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

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 233 posts

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

#191

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

FoodWThrow wrote: post #162
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Audio ultimately leads to a 1D data track. Do people here really not know anything about surround sound, and multichannel sound in general? Apple's new surround support? Gaming use of Ambisonics? Film scoring? Do they really not understand how you need to mix differently for phone playback, car playback and "stereo system" playback (or at least pick one because that's the best you can do) ? Sigh.

I thought it would be easy to understand the difference between x channels that play 1D data (that remained unchanged for half a century almost) and going from 50 thousand pixels to 15 million, with dozens of different sizes and aspect ratios would be readily apparent. Alas, I was mistaken. Sigh.

I don't pretend to know much, if anything, about the intricacies of video and graphics programming. It would be nice if people who think that audio is "x channels that play 1D data (that remained unchanged for half a century almost)" could return the same courtesy towards audio.

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

#192

Post by seanwilson »

omnimus wrote: post #189
seanwilson wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you release new version for 170usd every 18 months it's about 10usd/m subscription - so you are 6times cheaper?. This would put them under immense pressure to come up with new features (useful or not) to get people to upgrade. At some point for certain users, the current version is going to cover 90% of what they need and they won't see the point in upgrading. I didn't look into it much, but Sketch moved from a…

Sketch still has 120usd desktop version. Their solution was to add server/collaboration element that is subscription based. > This would put them under immense pressure to come up with new features (useful or not) to get people to upgrade. At some point for certain users, the current version is going to cover 90% of what they need and they won't see the point in upgrading. Isn't this backwards? If you don't have anyt…

Ah, didn't see that for Sketch, thanks.

> If you don't have anything to add to the software why should you charge for it?

That's fair, but then ~$150 is too cheap for a lifetime license for a major version of software if you're using that professionally for 5 years to generate $10,000s. Asking someone to pay a higher amount upfront is difficult though.

> Also if anything software/hardware compatibility is always going to be reason for upgrading.

This is also one of the reasons that developers don't want to offer lifetime licenses as you need to keep software updated for security and compatibility as APIs, OSs, drivers, browsers etc. evolve over the years and to provide ongoing support to existing users.

By the way, I'm not saying I like subscriptions or paying a lot upfront, but the alternatives have downsides to the software makers as well. I really don't know what a good compromise is.

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

#193

Post by gottorf »

tfourb wrote: post #174
weaksauce wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we don't need shareholder growth capitalism as it stands... we need sustainable capitalism that is in it for the long term. no clue how to achieve that as it stands though and ceos have short term goals/bonuses tied to short term profits.

You could quite simply legislate permissible compensation structures to make sure that long-term sustainability (however you want to define that) is incentivized. I.e. mandate that above a certain threshold, c-suite and board compensation is tied to long-term performance of the company. Another (perhaps more drastic) approach would be to force shareholders to hold their shares for a minimum period of time, or institu…

> Another (perhaps more drastic) approach would be to force shareholders to hold their shares for a minimum period of time

The US tax code already does this by differentiating tax treatment between short- and long-term capital gains, although you might argue that the time required to qualify as long-term (1 year) is too short.

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

#194

Post by gottorf »

Karellen wrote: post #103
graemep wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what should their aims be? Who should decide that? The shareholder's could also fire directors who did not accept the best offer? I am not familiar with the US decisions you refer to, BUT the same thing would happen in the UK, for example, where I would expect the other directors and the shareholders to ensure a really good offer was accepted.

Before the Friedman Doctrine[0] (that is, that a corporation's only responsibility was to its shareholders) was put forward in 1970, and generally accepted sometime around the '80s, it had been held for centuries [1] that shareholder-owned corporations also had responsibilities to society and the general public, as well as to their industry and their employees. Yes, they had responsibilities to their shareholders, bu…

> it had been held for centuries[1] that shareholder-owned corporations also had responsibilities to society and the general public, as well as to their industry and their employees.

For centuries[0], governments were very limited, and other organized institutions of human life, like churches and businesses, held duties to the public at large.

Government spending as a percentage of GDP in the US, for example, remained in the single digits for most of its history[1] (outside of wartime), with a big bump post-WW2, then another big bump in the 70s with the Great Society programs, leading up to the current figure of a little over a third of the economy[2].

For an even longer view, government spending in the UK from the late 1600s and onward hovered around 10% with the same wartime jumps[3] for centuries, until the two world wars and the permanent expansion of the welfare state, hanging on around 45% now.

So, it's a very reasonable view to say that governments around the world started to take a much more sizable role in such "responsibilities" to society, and crowded out private efforts in those arenas. In effect, redistributive taxes are supposed to take place of those previously responsible.

[0]: Millennia, really; for most of civilized human existence.

[1]: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/short-history...

