Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

figma.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#541

Post by enos_feedler »

lewisjoe wrote: post #525

I'm wondering why is there zero competition for Figma? I understand their app is basically a browser-like engine running inside the browser - which is cutting-edge tech, tough to copy, etc. But given enough interest in this space and the valuation Figma has now - I'm wondering why isn't other big tech companies not building their own Figma alternatives.

I will suggest that perhaps: 1) because the valuation is wrong? 2) because Figma has not actually created a new category/market? this is where you get new entrants into the market. Take AI chips for example.

I think its entirely possible that Adobe has realized 1) and/or 2) and didn't fight all that hard to make the deal work?

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#542

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

ajmurmann wrote: post #487
Bjorkbat wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the regulators made their point pretty clear early on when the DOJ opened a lawsuit against Adobe. The people most responsible for keeping this in limbo were Adobe’s lawyers.

The Broadcom & VMware merger took similarly long and was approved. The duration is completely unacceptable and poison to business. I'm general against mergers and think it's better for consumers and the market if competitors fight to the (metaphorical) death instead, but if we do something, let's do it smoothly and right. That said, for mergers like that a ton of countries are involved which makes things even more co…

> it's better for consumers and the market if competitors fight to the (metaphorical) death instead

I never understand why this is the only other option. If you're in a town and open a coffee shop, and someone else opens a coffee shop, if the town is big enough, you can both thrive. You don't have to try to take out the competition. But every big corporation decides it's the only option.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#543

Post by yandie »

lhnz wrote: post #534

Counterintuitively this will lead to more monopolies since with less likelihood of "exiting" startups via mergers and acquisitions there'll be reduced interest in venture capital and therefore fewer startups capitalised to the extent that they can compete against large monopolies.

If you think VCs are rational, you’d be in for a fun ride.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#544

Post by deweywsu »

hipadev23 wrote: post #461
karaterobot wrote: post #245

On the one hand, as a designer who uses Figma every day, this is great news. On the other hand, the fact that Dylan Field was willing to do it in the first place felt like a bit of a heel turn. Yeah, it's a lot of money, I know. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I've already shifted my expectations for the long term direction of the product from "they can do no wrong" to "when is the other shoe going to drop?"

A CEO also owes it to their employees and investors to let everyone have a massive payday.

I think this is at the core of the rot of American society. The thinking that a CEO "owes" the marketing of their company so as to cash it in or even turn profits is, in my opinion, is a mark of the biggest moral ineptitude of the western world's thinking. Yes, I realize this is the 'norm', but it clashes with deep values of the people who aren't shareholders, but are no doubt vested in the product the company produces, mainly the customers. It ignores their needs completely because they don't own stock. "We sold the company, and the new owners bastardized it by slapping their logo on it by eliminating the free tier" is almost commonplace now in business dogma, and yes, most people think it is the kind of strategy 'owed' to shareholders, but this one-sided thinking ignores the better interest of users who the company has built their business on the backs of, and who will now be bait-and-switched into a subscription model, never mind the needs that drove them to the product in the first place. Yes, this is how capitalism works. What I'm saying is that capitalism, as a model, is flawed from a moralistically balanced point of view. It's a never-ending race to the bottom by optimizing for greed until every drop of monetization is squeezed out and every person is left without. Should the owner's employees make money, I mean after all they do the work? Yes, but who takes into account the inestimable value added by the initial users who's interaction with the product shaped it into what it is today?

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#545

Post by lmeyerov »

JadoJodo wrote: post #218

While I do see this as great news (for all the reasons others have outlined), I wonder how this will impact VC in the future; If the current goal is for companies to get VC money, burn that cash for years and years and years, and then have a huge IPO or acquisition (that makes it all worth it), it would seem regulatory issues would start to scare away investment.

A couple agencies having certainly been flexing like that

The chilling effect may be more around the design tools market specifically

The case of Adobe is a bit different than anti-monopoly movements against other $T because the lack of 'serious' $100B+ market cap competitors here. So while say an adtech can have multiple big buyers in the $100B+ club, it's unlikely to see Autodesk, Corel, Canva, etc to do a $20B purchase here. AFAICT only Microsoft would sensibly be able to put its hat in the ring at high levels, made even more sane b/c the GitHub purchase, but even that was at $7.5B. So if there is no such thing as a decacorn in design tools b/c Adobe can't do big M&A, then VCs are only looking at exits at $1B, and funding + valuations get less frothy vs other markets.

