641–650 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention the $1 billion termination fee Adobe now owes them.
Figma's employees are probably devastated and demotivated. Their exit dollar signs just went poof. And they've probably been working on Adobe's roadmap / integration for the past 15 months. I'm not so sure Figma is in a better spot, even with this new cash in hand.
If countries want to heavily regulate business deals, I think the quid pro quo should be a tax system that provides a good way for founders and early employees to take some money off the table without having to sell to big companies like Adobe, by going public, or having half of any gain wiped out in taxes. Why shouldn't those folks able to pick up a lump sum for their work and the risk they took? They may as well ha…
[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…
(ex-Adobe, on a team highly related to an area where Figma out-executed XD, less knowledge about genAI stuff) > Adobe has probably captured back both mental and market share from Figma GenAI/Firefly's success is in a totally different domain to what Figma's doing. Figma's equivalent at Adobe is XD, which has never held a candle to Figma. The existential problem Adobe tried to buy their way out of still exists in the…
Yeah... I mean the pre-trained text encoder Firefly uses is filled with copyrighted, unlicensed-for-express-purpose training data.
Firefly is successful in the same sense that DocuSign is, in that it is selling a holistic social experience, but I think maybe don't opine on "legal provenance on their training data" until you have seen the whole pipeline with your own eyes. Sophisticated people sort of know Adobe's claims are bullshit, but what exactly do you expect the community to do, speculate on the exactly zero evidence Adobe has shown of how any of their stuff works?
Anyway, I am pretty sure Adobe is delighted they are not paying $20b for something that is worth way, way less. Like maybe $500m at most.
Meanwhile the people using Figma at many companies are getting laid off. Etsy, Bytedance, Unity Spotify, Salesforce all made massive UX designer cuts.
The real question is, is the thing people are using Figma for even worth $20b? No, no way. Figma users work in the Making Bugs department: they make new buggy things nobody asked for, that aren't lists or spreadsheets but should just be lists and spreadsheets, which makes everything worse. There is nowadays positive ROI to doing less Figmaing. In my opinion there has always been more ROI to doing less Figmaing, to straight up not having those people around and not gathering so many opinions on designing lists from so many stakeholders. That holistic experience is expensive in many ways, and while again you can be successful delivering that, it doesn't mean it makes sense.
Just look at the Spotify app. It's a hot abject mess of absolute garbage UI. They have been diehard Figma users for years. They are the prime example of Figmafication ruining something extremely simple. It's fucking lists! Lists are not worth $20b.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And *this* is The Key difference between an entrepreneur and a mom & pop. That said, even a mom & pop should be mindful of exit. What happens when the owner(s) wants to retire? Or has a serious health issue? Or has a family member with a health issue? Etc.? You don't have to be a unicorn to build something that someone else wants to acquire. Editorial: And this is why I dislike words like solopreneur, mompreneur, and…
someone starting a mom & pop business is an entrepreneur. There's nothing about scale in the definition of the word.
There's nothing wrong with the mom & pop mindset. But it's not the same mindset as being an entrepreneur and focusing on value; with exit being a clear and ideal way to see the value.
Renewed anti-trust is an interesting experiment. I don't what the consequences will be, but I am excited to find out! If a nothing else, I want people to think "we should try more policy experiments to become wiser" rather than "oh no, effect uncertain, better stick with status quo".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Figma's employees are probably devastated and demotivated. Their exit dollar signs just went poof. And they've probably been working on Adobe's roadmap / integration for the past 15 months. I'm not so sure Figma is in a better spot, even with this new cash in hand.
Oof, that’s a really good point. That would be utterly demotivating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d hope this somehow influences regulators too. 15+ months of uncertainty and it’s the tiny UK market that tanks things. The lack of regulatory certainty will push for more lobbying and influence peddling which I think is net worse for the global industry.
It's not really the UK regulator's fault though, if anything they were the best as they gave their response first (a provisional no). The EU was still investigating and the US DOJ was also preparing similar investigations. The CMA also provided Adobe with a list of changes they could make in order for the application to be approved, so it's not even like they were unwilling to entertain it. As we saw with the Blizzar…
I read that MS agreed to remedial changes for the purchase to be approved by CMA, but those changes were the same ones that CMA originally asked for at the start that MS refused. So CMA got what it wanted but it's still seen as a MS as eventual winner and CMA loser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I wonder if as long as there is VC money out there, the viability of this strategy is limited because the moment incumbents (even ones with overwhelming market share) try to jack up prices, they immediately create an opportunity for a startup to undercut them.
> Fifteen months into the regulatory review process, Figma and Adobe no longer see a path toward regulatory approval How in the world did it take fifteen months for regulators to reject this? 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. I don’t have an opinion on whether or not t…
> How in the world did it take fifteen months for regulators to reject this? I agree with your overall point that the current regulatory process related to anti-trust M&A very much needs to be improved. While the delay may be the proximate cause, focusing on that risks failing to address the fundamental root cause of the problem, which is A) lack of clarity in regulatory policies and the underlying laws authorizing t…
This is absolutely not true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oof, that’s a really good point. That would be utterly demotivating.
Instead imagine that the workers actually did get that huge chunk of cash but still had to come into work every day.