[2]: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/...

[3]: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-...

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

#195

Post by gottorf »

collaborative wrote: post #128
graemep wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sadly, nowadays the shareholder will sell the shares and buy properties to pass on to children. Land owner is fast becoming the only profession with inter generational prospects. That's why a property crash is the only hope for a return to a normal economy (where people run businesses, develop skills, do actual work)

> That's why a property crash is the only hope for a return to a normal economy (where people run businesses, develop skills, do actual work)

Well, let's not actively hope for a crash. Lots of normal people who run businesses, develop skills, and do actual work suffered greatly during the last property bubble of the GFC[0].

For what it's worth, outside of the major metropolises where a combination of supply restrictions (principally via zoning) and overwhelming demand (stoked by natural and economic advantages as well as policy that induces home purchases), people running businesses, developing skills, and doing actual work are able to afford to buy land and homes. My barber, for example, with no college degree and no inheritance, lives on 10 acres. The catch? It's in an area not fancied by urbane types, and his house on that land is a mobile home, though he is saving up to build a "real" one[1].

[0]: And with this, it's interesting to study the effect that government policy had on pushing loans to people who had no hope of repaying them.

[1]: In many areas, building codes and zoning place a floor on the minimum price of a house, and it can be argued that this floor is too high.

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

#196

Post by triceratops »

jampekka wrote: post #185
triceratops wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For-profits must act in the shareholders' best interests. Shareholders want profit, but they also care about other things. Matt Levine has been banging this drum of late in his column. To paraphrase: Shareholders are people who breathe air. A car company could oppose particulate emissions regulations to maximize profits for shareholders. But if they supported regulations instead, this is equally justifiable to any co…

If there's a single shareholder that wants profit instead of clean air from their share, they have grounds to sue (and win). LLCs aren't dictatorships of the majority, and definitely not of the CEO. If every single shareholder agrees, then yes.

Minority shareholders who want clean air instead of more profit can also sue and win. Courts don't interpret fiduciary duty as literally profit; this is a common misconception. Management has to show they are acting in their their shareholders' reasonable best interests. In my made up example, clean air and profit are both in shareholders' best interests, and no reasonable court will rule against the company for going with either option.

Profit is an easy, objective metric. Optimizing it enriches the management personally because they're paid in stock. Most people, thanks to generations of propaganda, have come to believe they're legally required to optimize solely for profit. Consequently there is little risk in doing that instead of something else.

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

#198

Post by Vicinity9635 »

awright415 wrote: post #182
Vicinity9635 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. I've been in discussions about it here and nobody could cite a law. If one can't cite a specific US code, it's not a legal obligation. It could be in a charter or contract, but it's not US law. Feel free to correct me if you can cite one. I believe this is a good starting point: https://www.congress.gov/advanced-search/legislation Fiduciary duty doesn't apply to most non-finance related companies. It's m…

The reason you can’t find a federal law is that corporations are largely governed by state law. See, for example, Section 5231 of the California Corporations Code. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/corporations-code/corp-sect-523...

So it's not a legal obligation in the US, but possibly in some states.

Which boils down to the same thing. Incorporate where it's not. Viola - no legal obligation.

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

#199

Post by scarface_74 »

kelnos wrote: post #165
some-guy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know many people who joined Figma specifically because of the promise and goal of a large buyout. Even if it isn't explicitly stated, in most circumstances people want to go public at the right price.

Those are the kinds of people you never want working for you. And, frankly, the kinds of people I hate working with. I get that for many people a job is just a job, but these sorts of people tend to be opportunists who are just there for the hope of a big payday, and will likely be a drag on you and your team while they're there.

Why else would I work for a for profit company other than because they have money and I have a skill that allows me to trade my labor for money to support my addiction to food and shelter?

Also, all other things being equal, why wouldn’t I trade my labor for the most money possible?

That is as long as it doesn’t require working for Amazon (been there done that) or Facebook (I don’t hate myself that much).

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

#200

Post by scarface_74 »

asoneth wrote: post #72
Mistletoe wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*good public businesses Private businesses don’t have to do anything and is where you get some of the best companies that exist and care about their customers like Patagonia. https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/gear-news/patagon... Maybe it’s the only way out of the enshittification death spiral because there are no shareholders to destroy the company to “create value” for.

My current employer and my last were both 25+ year-old quietly successful private tech companies. In both cases there was a strong commitment to product quality in order to maintain our reputation and long-term customer relationships whereas the public companies I worked at were focused on chasing the next quarter to satisfy "the shareholders". Every once in a while I'm tempted to work for a public company again sinc…

Out of all the major tech companies - Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Tesla, Nvidia, etc. can you honestly say any of them are short term focused.

Well it would be a stretch to say that Google has any focus.

Post reply on HN