Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny • Hacker News Board

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#271

Post by benreesman » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 4:52 PM UTC

malfist wrote: post #269

wredcoll wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My definition of this (which apparently I'm now trying to popularize) is "power can never be destroyed, only moved". If we destroy an entity that has power, the power goes someplace else and in the case of (democratic) government entities, it rarely ends up someplace better for us regular folks.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you arguing that breaking up monopolies takes power away from consumers?

I think GP is saying that nature abhors a vacuum in human affairs as well as in physics: the question isn't whether or not there's going to be a government or a currency or a regulatory climate.

The question is whether those things are going to be determined at a polling place by voters or in a smoke-filled room by gangsters.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#272

Post by DannyBee » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 4:56 PM UTC

benreesman wrote: post #212

dabedee wrote: post #177

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…

Having criticized a lot of her tenure (and still do!), Lina's problem was never whether she was right or not.

It's that she was incredibly ineffective.

Of course she was right. That's what made her practical ineffectiveness so problematic.

She was often 100% right on what should be done but could only achieve 0-10% of it.

I'd rather have someone who is 70% right on what should be done, but can achieve almost all of it, as some previous FTC chairs were.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#273

Post by nativeit » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 4:58 PM UTC

> Khan’s critics are more likely to see Figma’s success as coming despite regulatory scrutiny, not because of it. For example, Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives told Business Insider, “Figma is a massive success, but it’s because of the company’s innovative growth and not due to the FTC and [Khan].”

That would be a great point if there were any indication at all that’s what Khan was implying. It’s either an intentionally disingenuous reading of her statements, or else an unintentionally dim comprehension of them…from an analyst…

It’s also not a great sign that Business Insider thought this was the best way to end this article. At the very least, how about interrogating whether or not their “innovative growth” might have something to do with how healthy regulatory systems might work to facilitate such things? Or whether that innovative growth could have continued apace under Adobe’s management?

I suppose I am being too credulous, and it’s more likely the same widely shared ideological bent that celebrates free market dynamism with each success, and decries oppressive regulations with each misstep. A culture that sees virtue in offshoring profits while simultaneously using them to eliminate competition, erode consumer protections, lobby for preferential tax credits, and generally skirt any/all obligations to the society which provided them with the opportunities, infrastructure, finance markets, skilled workforce, and well-qualified consumers that are all prerequisites to “innovative growth”.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#274

Post by Jolter » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 5:06 PM UTC

adastra22 wrote: post #122

aurareturn wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Figma actually lost money because their acquisition price was higher than their shares sold in the IPO. 2. Yes, Figma luckily IPOed in an extremely hot market Getting a bit lucky doesn't mean this was a success overall. The conclusion has many more years to go before it gets written. Either way, I don't like the over reach by Lina Khan.

They lost money (sort-of) because the market cap was $700M less at IPO. The amount of shares sold in IPO is irrelevant. I said sort-of because the economics of this is more complicated. Investors lose their preferences when they sell in an IPO, so this is probably better for common stock holders.

Who is “they”, who lost money?

I don’t think 19.3 B is their current market cap, it’s only what was sold at the IPo. Anyway, 19.3 instead of 20 would have been no big deal IMO

Adobe certainly lost money, because they have had to compete against the better product, so have been able to charge less for their own offering. And will presumably continue to do so until further notice.

Any employees who would have been swiftly laid off after the acquisition should certainly be glad for this outcome. They still have jobs, and if there are layoffs after the IPO it will be less dramatic. If they had equity, they probably got a much better deal in an IPO, especially if they sold some of it off after the “pop”.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#275

Post by pests » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 5:06 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #257

MattDamonSpace wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn’t the outcome, it was the bad reasoning and the overall desire for interference Does it really matter if Figma was bought vs IPO? No of course not. Khan just needs a poster child for her overall intervention philosophy. Pointing at Figma as a success for her overall world view is like the religious who say “oh god saved me from that flood” while ignoring the hundreds who did die. The Almighty wanted them to d…

> Does it really matter if Figma was bought vs IPO? No of course not. I think it matters. Look what happened when Adobe acquired Macromedia in 2005. The innovative product (Fireworks) that brought many (but not all) many of the innovations that would later come in Sketch and then Figma was left to slowly die because it competed with their flagship product (Photoshop). That delayed innovation in that market segment by…

Fireworks was great when I was a young teen and first learning the difference vector graphics could make.

