Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Hires Former Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch, Destroyer of iPhones

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the signs-point-to-cloudier dept.

Businesses 209

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."

cancel ×

209 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225399)

iPhone did not have the resources to run Flash, so Steve Jobs "banned" it to avoid making the iPhone look like the piece of shit that it was.

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (-1, Offtopic)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year ago | (#43225417)

I lol'd /Thread

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43226255)

BS.

Apple didn't need a competing app delivery mechanism to "backdoor" delivery behind the app store.

Adding Adobe's Flash would have done this, while also opening up the "Turing-complete, vulnerability of the week processor" to a stable platform.

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (-1, Troll)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#43225475)

You suck at trolling. You have to lead people in with a believable premise first, then drop the turd. Make up something about how Adobe had troubles porting it, how the security models caused implementation issues, that kind of stuff. Don't lead with your ace.

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (0)

danomatika (1977210) | about a year ago | (#43225535)

Even if your troll reality is true, I'm glad to see proprietary flash fading away versus HTML5. Sometimes it just takes a nudge ...

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (0, Troll)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year ago | (#43225897)

Proprietary freely accessible open for develoment no 30% cut versus Apple's walled garden, gouging, and we say what apps can play or not.

I'll take Rudolph Flash over Adolph Apple.

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226063)

http://www.neowin.net/news/adobe-taking-10-of-developers-earnings-on-ios-games-published-using-director-12

Except that by using Adobe you are forced to shell out some mighty dollars for shitty software AND cut even more from your profits.
(10% Adobe + 30% Apple). And iOS is where the money is.

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (2, Insightful)

Abreu (173023) | about a year ago | (#43226107)

I'll take Rudolph Flash over Adolph Apple.

Whatever merit your argument might have had, it was invalidated by Godwin's law. You lose.

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (4, Funny)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43226505)

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

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225613)

Half true.

You omitted mentioning that the reason that iPhone didn't have the resources to run Flash is that Flash was a tremendously buggy resource hog.

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225709)

Mod parent up, not down.

Flash IS a tremendously buggy resource hog.
TFTFY.

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225637)

Which is another way of saying that Flash is ill suited for mobile devices, due to battery life and performance. You're just shifting the blame by redefining the metrics for a mobile device. I'm not sure what makes you more qualified to make that determination than the folks at Apple, given the amount of success they've had designing, building, marketing, and selling mobile deices.

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (0)

EvanED (569694) | about a year ago | (#43225753)

Which is another way of saying that Flash is ill suited for mobile devices, due to battery life and performance.

Just because Flash is ill-suited for mobile devices doesn't mean that not supporting flash is better-suited. After all, turning the thing on at all will drastically decrease your battery life, so should Jobs have said "well, we'll just not give you a power button and it will always be off'?

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226759)

I much prefer flash top html5 for the simple reason that I can turn off flash animations and pick and choose which ones I want to play. It was perfect on my N800 ( 400MHz 800x480 screen pre-iphone).

I don't think HTML5 will afford me that ability?

Flash was great while the engineers were in charge of it... I'm guessing that as soon as execs and lawyers started loading it up to use it as leverage in the marketplace it turned to crap...

 

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (4, Insightful)

jjjhs (2009156) | about a year ago | (#43225719)

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.

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (3, Insightful)

AC-x (735297) | about a year ago | (#43225797)

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.

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (0)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year ago | (#43225933)

Seriously, were you all !@#$% using Linux?

Because I used to watch full screen Flash video on my 17" Dell notebook. Not a super duper video card. And it was like 1920x1080. Never a problem.

I've had several systems. And Flash has seldom been an issue (except for a bug for about a month around the version 10 release).

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year ago | (#43226273)

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.

Re:Apple banned Adobe because iPhone sucked. (2)

quetwo (1203948) | about a year ago | (#43227087)

Except, the APIs were not public until AFTER this entire kerfufle came out. No non-apple apps were allowed to use those hidden APIs, including competing video editing suites (Like Avid or Adobe's suite).

As soon as the APIs became available in 10.8, Adobe started using them. They decode encrypted traffic and then write them to the GPU buffers, like the API allows them. It is still slower than the Windows (and Linux) implementation, but it is what they have to use in order to use the PUBLIC APIs that Apple offered.

