5 ms·

What a non-interview. I’m not expecting Adobe to kill Figma or raise the price overnight. I’m not angry about any of that, I’m angry that I’ve now built team w

What a non-interview. I’m not expecting Adobe to kill Figma or raise the price overnight. I’m not angry about any of that, I’m angry that I’ve now built team workflows around a product that means I have to pay money to a company that doesn’t spend it on making products better and relies on vendor lock-in to propagate. Could have asked if they think selling to Adobe has limited the potential of what Figma could accomplish. Could have asked about how users who supported them as a solution against Adobe might feel betrayed. But you didn’t. Great journalism guys.

skrebbel 4y ago
Both those questions could, and would, be answered with the usual “trust us, it’ll be great!!” message that every acquisition announcement contains.
Kolja 4y ago
I've repeatedly heard the sentiment from interviewers that it's not worth the time asking questions you know you won't get an answer to. As a sibling noted, both of your questions can reasonably fall into that category. Not disagreeing, just lamenting the sad state of journalism nowadays, at least as I perceive it.
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  I’d have to ask why even do the interview at all then. Like I can save everyone involved a lot of time and just imagine the interview if you’re not gonna ask a difficult question.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I assume it is PR. Previously, broadcasters and their journalists held some bargaining power in interviews such that in exchange for being able to access a broad population, the interviewee would be willing to subject themselves to the journalist’s questions. The internet kind of obviated that role, so now there is no need for an interviewee to subject themselves to questions they do not want, because they can reach everyone they want at no cost by putting up a blog post on their website.
    - unicornmama 4y ago
      Bingo. Discard this so-called interview as a fluff piece. It provides no signal.
- city17 4y ago
  Sometimes the lack of an answer can be just as telling, making it still worth asking even if they won't answer the question directly.
- AmalgatedAmoeba 4y ago
  A good interviewer would then ask follow up questions to either get a straight answer or highlight the absence thereof. Unfortunately, much of the mainstream tech "journalism" is just repackaged press releases written by people hoping to get hired by the very same companies that they "report" on. Thence the softball questions and toothless interviews all in an effort to not upset any potential future employers.
scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago
I believe Matt Stoller, who studies and writes about monopolies is collecting feedback about the effects of this merger on professionals in the industry [0]. From the sound of it you could be a valuable voice in there. The merger will probably have to go through approval in DC. Perhaps if sufficient evidence is collected it could be blocked in accordance with anti-trust law. He wrote about how there is a heap of evidence about Adobe’s history of mergers and acquisitions which only lead to reduction of consumer choice. [0] https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/should-the-government-block-the-adobe https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/should-the-government-blo...
- vwoolf 4y ago
  I can't understand why the Figma purchase isn't being blocked for antitrust. Have we learned nothing??
  - scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago
    Definitely over the past two years antitrust went from a niché topic that nobody knew anything about to front page news. Something definitely did change. With Lina Khan heading FTC antitrust and public sentiment on board I think we can expect real progress in the coming years. However, it is also clear that discrete and methodical protection of monopoly power is also significant source of stability and income for all political parties.
krn 4y ago
> Could have asked if they think selling to Adobe has limited the potential of what Figma could accomplish. Could have asked about how users who supported them as a solution against Adobe might feel betrayed. Well, it's a business, not a non-profit. In business everything is for sale at any moment in time, if the price is high enough. Especially, when there are multiple shareholders with different goals. As an entrepreneur he simply did his job: he built an extremely valuable company and took the best deal he could probably get for it. Maybe a few years later he won't even be with Adobe anymore. Just like the founders of Instagram and Whatsapp are no longer with Meta.
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  Building tools to dethrone Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects IS a good business though. You’ve essentially swapped just over 1 year of Adobe revenue for a quick exit instead of building the system that delivers $15B+ yearly by dethroning them. Claiming this is a good move is the same as claiming selling the iPhone or Android to Nokia for short term profit would have been a good business move. Lots of people shared the same sentiment you just did about Instagram selling to FB. Look at them now, if IG had continued alone the idea to sell to FB would be a joke at this point.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    > Claiming this is a good move is the same as claiming selling the iPhone or Android to Nokia for short term profit would have been a good business move. There is no objective “good” or “bad” move. If the owner feels like selling and that helps them meet their goals in life, then that is “good” for them. If iPhone or Android owners want to bet they can usurp Nokia and want to take on more risk, then that is “good” for them.
  - pharmakom 4y ago
    Or maybe they just sold RiM or HTC at the peak. Certainty has significant value.
  - krn 4y ago
    > You’ve essentially swapped just over 1 year of Adobe revenue for a quick exit instead of building the system that delivers $15B+ yearly by dethroning them. The question for Figma was, if they would ever reach $20B+ market cap after an IPO, and how long it would take them to do so. The decision to sell to Adobe was surely based on many calculations. Just like Whatsapp's decision to sell to Facebook for $19B. > Claiming this is a good move is the same as claiming selling the iPhone or Android to Nokia for short term profit would have been a good business move. Android Inc. was a company sold to Google in 2005 for short term profit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#His... Where would Android be now without the backing of Google? Where would iPhone be now without the backing of Apple? > Lots of people shared the same sentiment you just did about Instagram selling to FB. Look at them now, if IG had continued alone the idea to sell to FB would be a joke at this point. There are multiple accounts of how many resources, human capital, and know-how Facebook put into Instagram to scale it. The same can be said about YouTube in the hands of Google. You would probably say, that selling Vine to Twitter was a great decision, because it got eventually shut down as being worthless. But look at where Bytedance is with TikTok now.

skrebbel 4y ago

Both those questions could, and would, be answered with the usual “trust us, it’ll be great!!” message that every acquisition announcement contains.

