Adobe gives up on web-design product to rival Figma after deal collapse

Post by scarface_74 » Thu, Feb 01, 2024, 3:23 AM UTC

graemep wrote: post #82

lolinder wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> good public businesses > Private businesses don’t have to do anything Is this a baked-in legal distinction between public and private businesses, or is it that the company is supposed to do what the shareholders want and the shareholders of a private business are more likely than those of a public business to want something beyond ROI?

I think very often with private companies it is not just looking beyond ROI (they may do) but they also look longer term. A shareholder whose children will inherit the business one day will have a very different outlook to one who is looking at their annual performance numbers, which is the sort thing institutional shareholders are looking at.

Post by j-bos » Thu, Feb 01, 2024, 4:24 AM UTC

yacine_ wrote: post #202

j-bos wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to post an invite code? I see your stuff via nitter, no DMs

it's monkey-ohio-wrath good luck hopefully you use it before anyone else does

Post by p_l » Thu, Feb 01, 2024, 5:48 AM UTC

jampekka wrote: post #137

p_l wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, the stockholders could make a civil case that, as majority owners,they wanted to go that way, and with high enough offer and social perception that CEO must work to do so, they could make it a very bad time in courts - or possibly just replace the CEO with someone willing to burn the ckmpany for their profits.

Minority owners can and do sue and win even if the majority would agree to non-profit-maximizing decision.

Post by eviks » Thu, Feb 01, 2024, 6:51 AM UTC

duxup wrote: post #51

no_wizard wrote: post #2

Now Figma can become the de-facto choice for its software category and a merger was proved to be ultimately unnecessary for its survival and was a clear attempt at Adobe trying to buyout their competition because they can't seem to compete. I think overall this is a good thing. Adobe owning Figma isn't a great promise that it would be make Figma better, improve Figma in any way, nor keep Figma on the path of making h…

>but did Figma even need to sell in the first place? I've worked a company that was profitable, operated well, growing ... but were sold and the CEO said (I'll get the words not quite right): "I fought for keeping independent and not selling, that's how I've kept that company and I wanted it to stay that way. But the offer was increased into the range where I didn't feel like I could survive a legal challenge (if it…

Post by eviks » Thu, Feb 01, 2024, 6:57 AM UTC

fnordprefect wrote: post #181

TylerE wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is anecdotes like this that make me think that the public shareholder model is fundamentally flawed and a large part of why many American companies are struggling to truly build long term value, and many once great companies have been destroyed by beancounters to bleating calls of shareholder value.

Don't worry - the conversation in the anecdote does not reflect the true position in the major common law countries at least. The public shareholder model is not doomed or flawed on this account. If an acquirer wants to acquire shares in a public company (or any company actually) it makes the offer to the shareholders and they are the ones who decide to accept or not. The proposed transaction is between the acquirer…