-Nick

Business as usual (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225441)

Executives employed by companies try to make those companies do well.

Film at 11.

Re:Business as usual (1, Troll)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43225591)

yeah but the slashtarts seem to think that if you're employed by one company you have to hate every other company. and they will never hire you either

Re:Business as usual (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225655)

Executives at companies could give a shit if their companies do well as long as they get a windfall payoff down the road.

FTFY

Re:Business as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226525)

Why are they starting movies one hour before lunch time?

Americans still stuck with the imperial system and 12-hours clock, film at 23:00.

Re:Business as usual (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43226809)

12-hour analog clock is less error-prone than the 24-hour version. If you are willing to go all-digital then this advantage disappears.

Re:Business as usual (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year ago | (#43227311)

Executives employed by companies try to make those companies do well.

...unless that executive is named Stephen Elop, Steven Ballmer, or Leo Apotheker. ;)

Game of Thrones (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225451)

It's some type of bizarre, marital Game of Thrones type alliance with Adobe royalty marrying into Apple where they'll conceive who knows what?

Re:Game of Thrones (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225601)

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.

Re:Game of Thrones (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225665)

Just to be safe you should pledge fealty to House MicroStark and the King of the North.

Re:Game of Thrones (2)

ccguy (1116865) | about a year ago | (#43225735)

Or maybe it's just a guy who wants a well paying job and he knows all the technobabble is just that...

I hear he's going to be in charge of T.P.S. reports

Re:Game of Thrones (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#43226205)

If you think Flash vs HTML5 is just technobabble, I invite you to GTFO.

Re:Game of Thrones (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225633)

Would that make Steve Jobs Joffrey Baratheon?

Re:Game of Thrones (1)

virgnarus (1949790) | about a year ago | (#43225733)

We don't need to see them in bed to figure where this is going, do we?

Re:Game of Thrones (3, Interesting)

Abreu (173023) | about a year ago | (#43226241)

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.

Re:Game of Thrones (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | about a year ago | (#43226743)

Apple and Adobe have had a really weird love/hate relationship for years.

Maybe it's kinda like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225457)

Oracle buying companies (PeopleSoft, BEA, Siebel, Sun Micro) that they've been engaged in a public pissing match with for many years prior to the acquisition. And I think I recall reading that similar happened during the great era of US robber barons after the Civil War.

In other words, capitalism as usual.

Full circle (2)

Carnivore24 (467239) | about a year ago | (#43225551)

Hello 1985 how the hell have you been?

Do you honestly believe.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225557)

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.

Re:Do you honestly believe.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225971)

Wow, great post. Sales & Product branding 101. Sad to think the basement dwellers here on Slashdot needs that explained to them.

I'm in technical sales and have changed jobs to my competitor. Even my customers (engineers) understand that my zest for Company A is now turned to zest for Company B. They know I am passionate about whoever I'm representing, and they respect that.

Re:Do you honestly believe.... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year ago | (#43225999)

Fanboys like to think they're normal so they must assume everyone is an irrational doofus.

Re:Do you honestly believe.... (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43226373)

Very, very true, but it also misses the point a bit.

Where I think some of the confusion over this hire comes from is in the fact that, as an executive over Flash while he was with Adobe, he not only preached the message that the company wanted preached: he was the one that came up with the message they should be preaching. Which is to say, he was in the perfect position several years ago to both recognize that Flash was at its peak and to reposition it accordingly with a new direction for its marketing.

Put a different way, the problem isn't in what he said, but rather that his actions indicate that he was a true believer in what he said. It's perfectly reasonable for him to poo-poo the iPhone's lack of Flash, but by all indications he failed to recognize that the world itself was moving beyond a need for Flash, and instead clung to the belief that there was simply something wrong with the iPhone. That lack of awareness and his apparent unwillingness to recognize reality is what makes this an odd hiring decision.

Re:Do you honestly believe.... (2)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year ago | (#43226729)

What the devil was he supposed to do? "Gee, I guess Apple is right. Time to pack in one of our biggest money-makers and the product my entire job is centered around and admit it isn't any good any more." He needed to make the strongest case possible for Flash and since the iPhone had declared Flash worthless and anybody using an iPhone would, by definition, *not* be using Flash, his only alternative was to bash the iPhone.

