4 ms·

Of course not, I would be selfish and want the billion dollars. But maybe a culture of creating small companies out of VC capital only to be acquired by megacor

Of course not, I would be selfish and want the billion dollars. But maybe a culture of creating small companies out of VC capital only to be acquired by megacorps is not the best way forward for society. I also don't like paying taxes, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any.

robbiemitchell 4y ago
Figma turned ~$330M in investments into a $20B outcome and gave countless companies a better way to do their work. How is this a bad path for society?
- m3at 4y ago
  I think you misread, the parent agree with you that Figma created value, the issue is the acquisition by Adobe that might stop or slow this.
  - supportlocal4h 4y ago
    Perhaps you misunderstand that Figma was motivated to create value. A large part of the motivation for many startups is an exit plan wherein they get bought out by established competitors. If you prevent such purchases, you eliminate a major factor in creating the value to begin with.
    - bmitc 4y ago
      What are you are are describing are bad motivations. It’s like wanting a salary when volunteering. One doesn’t actually care about value if the only motivation to create said value is to get obscene amounts of money.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        They weren’t creating a company for the “good of mankind”. Most non profits have plenty of paid staff. In fact, there is a Ted Talk about non profits and why their employees should get paid well. https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou...
        bmitc 4y ago
        > They weren’t creating a company for the “good of mankind”. I feel most VC blurbs disagree with that, although of course that’s not their actual motivation. I don’t see how non-profits are relevant other than as examples of companies/organizations that do actually provide value in lieu of massive gains and profit. And I think you missed my point as I was responding to: > If you prevent such purchases, you eliminate a major factor in creating the value to begin with.
        scarface74 4y ago
        And you believe what the VCs say?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - ryanisnan 4y ago
      The point of the stock market is to trade and build wealth. Yet we have agreed insider trading should be illegal, because it ruins the game for everyone. Anti-trust laws are similar.
    - anders_p 4y ago
      > Perhaps you misunderstand that Figma was motivated to create value. A large part of the motivation for many startups is an exit plan wherein they get bought out by established competitors. > If you prevent such purchases, you eliminate a major factor in creating the value to begin with. You're basically saying that they wouldn't have made Figma if they'd only been able to sell it for 15 billion. Same tired argument as the "unless you lower taxes on the wealthiest even more, they'll stop creating jobs!" (Even though the taxes haven't been lower in history than they are right now). People do stuff even though there are anti-trust laws limiting how many tens of billions they get out of it. As long as there's insane profits to be made, there'll still be an incentive. Selling out to the market leader, creating a virtual monopoly that harms the consumers in the long run, isn't the only way to make money on a start-up. Far from it.
      - supportlocal4h 4y ago
        If Figma had sold to, say... Autodesk for $15B would that be an anti-trust issue for you? What if they sold to Google? I'm pretty wary of monopoly abuse. But I'm also very wary of entitled people (including myself sometimes) demanding that somebody else has the responsibility to create great stuff for free to make their life better. It's beyond my ability to create an amazing electric vehicle so somebody else should be required to do it and give it to me for free or else it is an anti-trust violation. Somebody else should make something as good or better than SolidWorks or Fusion or XD for free or else AutoDesk/Adobe/MS/Alphabet/... are harmful monopolists. I don't like Adobe or AutoDesk or MS or Meta or many others companies. I disagree with many of their behaviors for various reasons. I think some of what they do is or should be illegal. But I think misguided consumption is more often the root problem. And it is a mistake to punish those who take advantage of misguided consumption in a way that encourages more misguided consumption and entitlement.
- afavour 4y ago
  Because now that it's owned by Adobe they no longer have competition for their XD product. They will likely merge both, resulting in an inferior product. They'll then jack up the price, hurting countless companies that have gotten used to a better way to do their work. But I'm very glad they generated income for their shareholders.
- krferriter 4y ago
  I would prefer the investors just get paid back plus ROI using the value and revenue the company generates, instead of the standard being just merging the company into a larger one.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Well, if you would like that, you are free to start your own company, find the talent and the like minded investors and take the prerequisite risks to create a company that meets your ideals. But Figma is a private company and the founders get to choose who they sell to.
    - geodel 4y ago
