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

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 451 posts

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

#351

Post by danielmarkbruce »

alchemyzach wrote: post #236
mattmcknight wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

They are following, they just understand it better than you do.

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

#352

Post by danielmarkbruce »

boroboro4 wrote: post #321
mattmcknight wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am trying to explore the ways in which the IPO, in particular, separate from the continued operation of the company, is evidence that blocking M&A is good. I have seen nothing from you supporting Khan's position that the IPO is vindication for blocking M&A. Her particular claim was that it was "a great reminder that letting startups grow into independently successful businesses, rather than be bought up by existing…

The current market cap of Figma is around 60B if I read it correctly. Yes, not all of it was IPOd, but from purely this perspective it was hugely successful. But then it’s also unfair to compare this market cap as is, because I would expect Figma as separate entity will grow better than Adobe as a whole. Meaning that people who’ll hold Figma stocks right now have a chance to have better returns in a future.

The amount of money in the pockets of the owners (no matter who they are) is not what antitrust is about.

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

#353

Post by scarface_74 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #340
scarface_74 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now the monopolies are just hiring away all of the people they want from the startup and leaving the company as a shell of its former self - leaving both investors and the employees left behind high and dry.

> So now the monopolies are just hiring away all of the people they want from the startup and leaving the company as a shell of its former self - leaving both investors and the employees left behind high and dry. If this was a viable strategy then they would have just done it regardless, right? Meanwhile the solution to that is to break up the monopolies to begin with. You don't have trillion dollar companies monopol…

Yes because you don’t like companies being able to pay people more money?

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

#354

Post by scarface_74 »

benreesman wrote: post #309
JustExAWS wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Windsurf https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/01/more-details-emerge-on-how... Amazon https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/big-techs-poaching-... Microsoft and Inflection https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-ai-reverse-acqui-hire-150... Microsoft almost pulled it off with OpenAI during the Altman fiasco.

Listen, I think its bullshit what happened to the Windsurf people. And I'm happy that the Figma people didnt get crammed down with some scam ass preference assplay. But blaming Lina Khan for the crime orgy that started the minute she was forced out is silly. Go stick that blade where it belongs. I'll help any way I can. https://youtu.be/pDaELkYEC_g

I’m sure the employees who Google hired don’t feel at all “crammed”.

The only reason they took this route instead of an acquisition is because of the current regulator environment.

But the current VP was a huge fan of Khan.

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

#355

Post by JustExAWS »

trhway wrote: post #329
JustExAWS wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Windsurf https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/01/more-details-emerge-on-how... Amazon https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/big-techs-poaching-... Microsoft and Inflection https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-ai-reverse-acqui-hire-150... Microsoft almost pulled it off with OpenAI during the Altman fiasco.

>Google and Windsurf > https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/01/more-details-emerge-on-how... that looks strange to me to say the least - a company A's leadership leases completely away the company A's IP to a company B while at the same time getting fat employment offers from the same company B. If it were in Russia i'd say it is a bribe/kickback while in US it looks suspiciously like a huge conflict of interests. How no r…

Huge conflict of interest for who? It was a private company who only had a fiduciary responsibility to its investors and the employees themselves had no responsibilities to refuse a better offer from a competitor.

There was a whole stink in 2010 about all of the major tech companies agreeing to not poach other companies’ employees and suppressing wages.

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

#356

Post by littlestymaar »

kgwgk wrote: post #282
littlestymaar wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? A VC-backed company must have an exit path for its investors at some point, and this exit is either: - sell the company to a bigger player, reinforcing their dominant position (often close to monopolistic in tech). - go to IPO, keeping the company independence and fighting power concentration.

There is a third option. (According to some LLM that will remain unnamed Vungle, Wrike, and Acquia are textbook cases of direct VC‑backed startups being bought out by private equity without an IPO or corporate acquisition. Not verified.)

That's true, but PE is negligible in tech. And if all you can rely on for exit is private equity then you'll end up with a tech scene as dynamic as the European one…

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

#357

Post by AnthonyMouse »

scarface_74 wrote: post #353
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So now the monopolies are just hiring away all of the people they want from the startup and leaving the company as a shell of its former self - leaving both investors and the employees left behind high and dry. If this was a viable strategy then they would have just done it regardless, right? Meanwhile the solution to that is to break up the monopolies to begin with. You don't have trillion dollar companies monopol…

Yes because you don’t like companies being able to pay people more money?

Companies get money from workers (i.e. customers), pay some back to workers (employees), and keep the rest as profit (or waste it on some kind of bureaucratic inefficiency). Workers can get more money by either paying less as customers or getting paid more as employees.

Monopolies screw them on both ends. Customers pay more because there are fewer suppliers, and then employees make less because there is less competition for hiring which also makes it easier for the large employers to coordinate non-poaching agreements.

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

#358

Post by ethan_smith »

mattmcknight wrote: post #81

So blocking a sale at a $20B valuation so the company can IPO at a $19.3B valuation 3 years later (a loss of $700M in value over 3 years) is a success?

Figma actually IPO'd at $27B (not $19.3B) and is now trading at over $40B market cap, representing a significant premium over Adobe's $20B offer.

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

#359

Post by Dylan16807 »

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…

> The idea that there's a significant lobby on fucking Hacker News unhappy that a startup IPO'd for a zillion bucks and made everyone rich is twilight zone shit. It makes no sense according to the stated values in the fucking masthead.

Blocking the merger was good. But I'm not convinced the IPO was good. I think trying to be a company that's worth tens of billions of dollars is only going to make Figma worse. I care about the users more than the people that got rich.

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

#360

Post by bobthepanda »

akudha wrote: post #349
dabedee wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're hitting the real divide here. Some people are so ideologically opposed to any regulatory intervention that they can't admit when it works, even when the evidence is staring them in the face. Also notable [0]: "[...] in any given year, we see up to 3,000 merger filings that get reported to us. Around 2% of those actually get a second look by the government, so you have 98% of all deals that, for the mos…

Some people are so ideologically opposed to any regulatory intervention These are people who are ideologically opposed to any regulatory intervention? How can such an extreme position even begin to make sense? This is like letting boxers (or MMA fighters) fight in the ring without a referee, isn't it? As it is, there are lax rules that are getting even more relaxed by the day and even those lax rules aren't enforced…

> big businesses and those with money

There are obviously the people in this cohort and there are also the people who think they will be in this cohort, who think they will be the victors in a cartel-like world.

Heck, before layoffs and the threat of AI started concentrating even more power into tech leadership there were plenty of tech folks along for the ride as the high paid, in demand workforce benefiting from the above.

Post reply on HN