He's not a true believer; he's just somebody who used to have a job that involved keeping the true believers happy and trying to recruit more.

Re:Do you honestly believe.... (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43226865)

Bashing the iPhone while setting up a long-term repositioning of the product is a good strategy. It mitigates short-term damage and prepares the product for the future. I'd have no problems with that. What I was saying in my last post, however, was that he did the former without also doing the latter. It wasn't until years after Flash was well past it's prime that we finally started to see some efforts to rethink how Flash is being used, rather than seeing those efforts being made right as Flash was starting its descent.

Basically, it wasn't until Flash had been almost entirely abandoned by the mobile sector that he finally accepted Flash was dying on mobile and made efforts to reposition it appropriately. That's why I say that he's a true believer in the stuff he was preaching. Despite the fact that the trend was obvious to everyone else, he continued on the track he had already laid, rather than laying a new one. And that's why he's a poor hire. His actions, not his words, show that the guy can't face reality.

Re:Do you honestly believe.... (4, Interesting)

AndreR (814444) | about a year ago | (#43226539)

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.

If you can't beat them... (2)

H0NGK0NGPH00EY (210370) | about a year ago | (#43225597)

If you can't beat them, join them.

Re:If you can't beat them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225679)

It's about a paycheck. Not to say that Lynch doesn't care but I doubt the future of Adobe Flash keeps him up at night. Even for those who really are passionate about their technolgy aren't as hung up about it as many of the fanboys around here.

Re:If you can't beat them... (2, Interesting)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year ago | (#43225959)

Problem is, Adobe gave up the fight, outsourced, and has a crappy CEO who wants to outsource the entire company to India. So yes, it was a smart move to bail on Adobe. They mis-played their hand big time.

Re:If you can't beat them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226351)

Maybe. This wouldn't be the first time I've heard the "they just pounded another nail in their coffin" talk from someone here. Not to discredit you but most people here know next to nothing about real business, myself included. I've seen a lot of things from this crowd that turns out to be totally wrong. Not too hard to have happen when you have a couple hundred people throwing out their opinion on a single subject.
 
I'll count Adobe out when I see the company close the doors. Not that I care too much one way or another how it goes in the end.

Re:If you can't beat them... (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#43225739)

If you can't beat them, join them.

Or beat them from the inside.

When Money talks, beliefs walk (0)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43225619)

I'm sure all his butthurt over Apple and flash don't matter now that Apple is going to pay him top dollar. Plus Adobe is a wreck of a company, imo.

Re:When Money talks, beliefs walk (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#43226133)

Well, hopefully he'll be in a position to help Apple as much as he helped Adobe.

wonderful! (5, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#43225639)

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?"

Re:wonderful! (1)

corychristison (951993) | about a year ago | (#43226929)

In all honesty, that's not a bad thing. Aside from the annoyance factor, it means things are getting fixed and features being added and the updates are at least available to the public.

I don't own an iDevice, so I don't know if they have easy or automated OTA firmware/iOS updates or not.

I have a cheap 2 year old Android phone and it does not have firmware/OS updates available (v2.3.4).

Re:wonderful! (1)

theVarangian (1948970) | about a year ago | (#43227023)

I don't own an iDevice, so I don't know if they have easy or automated OTA firmware/iOS updates or not.

I have a cheap 2 year old Android phone and it does not have firmware/OS updates available (v2.3.4).

(a) They do, and (b) that seems to be a fairly common problem.

HTML5 has surpassed Flash? (5, Insightful)

Inoen (590519) | about a year ago | (#43225649)

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.

Re:HTML5 has surpassed Flash? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225713)

I agree. Even on YouTube, probably around half the videos I try to watch are not available with their HTML5 player.

Re:HTML5 has surpassed Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43227293)

I've been using ClicktoFlash for years which loads * via HTML5, without any issue.

Re:HTML5 has surpassed Flash? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year ago | (#43226025)

It's also bloated and beyond help. But developers are too lazy and companies are too selfish to create a great alternative asap.

Re:HTML5 has surpassed Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226945)

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

And I would say that mobile is big enough now that the fact that Flash is not the "de facto standard" in mobile means that it is not the "de facto standard" at all.

Tim Cook's at the helm now (4, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | about a year ago | (#43225659)

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.

It's all a game (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#43225673)

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.

