61–70 of 78 posts
How does it work if the UK blocks it and the rest of the world doesn't?
If an activity has been blocked in one country, the options are: 1) Cancel the merger/acquisition completely. 2) Work out some sort of mitigation with the country. 3) Spin off/discontinue business in that country.
If you make it harder for startups to achieve profitable exits does that incentivize or disincentivize innovation?
If it becomes more of a common occurrence, I agree it could stifle innovation.
If you want to talk about reducing innovation then have a look at Apple's walled garden. They're preventing so many innovative new apps from ever being created by being inaccessible to young/poor developers.
You can develop iOS applications for free? This comment is so ironic because Apple has been the #1 innovator in so many arenas for decades.
Or let's take a step back: Can I develop the app without buying a $1000 macbook? You can develop for android using any platform. Apple's build tools are limited to only work on macos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can develop iOS applications for free? This comment is so ironic because Apple has been the #1 innovator in so many arenas for decades.
Can I give it to my friend to try on his phone without jumping through a million hoops every week or so? Because I can just send him an apk file via whatsapp without paying anyone a dime. Or let's take a step back: Can I develop the app without buying a $1000 macbook? You can develop for android using any platform. Apple's build tools are limited to only work on macos.
Really tho I think we collectively use that term whenever it suits us, without much clarity on what innovative outcomes actually are. We need a better definition and better yardsticks.
Good. It absolutely would reduce innovation. Adobe have already canned XD, which was a poor alternative to Figma, but Adobe had to at least pretend to compete. Problem is, even though Figma have captured a large proportion of the digital design market, they took on so much funding that their only real options are a purchase or IPO. I don’t believe that subscriptions alone would bring in enough for the kind of returns…
I tried uninstalling Adobe software from my PC a few weeks ago. Clicking on ‘uninstall’ booted up their cloud launcher app, and then I had to log in with an account, and then it had to install four or five different updates in sequence, and then it tried auto-updating the software I had installed, and after about thirty minutes of making sure Adobe obtained all of their analytics I was finally able to uninstall every…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I give it to my friend to try on his phone without jumping through a million hoops every week or so? Because I can just send him an apk file via whatsapp without paying anyone a dime. Or let's take a step back: Can I develop the app without buying a $1000 macbook? You can develop for android using any platform. Apple's build tools are limited to only work on macos.
While true, I think you need to make an argument that those issues are specifically anti-innovation. Really tho I think we collectively use that term whenever it suits us, without much clarity on what innovative outcomes actually are. We need a better definition and better yardsticks.
On the contrary, the ability for startups to be purchased by larger companies is the majority of the financial incentive towards creating startups. If competition regulators prohibit these transactions, it will harm the startup ecosystem and reduce innovation.
This argument makes absolutely no sense to me. The large tech acquirers have extremely high market valuations partly because of the expectation that they continue to get away with doing exactly this. If we had more competent competition regulators and this sort of acquisition was basically not on the cards at all, ever, once a company reaches a certain size then that value would stay in the innovating startups until…
The basis of my argument comes from the director of competition policy at the International Center for Law & Economics, who explains it all in depth here: https://www.ft.com/content/b7fdbb35-e104-47bf-9e03-ef5d8b324...
> Moreover, start-ups depend on acquisitions. Along with
> an initial public offering, being bought is the main
> way entrepreneurs and venture capital investors can
> “exit” the firms they have built. The harder it is to
> sell your company, the harder it is to make a
> return. Fifty per cent of US start-up executives said
> that being acquired was a long-term goal, and 90 per
> cent of US start-up exits in 2008-18 happened thanks
> to acquisitions.
>
> Empirical evidence suggests investment in start-ups is
> sensitive to rules on acquisitions. One paper found
> venture capital activity grows by about 40-50 per cent
> in countries that enact pro-takeover laws, and US states
> that introduced anti-takeover laws saw a 27 per cent
> decline in VC investment deals compared with those that
> did not.I think many Figma users are concerned with Adobe's purchase of Figma. I've already removed Adobe products twice from my life (professional and personal) and would prefer to not have to do it again. That said, I can't see the acquisition being a problem for competition in this particular space. It's not hard to imagine someone just making figma-but-different and becoming the next big thing. There are also countless o…
It would be very hard to build a product from scratch that competed with Figma. Even if you just straight-up stole all their product choices, features and UX and so on, the engineering under the hood seems pretty high level. Anything is possible, but it would not be trivial.