Kolja 4y ago

I've repeatedly heard the sentiment from interviewers that it's not worth the time asking questions you know you won't get an answer to. As a sibling noted, both of your questions can reasonably fall into that category. Not disagreeing, just lamenting the sad state of journalism nowadays, at least as I perceive it.

whywhywhywhy 4y ago
I’d have to ask why even do the interview at all then. Like I can save everyone involved a lot of time and just imagine the interview if you’re not gonna ask a difficult question.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I assume it is PR. Previously, broadcasters and their journalists held some bargaining power in interviews such that in exchange for being able to access a broad population, the interviewee would be willing to subject themselves to the journalist’s questions. The internet kind of obviated that role, so now there is no need for an interviewee to subject themselves to questions they do not want, because they can reach everyone they want at no cost by putting up a blog post on their website.
  - unicornmama 4y ago
    Bingo. Discard this so-called interview as a fluff piece. It provides no signal.
city17 4y ago
Sometimes the lack of an answer can be just as telling, making it still worth asking even if they won't answer the question directly.
AmalgatedAmoeba 4y ago
A good interviewer would then ask follow up questions to either get a straight answer or highlight the absence thereof. Unfortunately, much of the mainstream tech "journalism" is just repackaged press releases written by people hoping to get hired by the very same companies that they "report" on. Thence the softball questions and toothless interviews all in an effort to not upset any potential future employers.

scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago

I believe Matt Stoller, who studies and writes about monopolies is collecting feedback about the effects of this merger on professionals in the industry [0]. From the sound of it you could be a valuable voice in there. The merger will probably have to go through approval in DC. Perhaps if sufficient evidence is collected it could be blocked in accordance with anti-trust law. He wrote about how there is a heap of evidence about Adobe’s history of mergers and acquisitions which only lead to reduction of consumer choice. [0] https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/should-the-government-block-the-adobe https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/should-the-government-blo...

vwoolf 4y ago
I can't understand why the Figma purchase isn't being blocked for antitrust. Have we learned nothing??
- scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago
  Definitely over the past two years antitrust went from a niché topic that nobody knew anything about to front page news. Something definitely did change. With Lina Khan heading FTC antitrust and public sentiment on board I think we can expect real progress in the coming years. However, it is also clear that discrete and methodical protection of monopoly power is also significant source of stability and income for all political parties.

krn 4y ago

> Could have asked if they think selling to Adobe has limited the potential of what Figma could accomplish. Could have asked about how users who supported them as a solution against Adobe might feel betrayed. Well, it's a business, not a non-profit. In business everything is for sale at any moment in time, if the price is high enough. Especially, when there are multiple shareholders with different goals. As an entrepreneur he simply did his job: he built an extremely valuable company and took the best deal he could probably get for it. Maybe a few years later he won't even be with Adobe anymore. Just like the founders of Instagram and Whatsapp are no longer with Meta.

whywhywhywhy 4y ago
Building tools to dethrone Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects IS a good business though. You’ve essentially swapped just over 1 year of Adobe revenue for a quick exit instead of building the system that delivers $15B+ yearly by dethroning them. Claiming this is a good move is the same as claiming selling the iPhone or Android to Nokia for short term profit would have been a good business move. Lots of people shared the same sentiment you just did about Instagram selling to FB. Look at them now, if IG had continued alone the idea to sell to FB would be a joke at this point.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  > Claiming this is a good move is the same as claiming selling the iPhone or Android to Nokia for short term profit would have been a good business move. There is no objective “good” or “bad” move. If the owner feels like selling and that helps them meet their goals in life, then that is “good” for them. If iPhone or Android owners want to bet they can usurp Nokia and want to take on more risk, then that is “good” for them.
- pharmakom 4y ago
  Or maybe they just sold RiM or HTC at the peak. Certainty has significant value.
- krn 4y ago
  > You’ve essentially swapped just over 1 year of Adobe revenue for a quick exit instead of building the system that delivers $15B+ yearly by dethroning them. The question for Figma was, if they would ever reach $20B+ market cap after an IPO, and how long it would take them to do so. The decision to sell to Adobe was surely based on many calculations. Just like Whatsapp's decision to sell to Facebook for $19B. > Claiming this is a good move is the same as claiming selling the iPhone or Android to Nokia for short term profit would have been a good business move. Android Inc. was a company sold to Google in 2005 for short term profit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#His... Where would Android be now without the backing of Google? Where would iPhone be now without the backing of Apple? > Lots of people shared the same sentiment you just did about Instagram selling to FB. Look at them now, if IG had continued alone the idea to sell to FB would be a joke at this point. There are multiple accounts of how many resources, human capital, and know-how Facebook put into Instagram to scale it. The same can be said about YouTube in the hands of Google. You would probably say, that selling Vine to Twitter was a great decision, because it got eventually shut down as being worthless. But look at where Bytedance is with TikTok now.