Re:It's all a game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225861)

You had me, until you said "they are professionals," especially when you included politicians in your statement.

Re:It's all a game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226147)

Professional means you are getting paid, nothing more.

Re:It's all a game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226689)

The part about politicians was part of his quote. Though I wonder why he unquoted the word "care", and he did forget to close his quote after "job", too.

Puzzling From All Perspectives (2)

organgtool (966989) | about a year ago | (#43225747)

For years, Adobe has been a black hole of technological innovation. I think the bigger question is why anyone at Apple would even consider hiring anyone from Adobe to be their CTO? What's next? Hiring leadership from within RIM to be the president of Apple's mobile division?

Re:Puzzling From All Perspectives (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43226265)

I think your mistake is that you believe Apple cares about technological innovation. They care about profits. Was Adobe profitable? Were they able to monetize and existing product, extracting as much value from customers that were already invested in their product and either unable or unwilling to leave? Yes, they were very profitable. That's exactly the situation apples in now. They've got people locked in and no-where to go with them. Time to put the squeeze on.

Re:Puzzling From All Perspectives (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226303)

Kev won't be Apple's CTO. He will be one of many Vice Presidents, not even Senior Vice Presidents. He will report to Bob Mansfield. So he will won't have any important role in the pecking order.

"Want to know your weakness, listen to your enemy" (1)

cyberhooligan77 (2612877) | about a year ago | (#43225865)

This story makes me remember another Technology clash.

Once, some well known "C" developer, post an article about the current version of the Pascal programming version. Contrary to the Pascal community beliefs, the article had a lot of good critical points.

So, the main "Pascal" developer, added or changed features, and, the newer versions, allow to do everything, that was missing.

So, the ex-Adobe guy seems to be hired as a "iPhone Quality Assurance auditor".

Just my 2 cents...

Re:"Want to know your weakness, listen to your ene (1)

IAN (30) | about a year ago | (#43227217)

Once, some well known "C" developer, post an article about the current version of the Pascal programming version. Contrary to the Pascal community beliefs, the article had a lot of good critical points.

So, the main "Pascal" developer, added or changed features, and, the newer versions, allow to do everything, that was missing.

This sounds like a garbled reference to Kernighan's Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language. The title is drily amusing, and the points made in the article are technically true, but I can't help thinking that the dissing of Pascal is a bit disingenuous and/or missing the point. The language wasn't even designed for system programming, but as a teaching aid. Its popularity far outside the original remit just underscores the dearth of sane high-level languages at the time.

Anyway, Wirth didn't tweak Pascal; he designed a completely new language, Modula-2, which, by the way, happened before Kernighan's article.

Where's the value in this? (3, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about a year ago | (#43225879)

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?

Flash (4, Interesting)

Cloud K (125581) | about a year ago | (#43225899)

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.

Re:Flash (3, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | about a year ago | (#43226123)

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.

Re:Flash (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#43227245)

I have flash installed on my Android phone and I don't think I've ever used it once. No big loss.

Genius (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#43225903)

Do not be offended. Rolling over pretty much ANYTHING with a steam roller is way cool.

Virtual standard? (0)

gtirloni (1531285) | about a year ago | (#43225955)

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

On an average day I see lots more Flash content than HTML5 (sometimes none). I don't know what you mean with "virtual industry standard".

Re:Virtual standard? (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43226177)

On an average day I see lots more Flash content than HTML5

Well, on an average day I see precisely zero flash content, because I don't even have it installed. :-P

I don't know what you mean with "virtual industry standard".

I think he means as in de-facto, as in most people use it but it's not a 'standard' that is enforced.

Unfortunately, most forms of "rich content" on the internet is what has caused me to be uninterested in Flash in the first place -- well, that and the fact that it's been a security hole for well over a decade.

Re:Virtual standard? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year ago | (#43226769)

Well, on an average day I see precisely zero flash content, because I don't even have it installed. :-P

The fact that you refuse to look at it doesn't change the fact that it's still what most people use.

I think he means as in de-facto, as in most people use it but it's not a 'standard' that is enforced.

No, most people do *not* use it. Most people use Flash. That was his point.

Re:Virtual standard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226209)

Virtual, as in not real.

Re:Virtual standard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43227261)

I don't know what you mean with "virtual industry standard".