All that starts mattering around Series A or Series B stage, as they look at how much $ they can exit at, and how big of a follow-on round the company can get with the same constraints. If a VC has a fund of > $50M, a pitch that cannot exit at above $B may break their portfolio design.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#546

Post by MenhirMike »

So, which company is Figma going to try to sell itself off to next? Atlassian maybe? I guess that Microsoft wouldn't be interested since they abandoned Expression/Blend/etc., Apple isn't in the market for web tools, and Miro is probably too small. So, Atlassian makes some sense to capture more of the developer audience.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#547

Post by jn1234 »

ajmurmann wrote: post #487
Bjorkbat wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the regulators made their point pretty clear early on when the DOJ opened a lawsuit against Adobe. The people most responsible for keeping this in limbo were Adobe’s lawyers.

The Broadcom & VMware merger took similarly long and was approved. The duration is completely unacceptable and poison to business. I'm general against mergers and think it's better for consumers and the market if competitors fight to the (metaphorical) death instead, but if we do something, let's do it smoothly and right. That said, for mergers like that a ton of countries are involved which makes things even more co…

That deal had more to do with national security concerns being addressed and Broadcom's shitty business strategy rather than market share concerns.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#548

Post by camhart »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #492
fairity wrote: post #392

> Fifteen months into the regulatory review process, Figma and Adobe no longer see a path toward regulatory approval How in the world did it take fifteen months for regulators to reject this? That’s an absurdly long time to be operating a business in limbo, and I have to assume it’s the regulators dragging their feet since the companies have every incentive to move quickly. I don’t have an opinion on whether or not t…

> That’s an absurdly long time to be operating a business in limbo, and I have to assume it’s the regulators dragging their feet since the companies have every incentive to move quickly. Your understanding here is fundamentally wrong. Regulators in the US said very early on they were against this merger and were going to fight it. So most of what goes on in the meantime is Adobe and Figma (a) seeing if they can give…

It seems wrong/illegal that they can just "decide they're against the merger" and sink it by dragging their feet. Its either legal or not. I haven't dug into the details, but based on this one line alone it sounds like this is abuse of power.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#549

Post by tsycho »

[Pure speculation; I don't work in the UI space at all, and at neither of these companies]

I wonder if Adobe is secretly happy about this. They were acquiring Figma at the peak of the market (for growth stock/startup valuations) because of the existential risks that Figma was threatening, due to their collaborative development UX.

But since then:

* Startup valuations have fallen. Ignoring regulatory concerns, a new acquisition deal today would be cheaper.

* Gen AI and Adobe Firefly are the new rage, and Adobe has probably captured back both mental and market share from Figma. And Adobe can now add collaborative features to Firefly, and it doesn't even have to be as good as Figma's to win.

So paying the 1B breakup fee is probably the cheapest and best option for Adobe at this time.

Meanwhile, Figma employees, expecting a big payout, are probably a bit demotivated at this point. And potentially, they might have been working on integrating into Adobe over the past year, so they might have even slowed down in their development pace.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#550

Post by depr »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #498
ajmurmann wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Broadcom & VMware merger took similarly long and was approved. The duration is completely unacceptable and poison to business. I'm general against mergers and think it's better for consumers and the market if competitors fight to the (metaphorical) death instead, but if we do something, let's do it smoothly and right. That said, for mergers like that a ton of countries are involved which makes things even more co…

> Broadcom & VMware merger took similarly long and was approved. The duration is completely unacceptable and poison to business The number of such mergers, globally every year, is countable on two hands. They involve the wealth of nations (this one’s similar to Malta’s GDP [1][2]). It would be unreasonable to permanently staff the regulatory force that would be required to quickly review such deals in any industry. […

>They involve the wealth of nations

Do they though? People often compare rich people or companies to a country GDP's, but GDP is based on a single year. The size of a company's bank account is not. A year is pretty arbitrary. In some sense it's like saying the distance between New York and Washington is 200 miles which is not that long, because a Ferrari's top speed is 200 mph.

Post reply on HN