7 ms·

Adobe’s direct competitor is Adobe XD, which launched with practically no features and was slowly developed only to dwindle to death as a rarely used cloud serv

Adobe’s direct competitor is Adobe XD, which launched with practically no features and was slowly developed only to dwindle to death as a rarely used cloud service, while everyone does the important work in Figma. The parent comment is spot-on. Antitrust legislation needs to be invoked to prevent this acquisition from happening.

scarface74 4y ago
It amazes me that people posting on a YC controlled board whose entire purpose for existing is to fund startups long enough to get an exit - statistically most likely through an acquisition by a bigger company - wants to stop acquisitions. The funding environment for startups would be a lot worse if investors thought that the only way they could recoup their investments is through exits. Look how few of YC companies actually go public. Even companies that do go public are often just surviving long enough to hopefully get acquired. The founders at Figma chose to be acquired. It’s their product and their company.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > wants to stop acquisitions. Who said that? The point is that anticompetitive acquisitions, like Adobe acquiring a direct competitor, hurt everyone but the acquirer, and should be tightly controlled. Nobody would care if Figma were getting acquired by GitLab or Salesforce or Atlassian or whatever. The fact that it's a direct competitor known for destroying acquisitions is the problem.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Why would Gitlab want Figma? Could it afford it? I am sure the owners of Figma thought this was the best available option. It’s their company - not yours or the governments. If they want to sell their property it’s theirs to sell. Would Gitlab make it a better product if it was sold to them?
    - sofixa 4y ago
      The best for the acquirers and acquired isn't necessarily, and is in fact rarely, the best for the consumers at large. Unless you want to end up in an abusive relationship in all of your transactions, governments should intervene to keep things level, competitive and innovative.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Would you want the government telling you how to sell your company?
        sofixa 4y ago
        Fuck yes. The government is there for everyone. I want to not be abused as a consumer by for instance having a single ISP, phone manufacturer, etc. etc. price gouging me and everyone else, and i practice what i preach. In a similar vein, i don't want trash on the ground, so i inconvenience myself by collecting my trash and throwing it at the appropriate places. You know, normal "sacrifices" one does as the cost of participating in a society.
        scarface74 4y ago
        Until the government is run by people with ideals that are not the same as yours…
      - mr90210 4y ago
        Go read about history, maybe you’ll be able to rethink about wanting the government involved.
        sofixa 4y ago
        "history". Yes, that concise and short read that just tells you government bad. Do you have anything in particular in mind? I really struggle to find an excuse for not wanting to involve government regulations in obvious cases like monopolies almost monopolies. Even some libertarians, who are far from being a logical bunch of people, agree with this (alongside safety regulations and sometimes even infrastructure). The free market cannot function properly when it concerns externalities, infrastructure with high upfront costs, monopolies/oligopolies.
- smilespray 4y ago
  Many of us are current Figma users who actively avoid Adobe products because they are overpriced crap. Parts of the Adobe software suite has more than 30 years of technical debt, and it shows. What's so hard to understand?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    I understand why people like Figma. But just because you don’t like that Figma is selling their company doesn’t mean that the government should be involved. When a group of people thought they wanted a better operating system and databases that can’t be acquired - they created an open source offering. They didn’t depend on government intervention.
    - ryder9 4y ago
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      Did that group of people include Larry Ellison?
      - scarface74 4y ago
        No but it did include the people who wrote MySQL (twice) and Postgres. It also included Linux and BSD. No one has ever said that they really wish Oracle was open source and that they would jump at the chance to use it.
        selimthegrim 4y ago