He means it's the standard in the mac-using rubyfag hipster 2.0 fairy-land, not the real world.

Ironic the "Wizard of Oz" movie is playing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43225975)

Slashdot tells the betas, once again, "ignore that man behind the curtain". Dear lord, do you really fall for such simplistic plays?

Oh, no- Apple is employing a guy who ran over an iPhone with a steamroller, dribble, dribble. Always focus on the mask, and never what is beneath the mask, dribble, dribble. Even Slashdot betas cannot be this stupid, surely.

The people that run companies are NEVER the true enemies of one another. They consider themselves as members of a superior tribe. Sure, like real generals, they will fight to the death against their opponent at time of war. They will say to their cannon-fodder soldiers "our side is obviously the good guys, their side is obviously the bad guys"- whatever gets the moron sheep into a state that will allow them to sacrifice their lives for the pure profit of their masters.

Perhaps sports teams will make for a better analogy for you Slashdot types. Does Team A refuse to employ the best talent from Team B just because Team B always strove to best Team A, and always 'bad mouthed' them at the same time? Why then would Slashdot suggest that different principles apply in business. Why are the owners of Slashdot always treating you like dummies?
 

Flash ban was never about battery/performance (5, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | about a year ago | (#43225997)

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 [archive.org] . 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.

Re:Flash ban was never about battery/performance (3, Insightful)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about a year ago | (#43226035)

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 [archive.org] . 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.

Re:Flash ban was never about battery/performance (2)

Comrade Ogilvy (1719488) | about a year ago | (#43226495)

Along with what you are saying, Apple is both highly astute and highly ruthless about cutting out features and technology that are not necessary to the end user. Their judgement is not always right, of course. But you have to give credit to the company who put out the original iPhone without a camera, knowing full well that every tech reviewer was going to ding them for it. Such discipline and customer insight should be admired in a world where bloat is the norm.

Re:Flash ban was never about battery/performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226701)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)

Ummm...they had a camera. If you mean a front facing camera, I don't think any reviewer dinged them for that because video conferencing / Facetime (or smartphones in general) wasn't a "standard" feature yet.

Re:Flash ban was never about battery/performance (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about a year ago | (#43226767)

I don't think your point is so valid regarding leaving basic features like a camera out, because Apple can count on the fanbois to buy anything resembling an iPhone upon its release; they'll camp out overnight for it. Apple knows they can skimp on features like that to release a product, while giving their engineers time to actually develop things like a camera, and A2DP bluetooth *years* down the road.

Re:Flash ban was never about battery/performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226795)

Say what? The original iPhone did have a camera...

Re:Flash ban was never about battery/performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226723)

I have to agree with the comment on Flash as a back-door app provider. It's what I suspected all along. It had nothing to do with performance (which was admittedly terrible). As the first provider of a 'real' smart-phone, Apple had a cash cow, they knew it was going to be HUGE and they were canny enough to lock it off and protect it like a golden egg-laying golden calf. Why in the world would I pay Apple $1 if I could play Angry Birds for free just by using the browser in the phone? Apple made a lot of people millionaires and made themselves billionaires by making the choice they did.

For the sake of argument let's assume performance was an issue. I had both a PC and a Mac: Flash performance on a Mac was always terrible, while I never had anywhere near the same issues with Flash on a PC, never. This would lead me to believe that either Adobe never really had good Apple engineers, or Apple wasn't interested in helping them, or the two companies could never cooperate (which was supposedly the case due to a dispute over After Effects or some other Adobe product). If Flash truly was as bad as everyone said it was it should have performed as poorly on a PC as it did on a Mac - it didn't.

I was a Flash developer, I've moved on to web development. In retrospect I agree that Flash as a web delivery mechanism had to go - sooner better than later. It was another layer sitting between the user and browser, and as time went on it kept increasing in complexity and glomming on more and more features in order to become more browser-like. When the history pages are written Flash's contribution will have been to demonstrate the desirability of interactive web experiences (the 'rich' internet, as they said) and the browser's inability to provide that at the time - a deficit the browsers have addressed in recent years.

Re:Flash ban was never about battery/performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226899)

I'll second that sentiment. I get random flash crashes due to stupid banners that use flash. I freaking hate flash. It's a buggy unstable pile of poo.