Let’s not forget our beloved Flash, who knows how Macromedia would have handled it and maybe it wouldn’t have had to be removed from browsers under Adobe’s watch due to security issues.

I almost never see anyone mention Macromedia in relation to Flash these days, almost as if history has rewritten it to an Adobe thing.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#276

Post by DonHopkins » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 5:09 PM UTC

benreesman wrote: post #212

dabedee wrote: post #177

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…

But what if you care about Adobe? Booooo Hooooo!!! ;( /s

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#277

Post by msdrigg » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 5:13 PM UTC

stephen_cagle wrote: post #246

I wonder if a simpler solution to all this regulartion would be something like imposing a tax (fee?) when larger companies acquire smaller companies? So something like, "For every order of magnitude difference between the acquirer and the aquiree, there will be a 100% tax on the acquisition price paid to the US Federal government." So this would basically encourage companies to either have their own IPO (no fee at al…

Seems like the regulation works well when it is applied. Why is there a need for a simpler solution? Why try to replace it with a 'simpler' tax with none of the human consideration about how the m/a could lead to less competition.

Like if this regulation was replaced in favor of this tax, a big company merging with another big company would be considered fine when obviously big company mergers can be just as concerning as larger companies buying smaller ones

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#278

Post by benreesman » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 5:16 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #272

benreesman wrote: post #212

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…

Having criticized a lot of her tenure (and still do!), Lina's problem was never whether she was right or not. It's that she was incredibly ineffective. Of course she was right. That's what made her practical ineffectiveness so problematic. She was often 100% right on what should be done but could only achieve 0-10% of it. I'd rather have someone who is 70% right on what should be done, but can achieve almost all of i…

Even this one victory (and it was more than one) is one more than the fucking nothing we're getting on pushback from the SEC to the FDA to the FCC and back again now: this is #CrimeSeason baby (or so its called on Twitter), oligarchs in the front row and all. The last 3 administrations have been soft on FAANG and its going really badly.

The argument that she had the correct agenda, won a few, lost most to a captured judiciary (correct me if I'm mis-characterizing your position) is probably the stupidest thing I've seen on one of the dumbest threads in recent memory.

Can you clarify where I've lost the plot with your argument and restore some of my sorely tested faith in humanity?

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#279

Post by wredcoll » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 5:18 PM UTC

benreesman wrote: post #271

malfist wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you arguing that breaking up monopolies takes power away from consumers?

I think GP is saying that nature abhors a vacuum in human affairs as well as in physics: the question isn't whether or not there's going to be a government or a currency or a regulatory climate. The question is whether those things are going to be determined at a polling place by voters or in a smoke-filled room by gangsters.

I would have gone with corporation instead of gangster, but yes, exactly.

People so often rail against a government telling them they can't do something but so rarely justify they would be able to do it if the government was destroyed.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#280

Post by benreesman » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 5:30 PM UTC

wredcoll wrote: post #279

benreesman wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think GP is saying that nature abhors a vacuum in human affairs as well as in physics: the question isn't whether or not there's going to be a government or a currency or a regulatory climate. The question is whether those things are going to be determined at a polling place by voters or in a smoke-filled room by gangsters.

I would have gone with corporation instead of gangster, but yes, exactly. People so often rail against a government telling them they can't do something but so rarely justify they would be able to do it if the government was destroyed.

Who said I had anything against gangsters? ;)

But lets call it what it is: when a bunch of made men see a power vacuum and set up an informal clique with its own rules and loyalty tests while protesting "just a merchant nothing to see here"?

Thats like, the entry for gangster on the Wiki for the Sopranos.