks hundreds in cell data overages while reporting the devices were on wifi correctly etc. but hey he gave us nifty moving shadows on the volume knobs. Thats so much better than bug free software 

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram 

You're certainly welcome to your blind devotion. That is your wont.

 

I happen to see issues from a somewhat more balanced perspective (although one that is heavily titled in favor of all things Apple, as any reasonable assessment of my posting history will show).

 

My views are based on reasonable surmise, none of which you've offered thus far, except for non sequiturs like "you don't work there, so you couldn't know". That is pretty much the equivalent of "you can't lay an egg, so don't criticize the omelette."

Not only has he offered such feeble arguments. He also refutes or doesn't understand that regardless of what problems that might have occurred in Taiwan, China or the North Pole, the buck stops with Apple because they are the ones who announced the product and promised a shipping date. He is either really dense or pretending to be so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Is your claim that Apple doesn't hire non-white males? Or just that I'm claiming that? Because both are ludicrous.

 

I don't give a flying frick who or "what" you are; if you can't do the job, you shouldn't be in the position. The executive team at Apple is what it is because those are the people at that company best suited for their respective jobs. In no way is that a statement against anyone else against the company under any condition, relevant to job or no.

It's not about his claim or mine, or yours. It's about an executive team that is not consistent with the makeup of its own work force.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ankleskater 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Is your claim that Apple doesn't hire non-white males? Or just that I'm claiming that? Because both are ludicrous.

 

I don't give a flying frick who or "what" you are; if you can't do the job, you shouldn't be in the position. The executive team at Apple is what it is because those are the people at that company best suited for their respective jobs. In no way is that a statement against anyone else against the company under any condition, relevant to job or no.

It's not about his claim or mine, or yours. It's about an executive team that is not consistent with the makeup of its own work force.

Off-topic: It may or may not be fair -- in fact, it will be mostly unfair -- but I predict that this issue will come to haunt Apple soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 

 

So you find it acceptable that Forstall allowed the release of software with faulty firmware that destroyed wifi, Bluetooth and/or sound functions on numerous phones, cost folks hundreds in cell data overages while reporting the devices were on wifi correctly etc. but hey he gave us nifty moving shadows on the volume knobs. Thats so much better than bug free software 

Buthe sounded like Jobs on stage. Guess that's all that matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBell 

 

First, Eddie Cue is Cuban. I think that qualifies as a minority.

Good point. I forgot about that.

It is not only possible but also true. But how is it that other companies have managed to field more visible minorities and women on their executive teams? Are they suggesting Google, IBM and others have promoted/hired unqualified people?

Furthermore, do you not appreciate the vicious cycle in play here? Don't you think more girls may become more interested in engineering if they see more women in leadership ranks in engineering? Again, it is about making a socially responsible choice when all other criteria are equal. And I don't for a second believe that Apple singularly fails to find qualified women. For example, no woman would be a better choice than Browett? Getting back on topic, with all the hate dumped on Lynch here, clearly his qualifications must be so mediocre that they can be equaled or surpassed by many women?

A hard cold fact is that many technology companies have women on their executive teams, and a few have women leading them. In fact, 72% of Fortune 500 companies boast women as their Chief-Something-or-Another. Apple, with its constant need for talent, has failed where 360 companies have succeeded, and have somehow managed to fail to hire a woman as CxO or SVP in its entire history? Doesn't that strike you as an issue that deserves a question or two?

And yet, none of them has ever been promoted to the executive suite? Apple's top team fails to reflect not only the diversity of the technology workforce in general but in fact its own staff. If you don't think that deserves a question or two, then your own social values need to be pondered. BTW, I am sure you realize that "subsequently" is misused here - a seriously slip of the keyboard, but I forgive you. :)

Anyone sensible would look at Apple's situation and observe that there is a de facto glass ceiling there. It is irrefutable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram 

Off-topic: It may or may not be fair -- in fact, it will be mostly unfair -- but I predict that this issue will come to haunt Apple soon.

I agree on both points. I don't know the Apple's executive team personally (beyond an email exchanged here and there, and I doubt those were from Cook and Schiller directly). But their public personae leave me little doubt they are not racist or sexist in any way whatsoever. But an unintentional glass ceiling is still a de facto glass ceiling. And Apple may have to answer for this some day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 

Buthe sounded like Jobs on stage. Guess that's all that matters.

Forstall is good. But Jobs he does not resemble, on stage or off. :)

Originally Posted by ankleskater 
It's not about his claim or mine, or yours. It's about an executive team that is not consistent with the makeup of its own work force.

WHO. CARES.

As long as the people in their jobs, wherever the jobs, are the best people for the jobs, I couldn't care less if it's all men, all women, all caucasian, all asian, all african, all aborigine, or all (whoops, left the sentence unfinished. Ah, well.)

What is YOUR problem that you can't understand this? The people that call for "diversity up there" are nearly as damaging as the doom and gloomers on the stock front. It's. a. business. Not a "diversity first" poster.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram 
…I predict that this issue will come to haunt Apple soon.

Among fools who care nothing of quality; let's hope not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaneur 

The opposite of blind devotion is stomping in the peanut gallery.

I generally avoid peanuts. Causes too much gassiness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

WHO. CARES.

 

As long as the people in their jobs, wherever the jobs, are the best people for the jobs, I couldn't care less if it's all men, all women, all caucasian, all asian, all african, all aborigine, or all (whoops, left the sentence unfinished. Ah, well.)