        My point was he essentially used the CIA and the US government to basically steal some other company’s software and slap the Oracle badge on it.
- kristopolous 4y ago
  Some people are more committed to a functioning society than market exploitation.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Are you employed by a for profit company?
    - kristopolous 4y ago
      Don't be insufferable.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        I’m just calling out the hypocrisy of people tsk tsking those evil capitalist pigs while feeding from those same troughs.
        kristopolous 4y ago
        There's a difference of degrees. Just because I draw a salary doesn't mean I should be worshiping every greedy bastard on the planet. We're all in a society that does things we want to change. We're not these atomic beings floating through space. Complex nuanced thought is the hallmark of intellect, I'm sure we can do this.
        scarface74 4y ago
        Sure you could, if you have the courage of your convictions you could have a pursued a career in public service and worked for a non profit. Did you do that?
        kristopolous 4y ago
        You don't know my convictions and are projecting them on to me. This kind of abuse of power dynamic is directly conflicting Hayek's view on competition and on antitrust from 1946. There's this modern ideology of reactionary fealty to every abuse of power like some masochist vigorously shaking pom poms at every market exploit and cheering "thank you, give me more!" You know how utterly indefensible that position is and so instead of even attempting to do that you try to pry into my personal life and imagine you've found inconsistencies from which you mount a personal attack on my character. Give me a break. A company buying up its competition to dismantle it is garbage and plenty of even Austrian economists agree. Living a life a charity isn't required to see when an emperor wears no clothes.
- nine_k 4y ago
  It's not the acquisition itself. It's what company acquires it. Adobe is the IBM of creative tools. (If not Oracle.) OTOH being acquired by a behemoth company always feels uneasy for the product. Imagine an acquisition by Google, or Facebook, or Microsoft, or even Apple. I bet people would start imaging how Firma were to deteriorate under their corporate governance. Ideally an acquired company is just left as is, and used as a cash cow, resulting just in the products becoming a bit more expensive for large customers.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  There purpose for existing and our reasons for coming don't need to be the same. Very few readers/posters have a ycombinator startup. Stronger feelings towards YC ideals would be found on the private ycominator channel. The goal of facebook is some meta universe. Most users go on to write a friend..
  - scarface74 4y ago
    How many readers and posters on HN do you think work for a startup where they are hoping their equity in a private VC backed company will be worth something? How many posters work for one of those “evil monopolist” where a great percentage of their livelihood is based on their RSUs doing well? Even if you do work for a private profitable “lifestyle business” that is profitable and was bootstrapped, I bet your company’s owners would sell their company in a heartbeat if the right “monopolist” pulled up with a truck load of money.
- dasil003 4y ago
  I’m not sure why you think that 100% market freedom ought to be this audience’s primary index of importance. Many of us own or work for companies that will likely be negatively impacted by this. Antitrust has been systematically marginalized over the last 40 years, and despite prevailing narratives, this is not necessarily a net good for entrepreneurs.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Is that the new rule of thumb - that no company should be allowed to acquire any other company if some customers are negatively impacted?
    - dasil003 4y ago
      Sorry, is what the new rule of thumb? My comment did not mention anything about customers, so not sure where your straw man is coming from.
- Jasper_ 4y ago
  Many of us think the VC approach to business has perverse incentives and is fundamentally broken, with large exits basically demanding megacorp purchases, who then hand large dividends back to the investors behind the scheme. No matter who loses, the house always wins. I post here in spite of YC and pg, who I both dislike equally very much.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Even though you don’t like how VCs operate, you are taking advantage of a product (HN) that is funded by them. But yet, the founders of Figma shouldn’t be able to maximize their returns?