      Yeah, exactly right. People here are saying "I pay 20 dollar a month for something, now whole universe must stay same forever lest that 20 dollar thing disappear"
- mschuster91 4y ago
  I think the problem with VC that GP means is more a systemic one - it's not specific or even applicable to Figma, but for other large VC projects. It's fine if a company like Figma takes VC to build a good product that fills a niche that hasn't been explored before and uses the VC to grow and eventually exit to the general public market so that the investors get their return. It's not fine if larger companies like Adobe can simply swoop in and pay billions to get rid of a competitor, although that one should be dealt with by anti-trust agencies anyway. It's not fine if a company like Uber uses cheap VC money to price-dump against essential services - and yes, taxis are essential for those without a car, and the anti-discrimination frameworks make sure that access to them is fairly available to everyone, no matter why they would need a taxi for. Uber, in contrast, routinely got associated with everything from wage dumping over racism [1] to extorting people with excessive surge charges [2]. It's not fine if a company like AirBnB uses cheap VC money to wreak havoc on local rental markets [3][4] or to run effectively hotel-like operations in residential zones, while conveniently ignoring things such as fire codes [5], neighbors' quality of life [6], taxes [7] or that people (both guests and hosts) were and are randomly banned for "background checks" [8][9], a return of ages-old banned housing discrimination. Society definitely needs a hard regulation on anything where VC is involved. [1] https://venturebeat.com/ai/researchers-find-racial-discrimination-in-dynamic-pricing-algorithms-used-by-uber-lyft-and-others/ https://venturebeat.com/ai/researchers-find-racial-discrimin... [2] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/drivers-cancelling-the-ride-surge-pricing-top-issues-for-consumers-who-book-app-based-taxis-survey/articleshow/90718955.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/... [3] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/ferienwohnungen-stehen-leer-und-werden-normalen-mietern-angeboten-befristet-5063002.html https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/ferienwohnungen-stehen-le... [4] https://travelnoire.com/the-airbnb-effect-on-an-already-high-cost-shrinking-housing-market?item=2 https://travelnoire.com/the-airbnb-effect-on-an-already-high... [5] https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2018/July-August-2018/Features/The-Airbnb-Challenge https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-medi... [6] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/living-next-to-airbnb-sharing-economy-problems https://www.wired.co.uk/article/living-next-to-airbnb-sharin... [7] https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-state/airbnb-targeted-by-states-suspecting-tax-collection-shortfalls https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-state/airbnb-... [8] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/spotlight/2018/06/28/airbnb-bans-some-civil-rights-policing-usa/706148002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/spotlight/201... [9] https://www.airbnbhell.com/banned-from-airbnb-over-background-check/ https://www.airbnbhell.com/banned-from-airbnb-over-backgroun...
randomdata 4y ago
What would the alternative be? There will always come a day when founders and investors want to move on. Retirement age comes faster than you might think. Even if you deny an exit strategy, the principals are still going to stop eventually, and the product will still come to an end at that time. Allowing a sale at least provides an opportunity for the product to live on, even if there can be no guarantees about how the next guy decides to treat it. Traditionally, when a product doesn't want to be lost, the customers will pool their resources together and offer a buyout. That seemingly didn't happen, so Adobe probably is the next best thing. Adobe is a public company, so the public still has the ability to shape its future.
- joshmanders 4y ago
  > What would the alternative be? Donate it to the Earth. https://www.patagonia.com/ownership/ https://www.patagonia.com/ownership/
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  There are always options besides selling the whole company to a giant competitor, the difference is just that you won’t get as high of a return if there are fewer bidders in the marketplace. A company like figma could have always just gone public if the founders/investors just wanted to get out.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > A company like figma could have always just gone public if the founders/investors just wanted to get out. The company has gone public (or will shortly) and is now at the mercy of the public shareholder. Which is specifically the concern here. The worry is that the public shareholders, who aren't necessarily users and are only shareholders out of interest in profit, will see more value in squashing the product than carrying on. The users pooling resources would have been the logical buyer, to keep out of the general public with competing interest's hands, but seemingly they didn't want the company, so...
    - wbsss4412 4y ago

robbiemitchell 4y ago

Figma turned ~$330M in investments into a $20B outcome and gave countless companies a better way to do their work. How is this a bad path for society?