 

What is YOUR problem that you can't understand this? The people that call for "diversity up there" are nearly as damaging as the doom and gloomers on the stock front. It's. a. business. Not a "diversity first" poster.

 

 

Among fools who care nothing of quality; let's hope not.

I didn't say diversity first. But I understand, when absent of rational arguments, twisting/exaggerating other people's words is sometimes effective. I am asking about the almost complete absence of diversity. As for who cares - of course many do. At least, the two deepest thinkers in this thread do. :)

Damaging? How about the damage caused when gifted employees leave because of the de facto glass ceiling?

No one is arguing for diversity before quality. We are questioning the coincidence of the near homogeneity of the top team. It would be questionable as well if it were all women, all Asian, all whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaneur 


Saying you don't know shit about the technology is a feeble argument . . . ok, have it your way.
 

 

Good. We have confirmation (not that it was needed) that you don't know shit.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaneur 


"The buck stops here." I get that kind of simplistic tough talk, but you don't know what the buck was.

They made their shipping date. You could be so much more useful looking into why there was such short supply, rather than joining the mob with the pitchforks. If you can't learn anything, then maybe you should have some humility in the face of your ignorance.

You're getting pissed off because i'm questioning your role as an Internet know-it-all. You are correct.

"The buck" is ownership of responsibility. There is nothing for us to investigate. Apple, not Foxconn or any of their suppliers, answers to us the consumers. Therefore, when Apple fails to ship, they are held accountable. Some day, when you get a job, you'll learn.

Originally Posted by SCProfessor 
^ Tallest... Damn you said something that makes sense.

Heaven forbid.

Originally Posted by ankleskater 
I am asking about the almost complete absence of diversity.

So the entire company is comprised of only white males? Funny, that doesn't seem to be the case…

Ah, see, before you start up again, note that you're diminishing the achievements of every single other person at the company—man, woman, etc.—by ignoring them where they are.

Explain. Why should an executive board supplant people who can do the job with those who cannot?

If they're actually gifted enough to do the job, they'll not only be in the position, they'll be smart enough not to believe this pathetic hoo-ha in the first place.

It is incomprehensible that this should be incomprehensible to you.

It's not coincidence. It's by design. These are the best people for the job. Therefore they have the job.

Apple is better software outfit than Adobe by far, for what they have to do, Adobe, Autodesk, and Quark? are yesterday's news software wise. Yes they still make money, but the quality just isn't there there are better smaller more nimble companies out there, and Kevin Lynch just doesn't fit just like Papermaster, and Browett. Not even someone from Google would have worked the culture is too different.

I think Bob Mansfield picked Kevin Lynch not Tim Cook, Forstall wasn't a yes man?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danox 

Adobe, Autodesk, and Quark? are yesterday's news software wise. 

I'll give you credit for Quark, because almost no one uses that app except organizations that have heavily integrated it into their work flow such as collaboration or database extensions for catalog production, two areas that inDesign could improve, but calling out Adobe and Autodesk as antiquated is just misinformed. Those two software publishers are at the pinnacle of professional design applications. There is nothing that can touch CS for graphic design and Autodesk has a full range of architectural and engineering suites. They are both the default standards in their respective industries.

BTW welcome to AI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Among fools who care nothing of quality; let's hope not.

One would have to be a fool would confuse hope and expectation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

I'd love to see Apple make a competitor to Adobe's products using CoreImage. It could be blazingly fast and integrated into the system. Given that Adobe has been doing their best to screw Apple for 20 years (late products, discounts to switch from Mac to WIndows, etc), it would serve them right.

Yeah Apple has a great track record with Pro apps. They start out with lots of potential, then methodically remove features with each update until they eventually discontinue it. Sounds perfect. The Adobe accusation for late product on Mac has not happened since CS was introduced and I have never heard of discounts to switch to Windows. Do you have any citations for that? Not saying it isn't true just I have never been offered a such a discount and if that was indeed one of Adobe's promotions I would think they would have notified me as I have been a long time Mac software customer since the original Illustrator 1a.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaneur 
.... "replacement in Operations has been an unmitigated disaster in managing the supply chain thus far."—anant

1) I gave you three reasons for why I thought that.

2) I'd appreciate it if you stuck to my username, which is to the top left of this post.

3) Bolding yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 

The implication is that Apple will put Flash in iOS. Doubt it.

Never, Flash died a while ago.  Now Flash is just an unwanted hang on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaneur 

@ankleskater:
Yep, I already said as much. The difference is that I don't call for a person's job or reputation or a company's doom based on what I don't know.

When a company is pushing boundaries like Apple is, my first reaction when things get sticky with a new product is that there is a learning curve with anything technical, not that the new "replacement in Operations has been an unmitigated disaster in managing the supply chain thus far."—anant

If you don't know a thing about that supply chain, that position is just unfair and counterproductive, and worse could be said. I find that "buck stops here" mentality noble, but it only when it applies to oneself. If you lay it on others, you should know whether they could really do anything about the "disaster" you're talking about.

Did I call for anyone's job or forecast doom? Stop lying!

"The buck stops here" - it's not noblesse oblige; it's the real world. And it's the way it should be. Whether something could be done or not is not always relevant. I put you in charge of making sure iMacs are delivered. You fail? It doesn't matter that Joe Mo was sick, or his glue didn't stick. You are responsible because you should have planned for such possibilities before giving me a shipment date. Ergo, you are fired. Now, shoo!

Off-topic: Apropos of some of the discussion here, an interesting article that I randomly came upon, when checking headlines -- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/03/silicon-valleys-war-against-wo.html

(Not saying I agree with all of it; it is just one point of view).