231–240 of 451 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its market cap is about $58b right now. Tripled in three years!
But the company only sold the shares at $19.3B.
I think the Figma IPO proves Khan was right. $60B market cap today vs the $20B Adobe offered in 2023. There was some criticism about regulatory overreach when the deal got blocked. Now Figma employees are rich, the design tools market stays competitive, and we have another major independent tech company instead of just another Adobe product line. This is exactly why we need regulators willing to tell Big Tech "no" so…
It absolutely proves that she was right. If you care about market cap? She was right. If you care about employee comp? She was right. If you care about consumer choice, she was right. Number of listings, new potential acquirers for your startup, more diverse office geography, right right right right. The idea that there's a significant lobby on fucking Hacker News unhappy that a startup IPO'd for a zillion bucks and…
If the government is net ahead after a decade or so, then we'd know.
This approach to antitrust wouldn't work in cases like the Apple case, where the power is worth it to the company only because they can misuse it, but it would be a very fair and accounting-transparent remedy for the "startup gets bought by competitor" case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It absolutely proves that she was right. If you care about market cap? She was right. If you care about employee comp? She was right. If you care about consumer choice, she was right. Number of listings, new potential acquirers for your startup, more diverse office geography, right right right right. The idea that there's a significant lobby on fucking Hacker News unhappy that a startup IPO'd for a zillion bucks and…
One way to settle the question of whether Khan is right would be for the government to simply make competing offers in these situations, buy the companies, and shepherd them to IPO, or a buyer with fewer antitrust issues if that's not possible. If the government is net ahead after a decade or so, then we'd know. This approach to antitrust wouldn't work in cases like the Apple case, where the power is worth it to the…
There is no need to bikeshed a new solution here. Antitrust law solves this just fine, as exemplified by this case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It absolutely proves that she was right. If you care about market cap? She was right. If you care about employee comp? She was right. If you care about consumer choice, she was right. Number of listings, new potential acquirers for your startup, more diverse office geography, right right right right. The idea that there's a significant lobby on fucking Hacker News unhappy that a startup IPO'd for a zillion bucks and…
One way to settle the question of whether Khan is right would be for the government to simply make competing offers in these situations, buy the companies, and shepherd them to IPO, or a buyer with fewer antitrust issues if that's not possible. If the government is net ahead after a decade or so, then we'd know. This approach to antitrust wouldn't work in cases like the Apple case, where the power is worth it to the…
We've got a lot of history on what happens when technology is acknowledged as a natural monopoly and guided through it's development, evolution, and dissemination through society for the global welfare: that's the entire 20th century friend: the transistor, the Internet, the laser, fucking Velcro.
We're living through a time when that treasure trove of public wealth (paid for by taxpayers) is getting captured up by a caricature of gilded age kleptocracy at the front row of the fucking Inaugeration.
We know what the outcomes are. I don't know why people who hang out on Hacker News are fighting the data on this tooth and nail. Maybe it's because Trump threw her out, maybe it's because they own a bunch of NVIDIA stock and like the status quo, I don't know.
The outcomes are not in fucking dispute in this case or the macro situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
because it means they stayed independent and didnt get absorbed by a major megacorp that is already notorious for trying to corner the market of an entire industry and then over-charging
They were independent the whole time and it wasn't considered a success. I suppose IPO is an indicator they might stay independent longer. Now that they are in the public markets even Adobe can buy a few shares. I just don't feel like the IPO event has brought any particular benefits to the consumer and Khan is incorrectly looking at post IPO stock price bounce as some kind of financial indicator that it was a better…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What AI experience did Sam Altman have before becoming OpenAI CEO? Wasn’t he just a VC wunderkind beforehand?
I am not a big Sam Altman fan but this is not a good comp. Sam is an insider in SV and one of the biggest at that. He knows everyone. You are basically saying Sam didn’t know anything about AI yet he is one of OpenAI’s founding members. Unlike Elon, at least Sam knows a thing or two about actual software dev.
Love the FTC getting to decide if you’re permitted to sell your startup or forced to deliver more shareholder value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Figma has a near monopoly because it built the better product. This is the preferred outcome compared to Adobe broadening their monopoly not by building a better product, but just by acquiring/squashing their competition. Monopolies aren't illegal. Preventing competition is the thing we want to stop. As far as I can see, Figma doesn't do anything to give themselves an unfair advantage or prevent other players from en…
Figma had 8 funding rounds in 10 years, according to crunchbase. That is an advantage compared to other players on the market that do not receive VC. If it's fair or not, that’s up to everyones own standards.
Fairness doesn’t mean everyone gets funded regardless of their quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PSA that no regulator simply means the sharkest shark regulates. There is no such thing as no regulator. People will regulate. The question is who and how
I cannot understanding your argument at all.
So, "no regulator" doesn't mean freedom from regulation; it means the emergence of undemocratic, unchecked power by whoever can grab and wield it.