scarface74 4y ago

It amazes me that people posting on a YC controlled board whose entire purpose for existing is to fund startups long enough to get an exit - statistically most likely through an acquisition by a bigger company - wants to stop acquisitions. The funding environment for startups would be a lot worse if investors thought that the only way they could recoup their investments is through exits. Look how few of YC companies actually go public. Even companies that do go public are often just surviving long enough to hopefully get acquired. The founders at Figma chose to be acquired. It’s their product and their company.

sofixa 4y ago
> wants to stop acquisitions. Who said that? The point is that anticompetitive acquisitions, like Adobe acquiring a direct competitor, hurt everyone but the acquirer, and should be tightly controlled. Nobody would care if Figma were getting acquired by GitLab or Salesforce or Atlassian or whatever. The fact that it's a direct competitor known for destroying acquisitions is the problem.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Why would Gitlab want Figma? Could it afford it? I am sure the owners of Figma thought this was the best available option. It’s their company - not yours or the governments. If they want to sell their property it’s theirs to sell. Would Gitlab make it a better product if it was sold to them?
  - sofixa 4y ago
    The best for the acquirers and acquired isn't necessarily, and is in fact rarely, the best for the consumers at large. Unless you want to end up in an abusive relationship in all of your transactions, governments should intervene to keep things level, competitive and innovative.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Would you want the government telling you how to sell your company?
      - sofixa 4y ago
        Fuck yes. The government is there for everyone. I want to not be abused as a consumer by for instance having a single ISP, phone manufacturer, etc. etc. price gouging me and everyone else, and i practice what i preach. In a similar vein, i don't want trash on the ground, so i inconvenience myself by collecting my trash and throwing it at the appropriate places. You know, normal "sacrifices" one does as the cost of participating in a society.
        scarface74 4y ago
        Until the government is run by people with ideals that are not the same as yours…
    - mr90210 4y ago
      Go read about history, maybe you’ll be able to rethink about wanting the government involved.
      - sofixa 4y ago
        "history". Yes, that concise and short read that just tells you government bad. Do you have anything in particular in mind? I really struggle to find an excuse for not wanting to involve government regulations in obvious cases like monopolies almost monopolies. Even some libertarians, who are far from being a logical bunch of people, agree with this (alongside safety regulations and sometimes even infrastructure). The free market cannot function properly when it concerns externalities, infrastructure with high upfront costs, monopolies/oligopolies.
smilespray 4y ago
Many of us are current Figma users who actively avoid Adobe products because they are overpriced crap. Parts of the Adobe software suite has more than 30 years of technical debt, and it shows. What's so hard to understand?
- scarface74 4y ago
  I understand why people like Figma. But just because you don’t like that Figma is selling their company doesn’t mean that the government should be involved. When a group of people thought they wanted a better operating system and databases that can’t be acquired - they created an open source offering. They didn’t depend on government intervention.
  - ryder9 4y ago
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    Did that group of people include Larry Ellison?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      No but it did include the people who wrote MySQL (twice) and Postgres. It also included Linux and BSD. No one has ever said that they really wish Oracle was open source and that they would jump at the chance to use it.
      - selimthegrim 4y ago
        My point was he essentially used the CIA and the US government to basically steal some other company’s software and slap the Oracle badge on it.
kristopolous 4y ago
Some people are more committed to a functioning society than market exploitation.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Are you employed by a for profit company?
  - kristopolous 4y ago
    Don't be insufferable.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      I’m just calling out the hypocrisy of people tsk tsking those evil capitalist pigs while feeding from those same troughs.
      - kristopolous 4y ago
        There's a difference of degrees. Just because I draw a salary doesn't mean I should be worshiping every greedy bastard on the planet. We're all in a society that does things we want to change. We're not these atomic beings floating through space. Complex nuanced thought is the hallmark of intellect, I'm sure we can do this.
        scarface74 4y ago
        Sure you could, if you have the courage of your convictions you could have a pursued a career in public service and worked for a non profit. Did you do that?
        kristopolous 4y ago
        You don't know my convictions and are projecting them on to me. This kind of abuse of power dynamic is directly conflicting Hayek's view on competition and on antitrust from 1946. There's this modern ideology of reactionary fealty to every abuse of power like some masochist vigorously shaking pom poms at every market exploit and cheering "thank you, give me more!" You know how utterly indefensible that position is and so instead of even attempting to do that you try to pry into my personal life and imagine you've found inconsistencies from which you mount a personal attack on my character. Give me a break. A company buying up its competition to dismantle it is garbage and plenty of even Austrian economists agree. Living a life a charity isn't required to see when an emperor wears no clothes.
nine_k 4y ago
It's not the acquisition itself. It's what company acquires it. Adobe is the IBM of creative tools. (If not Oracle.) OTOH being acquired by a behemoth company always feels uneasy for the product. Imagine an acquisition by Google, or Facebook, or Microsoft, or even Apple. I bet people would start imaging how Firma were to deteriorate under their corporate governance. Ideally an acquired company is just left as is, and used as a cash cow, resulting just in the products becoming a bit more expensive for large customers.
ipaddr 4y ago
There purpose for existing and our reasons for coming don't need to be the same. Very few readers/posters have a ycombinator startup. Stronger feelings towards YC ideals would be found on the private ycominator channel. The goal of facebook is some meta universe. Most users go on to write a friend..
- scarface74 4y ago
  How many readers and posters on HN do you think work for a startup where they are hoping their equity in a private VC backed company will be worth something? How many posters work for one of those “evil monopolist” where a great percentage of their livelihood is based on their RSUs doing well? Even if you do work for a private profitable “lifestyle business” that is profitable and was bootstrapped, I bet your company’s owners would sell their company in a heartbeat if the right “monopolist” pulled up with a truck load of money.
dasil003 4y ago
I’m not sure why you think that 100% market freedom ought to be this audience’s primary index of importance. Many of us own or work for companies that will likely be negatively impacted by this. Antitrust has been systematically marginalized over the last 40 years, and despite prevailing narratives, this is not necessarily a net good for entrepreneurs.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Is that the new rule of thumb - that no company should be allowed to acquire any other company if some customers are negatively impacted?
  - dasil003 4y ago
    Sorry, is what the new rule of thumb? My comment did not mention anything about customers, so not sure where your straw man is coming from.
Jasper_ 4y ago
Many of us think the VC approach to business has perverse incentives and is fundamentally broken, with large exits basically demanding megacorp purchases, who then hand large dividends back to the investors behind the scheme. No matter who loses, the house always wins. I post here in spite of YC and pg, who I both dislike equally very much.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Even though you don’t like how VCs operate, you are taking advantage of a product (HN) that is funded by them. But yet, the founders of Figma shouldn’t be able to maximize their returns?