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

Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

figma.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#581

Post by jasonlotito »

matthewowen wrote: post #557
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s an absurdly long time to be operating a business in limbo, and I have to assume it’s the regulators dragging their feet since the companies have every incentive to move quickly. Your understanding here is fundamentally wrong. Regulators in the US said very early on they were against this merger and were going to fight it. So most of what goes on in the meantime is Adobe and Figma (a) seeing if they can give…

This is a really inaccurate factual understanding of the sequence of events here: I would urge you to look at the actual timeline of events around the CMA and the DOJ before you keep spreading it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/02/doj-review-adobe-20...

That's a little over a month after the announcement was made. That is "very early on" in the 15 month "sequence of events."

Keep in mind, this was the announcements. FTA: "The DOJ has been contacting customers and competitors of Adobe and Figma, as well as Figma’s venture capital investors, in recent weeks, the people said. According to one of the people, the DOJ has already issued civil investigative demands — information requests similar to subpoenas — an unusual move at this early juncture in the probe."

So, we are talking about significant action being taken less than a month after the announcement.

I'll grant you "very early on" is subjective, but I feel any reasonable person would say that this constitutes "very early on".

In short, I would urge you to look at the actual timeline of events around the CMA and the DOJ before you keep spreading an inaccurate factual understanding of the sequence of events here.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#582

Post by robertlagrant »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #560
camhart wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems wrong/illegal that they can just "decide they're against the merger" and sink it by dragging their feet. Its either legal or not. I haven't dug into the details, but based on this one line alone it sounds like this is abuse of power.

Another way to say "decide they're against the merger" is "evaluate the situation and make a timely ruling that they oppose the merger as illegal." Which is exactly what they were supposed to do. Adobe and Figma tried to argue with the regulators or find a compromise, but couldn't come up with a solution that satisfied all parties. If you try to extract subtle implications from the phrasing of a commenter on HN, you'…

But that's the point: it's not timely. It's a massive millstone to Figma, who now have to figure out what to do with their pixel-perfect UI designer collaboration tool in a world of an and coming Adobe Firefly.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#583

Post by todd-davies »

tqi wrote: post #517
todd-davies wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dropping prices below cost to wipe out competitors is predatory pricing which is prohibited under the antitrust laws. It's not always easy to prosecute, but it against the law nevertheless.

What does that mean when it comes to software though? For something like Uber or Instacart that seems pretty straightforward, but for most tech companies I'm not sure how to determine what is predatory. Otherwise aren't all unprofitable companies selling below cost?

Yes, it's a bit of a problem for the field! Like many aspects of antitrust, predatory pricing applies cleanly for an industrial-era economy but as you point out, it's less clear how to translate it into the context of 21st century informational capitalism. A significant amount of legal and economic research in the field is asking these kinds of questions, and the answers are still forthcoming.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#584

Post by jasonlotito »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #568
matthewowen wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really inaccurate factual understanding of the sequence of events here: I would urge you to look at the actual timeline of events around the CMA and the DOJ before you keep spreading it.

This article about the DoJ prepping to sue to stop the deal is from February: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/doj-prepa... The idea, proposed by the comment I was responding to, that regulators were just twiddling their thumbs and then only gave a thumbs down to Adobe after 15 months is wrong and completely misunderstands how the regulatory process for merger approval works.

It's actually much earlier than that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38685644

tl;dr: Their was significant action less than a month after the announcement was made.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#585

Post by consumer451 »

ajmurmann wrote: post #566
consumer451 wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, maybe we could make attempts to regulate our market economy in order to prevent monopolies, and thereby encouraging competition. (aka, disruption) I didn't truly process the damage that monopolies can do until I heard this podcast with Sean Carroll and Cory Doctorow. There is a full transcript at this link if you prefer to read the conversation. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2019/10/21/69-c...

As I said, I'm quite happy with that, but if we do something, let's do it right and not half-assed.

I agree there. We seem to be recovering from a cycle of not caring about monopolies at all, and corporations are now as strong as they were in the late 19th century. I am not surprised that anti-trust is slow and unpredictable today. I hope that we settle into a more predictable regime, no matter which political party is in power.

For historical references, anti-trust filings began against Standard Oil in 1906, and it was broken up in 1911. [0]

The AT&T breakup took four years, from 1978 to 1982. [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._AT%26T

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#586

Post by poisonborz »

tsycho wrote: post #549

[Pure speculation; I don't work in the UI space at all, and at neither of these companies] I wonder if Adobe is secretly happy about this. They were acquiring Figma at the peak of the market (for growth stock/startup valuations) because of the existential risks that Figma was threatening, due to their collaborative development UX. But since then: * Startup valuations have fallen. Ignoring regulatory concerns, a new a…

What does Gen AI and Adobe Firefly has to do with Figma? Not even the target group is similar - Figma didn't even try to touch raster/illustration. Building or acquiring a product is not a one-shot try at a popularity contest.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#587

Post by newsclues »

sowbug wrote: post #196
codeptualize wrote: post #126

That is wild. It's a good thing as it means Adobe won't ruin Figma like they did with so many great software products before, but just imagine founders, investors and employees, thinking they had a really good exit.. That must hurt, I hope they can stay motivated. If Adobe can't buy them, what other exit options do they have? Go public?

What's wrong with selling goods and services for more than they cost?

It’s hard work!

Much easier to give things away for free and sell the company.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#588

Post by ceejayoz »

nightski wrote: post #528
ceejayoz wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll send you to collections, which'll ruin your credit.

Does it though? I thought only credit accounts affected your credit score. This really isn't that...

Gym memberships, cell phone plans, utility bills, unpaid parking tickets, etc. will all report to your credit report if you miss payments. Debt, not just credit cards. A delinquent account on your account will drop it by 100-150 points immediately.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#589

Post by matthewowen »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #568
matthewowen wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really inaccurate factual understanding of the sequence of events here: I would urge you to look at the actual timeline of events around the CMA and the DOJ before you keep spreading it.

This article about the DoJ prepping to sue to stop the deal is from February: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/doj-prepa... The idea, proposed by the comment I was responding to, that regulators were just twiddling their thumbs and then only gave a thumbs down to Adobe after 15 months is wrong and completely misunderstands how the regulatory process for merger approval works.

It also said the lawsuit would be filed “in February or March”, but it was never actually filed, so what factual relevance do you think that article really has? Moreover, the DOJ wins less than one in three of these kinds of cases: the US system is an adversarial one where the courts decide so it makes no sense to immediately abandon in the face of DOJ opposition.

What is also true is that the uk finished its phase 1 review (where they decide to send it for further phase 2 review) in June, so 9 months after the deal was announced. Phase 2 leads to changes in about 50% of deals. The phase 2 deadline was late February 2024, about 18 months later.

I don't think any of this is indicative of anyone sitting on their hands or twiddling their thumbs, but it’s clearly a slow process and that uncertainty clearly isn’t good for the parties involved.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#590

Post by stephenr »

sowbug wrote: post #196
codeptualize wrote: post #126

That is wild. It's a good thing as it means Adobe won't ruin Figma like they did with so many great software products before, but just imagine founders, investors and employees, thinking they had a really good exit.. That must hurt, I hope they can stay motivated. If Adobe can't buy them, what other exit options do they have? Go public?

What's wrong with selling goods and services for more than they cost?

Careful now, you'll give someone an aneurism with talk like that, dontchaknow?

On a serious note, it's depressing how much a comment like this stands out from the crowd.

Post reply on HN