Re:Flash ban was never about battery/performance (1)

theVarangian (1948970) | about a year ago | (#43227095)

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.

Translation: "Steve Jobs was right, Flash sucks."

Because flash isn't dead, not yet (1)

gelfling (6534) | about a year ago | (#43226011)

So the obituary for flash is premature.

Duh! (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year ago | (#43226053)

How is this any different from a lay person at Adobe switching over to Apple or vise versa? People go from one employer to another all the time anymore, so what? I guess the only thing that's notable is that we have a cool video of an iphone getting crushed, but that was just marketing.

Re:Duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43227113)

How is this any different from a lay person at Adobe switching over to Apple or vise versa? People go from one employer to another all the time anymore, so what? I guess the only thing that's notable is that we have a cool video of an iphone getting crushed, but that was just marketing.

Because Apple is not an employer, Apple is the earthly branch of the Sith.

Lynch to be Head of iPhone Hit Squad (2)

cruff (171569) | about a year ago | (#43226083)

It is obvious, I think. Mr Lynch will continue to destroy iPhones. He will have a squad of Apple goons, who will invade peoples homes to destroy any iPhone older than two years old, so that people will be forced to buy new iPhones to keep the revenue stream up. They tested this concept out with the iPhone prototype debacles, and found that the local police would be willing to look the other way when Constitutional rights were being violated.

Same guys (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year ago | (#43226493)

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.

The same guys that hired the dude from the down-market UK retail chain... how'd that work out?

Magic's gone.

Retarded shit -esp flash (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226587)

So fucking retarded Apple/android and the rest of them can't include flash by default in the OS. It's a proven technology that works.

You know what though? I think Steve Jobs was eventually be on board with flash, because as SOON as he died, like the very next day, apple announced they were officially never going to support flash on Iphone..

those greedy little niggers..

Re:Retarded shit -esp flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43227273)

Flash works extremely well, indeed. Especially for China's effort to copy the F-22:

http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002226.html

Apple understand vendor lockin and so does lynch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226709)

Apple didn't want Flash because the non x86 version that Adobe was willing to release (Flash Light) was crap hardly more useful than Gnash (and without the excuse of having to retroingenier everything).
And cost money, and would discourage the developper to make the extra efforts to really use the capacities of the phone vs. using the minimum that "makes it work" and then see if there is a market (and oups there is none because the app is crap, so a case of nice self fulfilling profecy ...)

This said, Adobe and Apple share the same goals and expertise in vendor lock-in, so Lynch is a perfect fit for them, you didn't expect them to hire RMS did you ?
   

Because he wants something like flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43226999)

Flash, by itself, can do wonderful things. Unfortunately, it's a CPU and power draining fiend. It's not Flash itself that Jobs hated, but the fact it made tablets a lot less useable. Maybe they are looking for some sort of middle ground.

Re:Because he wants something like flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43227231)

Wonderful Things like THIS:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20051071-245.html

It's about iBooks and YouTube replacement (2)

WilliamBaughman (1312511) | about a year ago | (#43227183)

Everyone is fixated on Adobe's obvious failings and not their past strengths. The only thing Adobe has done competently is make tools and content distribution tools (video hosting servers with DRM) that come with vendor lock-in. Apple want to make it's iBook SDK really good so developers use it, and difficult to port away from so consumers continue to buy iPads. Apple may also want to start pushing QuickTime again as a YouTube competitor now that YouTube is entering the paid content market. On my iDevice, I get most of my video content through YouTube and HTML5 tags, both of which are probably too available to Android devices for Apple's taste.

Now Short AAPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43227189)

They currently have the manufacturing guy running the show. This decision shows how dumb they have become.

Engineering-wise, Adobe is the worst company in the entire software industry. Their faulty software is the Go-To API for Chinese intel to write viruses against. Either PDF or Flash, both is horribly broken and used on a regular basis to spear-phish critical targets from Lockheed to Rolls-Royce. They were highly successful using that tactic.
Steve Jobs was 100% correct to boot out their crapware, based on the actual security situation. He was also correct to point out that Flash player is very inefficient in rendering videos, which is quite important for battery-powered devices. Needless extra CPU cycles needlessly eat energy and therefore runtime between recharging.

I always knew Apple would be stuffed after Steve Jobs and this means I am right.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>