m3at 4y ago
I think you misread, the parent agree with you that Figma created value, the issue is the acquisition by Adobe that might stop or slow this.
- supportlocal4h 4y ago
  Perhaps you misunderstand that Figma was motivated to create value. A large part of the motivation for many startups is an exit plan wherein they get bought out by established competitors. If you prevent such purchases, you eliminate a major factor in creating the value to begin with.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    What are you are are describing are bad motivations. It’s like wanting a salary when volunteering. One doesn’t actually care about value if the only motivation to create said value is to get obscene amounts of money.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      They weren’t creating a company for the “good of mankind”. Most non profits have plenty of paid staff. In fact, there is a Ted Talk about non profits and why their employees should get paid well. https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou...
      - bmitc 4y ago
        > They weren’t creating a company for the “good of mankind”. I feel most VC blurbs disagree with that, although of course that’s not their actual motivation. I don’t see how non-profits are relevant other than as examples of companies/organizations that do actually provide value in lieu of massive gains and profit. And I think you missed my point as I was responding to: > If you prevent such purchases, you eliminate a major factor in creating the value to begin with.
        scarface74 4y ago
        And you believe what the VCs say?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - ryanisnan 4y ago
    The point of the stock market is to trade and build wealth. Yet we have agreed insider trading should be illegal, because it ruins the game for everyone. Anti-trust laws are similar.
  - anders_p 4y ago
    > Perhaps you misunderstand that Figma was motivated to create value. A large part of the motivation for many startups is an exit plan wherein they get bought out by established competitors. > If you prevent such purchases, you eliminate a major factor in creating the value to begin with. You're basically saying that they wouldn't have made Figma if they'd only been able to sell it for 15 billion. Same tired argument as the "unless you lower taxes on the wealthiest even more, they'll stop creating jobs!" (Even though the taxes haven't been lower in history than they are right now). People do stuff even though there are anti-trust laws limiting how many tens of billions they get out of it. As long as there's insane profits to be made, there'll still be an incentive. Selling out to the market leader, creating a virtual monopoly that harms the consumers in the long run, isn't the only way to make money on a start-up. Far from it.
    - supportlocal4h 4y ago
      If Figma had sold to, say... Autodesk for $15B would that be an anti-trust issue for you? What if they sold to Google? I'm pretty wary of monopoly abuse. But I'm also very wary of entitled people (including myself sometimes) demanding that somebody else has the responsibility to create great stuff for free to make their life better. It's beyond my ability to create an amazing electric vehicle so somebody else should be required to do it and give it to me for free or else it is an anti-trust violation. Somebody else should make something as good or better than SolidWorks or Fusion or XD for free or else AutoDesk/Adobe/MS/Alphabet/... are harmful monopolists. I don't like Adobe or AutoDesk or MS or Meta or many others companies. I disagree with many of their behaviors for various reasons. I think some of what they do is or should be illegal. But I think misguided consumption is more often the root problem. And it is a mistake to punish those who take advantage of misguided consumption in a way that encourages more misguided consumption and entitlement.
afavour 4y ago
Because now that it's owned by Adobe they no longer have competition for their XD product. They will likely merge both, resulting in an inferior product. They'll then jack up the price, hurting countless companies that have gotten used to a better way to do their work. But I'm very glad they generated income for their shareholders.
krferriter 4y ago
I would prefer the investors just get paid back plus ROI using the value and revenue the company generates, instead of the standard being just merging the company into a larger one.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Well, if you would like that, you are free to start your own company, find the talent and the like minded investors and take the prerequisite risks to create a company that meets your ideals. But Figma is a private company and the founders get to choose who they sell to.
  - geodel 4y ago
    Yeah, exactly right. People here are saying "I pay 20 dollar a month for something, now whole universe must stay same forever lest that 20 dollar thing disappear"
mschuster91 4y ago
I think the problem with VC that GP means is more a systemic one - it's not specific or even applicable to Figma, but for other large VC projects. It's fine if a company like Figma takes VC to build a good product that fills a niche that hasn't been explored before and uses the VC to grow and eventually exit to the general public market so that the investors get their return. It's not fine if larger companies like Adobe can simply swoop in and pay billions to get rid of a competitor, although that one should be dealt with by anti-trust agencies anyway. It's not fine if a company like Uber uses cheap VC money to price-dump against essential services - and yes, taxis are essential for those without a car, and the anti-discrimination frameworks make sure that access to them is fairly available to everyone, no matter why they would need a taxi for. Uber, in contrast, routinely got associated with everything from wage dumping over racism [1] to extorting people with excessive surge charges [2]. It's not fine if a company like AirBnB uses cheap VC money to wreak havoc on local rental markets [3][4] or to run effectively hotel-like operations in residential zones, while conveniently ignoring things such as fire codes [5], neighbors' quality of life [6], taxes [7] or that people (both guests and hosts) were and are randomly banned for "background checks" [8][9], a return of ages-old banned housing discrimination. Society definitely needs a hard regulation on anything where VC is involved. [1] https://venturebeat.com/ai/researchers-find-racial-discrimination-in-dynamic-pricing-algorithms-used-by-uber-lyft-and-others/ https://venturebeat.com/ai/researchers-find-racial-discrimin... [2] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/drivers-cancelling-the-ride-surge-pricing-top-issues-for-consumers-who-book-app-based-taxis-survey/articleshow/90718955.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/... [3] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/ferienwohnungen-stehen-leer-und-werden-normalen-mietern-angeboten-befristet-5063002.html https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/ferienwohnungen-stehen-le... [4] https://travelnoire.com/the-airbnb-effect-on-an-already-high-cost-shrinking-housing-market?item=2 https://travelnoire.com/the-airbnb-effect-on-an-already-high... [5] https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2018/July-August-2018/Features/The-Airbnb-Challenge https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-medi... [6] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/living-next-to-airbnb-sharing-economy-problems https://www.wired.co.uk/article/living-next-to-airbnb-sharin... [7] https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-state/airbnb-targeted-by-states-suspecting-tax-collection-shortfalls https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-state/airbnb-... [8] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/spotlight/2018/06/28/airbnb-bans-some-civil-rights-policing-usa/706148002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/spotlight/201... [9] https://www.airbnbhell.com/banned-from-airbnb-over-background-check/ https://www.airbnbhell.com/banned-from-airbnb-over-backgroun...

