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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#941

Post by wryanzimmerman »

exodust wrote: post #914
PeterCorless wrote: post #900

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 this. Website design has become an increasingly iterative, collaborative process inside companies. You can't just launch a new website and surprise your team. People need to annotate comments, and constant iteration is the name of the game. Design, solicit feedback, integrate, iterate, repeat. There's also a lot of work needed up-front on responsive design (as opposed to it being an also-ran or afterthought), and…

> Design, solicit feedback, integrate, iterate, repeat. Except people in a typical company who might provide quality feedback on the new website, do not want to "browse Figma". They want an actual website to view - dev site or the actual new live site. > "You can't just launch a new website and surprise your team." Yes you can. Nothing beats launching a new site to motivate quality feedback. If you expect feedback to…

That’s why you send them the link to the prototype, which opens in their browser, not the figma link.

That’s like half the point of prototyping software vs graphic design / illustration software!

Non-designers want to see “the site” open in their browser and be able to click through the pages, instead of use some design app—that’s like half the point of figma.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#942

Post by Applejinx »

tqi wrote: post #709
todd-davies wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of a good example for a sass product. I'm sure it goes on though and I'm always interested in hearing about examples! A similar strategy which seems to be quite common these days is to cross-subsidise, which is when a firm sells one product at an artificially low price by using profits it makes from selling another product. If we think about cross-subsidisation, then lots of multi-product sass offerings…

It seems like the implicit assumption is that there must be a harm somewhere, we just haven't found it yet. But as a consumer, I'm not sure that is true? Even the Amazon paper seems to admit that there isn't any consumer harm to be found, only harm to smaller competitors' businesses. But that feels like an odd standard to apply since isn't any business's primary purpose to compete with / harm competitors?

No, in several ways.

Firstly, I didn't spot what paper you mean other than 'related to Amazon', but it's plain to see what can happen to an Amazon. Once it's finished destroying competitor businesses the only way it can get more profit is by continuing to get paid, but ceasing to deliver services. And this is already happening in various ways. I'm sure I'm not the only person, even on Hacker News, to have grudgingly written off an Amazon purchase that simply never was delivered, a cheap and trivial thing that didn't pan out, a 'problem with this order' that the system simply ate.

At the point when you're taking consumer money and not having to do anything, that's harm. You can get away with it because your system is invincible. (I also feel like this about the insurance industry: I think it's set up to not pay, and has better legal representation than the consumer does)

To the extent that a business's primary purpose is to make money, these are successes. To the extent that the primary purpose is to hurt competitors, these are still successes, to the extent they're possible and not just undermining your position: you have to be monopolistic or at least in control to be able to pull that stuff off, but then you're wealthier, giving you more power to hurt competitors.

None of this serves a market economy for providing goods and services. It may exist, but it hurts capitalism as a functioning concept.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#943

Post by scarface_74 »

uxp8u61q wrote: post #195
scarface_74 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire purpose of starting a company is to get acquired. Of the literally hundreds of companies that YC has invested in, only 5 have gone public. The VC market will dry up even more if they see their chances of an exit diminishing because of an overzealous government.

> The entire purpose of starting a company is to get acquired. I imagine this claim is satire, given how outlandish it is. But if I were to take it at face value for a second... Acquired by whom? Other companies... Who were started to... Get acquired themselves? Where did these other companies get the money to begin with? Etc. This is just a stupendously ridiculous take, I just cannot consider it was made in good fai…

So how many VC funded companies do you think get acquired instead of IPOing?

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#944

Post by maniflames »

tamarlikesdata wrote: post #938

I don't get this. Any designer knows that Figma is the best tool.

It’s not about the quality of the tool but the fact that regulators will most likely think that this merger will violate anti-trust laws and lawyers from both companies can’t argue for why this isn’t the case

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#945

Post by Applejinx »

Vicinity9635 wrote: post #726
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?

Is it just me or is every single merger a cause for disappointment and frustration with a government that once broke up monopolies, and every single failed merger a cause for celebration because it means slower 'enshittification' of everything? I'm still pissed that Morgan Stanley was allowed to buy e trade for some fucking reason and immediately made my entire debit card experience worse, and made absolutely nothing…

For what it's worth, it's not just you. I sympathize completely. I watch for things like this affecting my life in the knowledge that every single time such a merger or acquisition happens, it's going to do me some kind of harm for no benefit.

Someone got paid for something, and that's the only purpose that was accomplished, and that someone wasn't (and never will be) me.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#946

Post by Applejinx »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #646
bryancoxwell wrote: post #641

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.

What if some of the people behind this very effective and successful tool are there because they're enthusiastic about the work they're doing?

I'd bet cash money that there are at least some for whom the paycheck means they can do their thing and not have to take a day job. These are the sorts of people who create a Figma instead of an enshittification.

The trick is always to get paid something instead of having to get a day job. And I'm sure there are folks who 'have to come into work' and are still doing good and worthy jobs… but man! You figure they are all like that? At Figma, of all places?

Never work in the music business, is all I can say. Or filmmaking. There are entire industries that ride on the ability to wildly underpay talented people just so they can do the things they're excited about doing. Far from 'not promising a huge payout', you can absolutely screw large numbers of people if they get to hear the band play, or get to look through the viewfinder and see the rushes.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#947

Post by Applejinx »

hipadev23 wrote: post #461
karaterobot wrote: post #245

On the one hand, as a designer who uses Figma every day, this is great news. On the other hand, the fact that Dylan Field was willing to do it in the first place felt like a bit of a heel turn. Yeah, it's a lot of money, I know. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I've already shifted my expectations for the long term direction of the product from "they can do no wrong" to "when is the other shoe going to drop?"

A CEO also owes it to their employees and investors to let everyone have a massive payday.

No, their investors.

Employees don't automatically have the same motivations as the investors.

If you want an employee with exactly the same motivation as an investor, hire an embezzler.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#948

Post by ricardonunez »

sgammon wrote: post #795
ramijames wrote: post #259

I can not describe how happy this makes me. Fuck Adobe. I will never forgive them for buying and killing Macromedia.

macromedia was amazing and this is such a real comment

Until Afinity came out with their products I was still missing fireworks.

Re: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

#950

Post by gedy »

vlovich123 wrote: post #775

I think this is great. Figma gets a free undiluted infusion of 1B cash. I’m surprised break-up fees aren’t negotiated as an investment instead of a pure cash transfer. Sure it may have impacted company focus, it didn’t impact their revenue that much (1.5x growth vs 2x growth in previous years although that could have also been caused by an adverse economic climate with sales slowing across many companies and industri…

Very true, but it's interesting the Figma CEO sounds disappointed, which feels like the game plan has been to be acquired and pay investors.

Adobe is the biggest player in the space, so if denied, might put a damper on future acquisition price.

Post reply on HN