randomdata 4y ago

What would the alternative be? There will always come a day when founders and investors want to move on. Retirement age comes faster than you might think. Even if you deny an exit strategy, the principals are still going to stop eventually, and the product will still come to an end at that time. Allowing a sale at least provides an opportunity for the product to live on, even if there can be no guarantees about how the next guy decides to treat it. Traditionally, when a product doesn't want to be lost, the customers will pool their resources together and offer a buyout. That seemingly didn't happen, so Adobe probably is the next best thing. Adobe is a public company, so the public still has the ability to shape its future.

joshmanders 4y ago
> What would the alternative be? Donate it to the Earth. https://www.patagonia.com/ownership/ https://www.patagonia.com/ownership/
wbsss4412 4y ago
There are always options besides selling the whole company to a giant competitor, the difference is just that you won’t get as high of a return if there are fewer bidders in the marketplace. A company like figma could have always just gone public if the founders/investors just wanted to get out.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > A company like figma could have always just gone public if the founders/investors just wanted to get out. The company has gone public (or will shortly) and is now at the mercy of the public shareholder. Which is specifically the concern here. The worry is that the public shareholders, who aren't necessarily users and are only shareholders out of interest in profit, will see more value in squashing the product than carrying on. The users pooling resources would have been the logical buyer, to keep out of the general public with competing interest's hands, but seemingly they didn't want the company, so...
  - wbsss4412 4y ago