5 ms·

> 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

by 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.
biztos 4y ago
> 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. Sorry, but: no. There are many ways to work in the world, and certainly one way is to be an amoral mercenary in search of profit. But if you think "the job" of the entrepreneur is simply to have a good exit, well the world would be gravely impoverished if entrepreneurs in general shared your view. The fact that many of the acquiring companies in these stores are still largely controlled by their founders is telling.
- krn 4y ago
  > But if you think "the job" of the entrepreneur is simply to have a good exit, well the world would be gravely impoverished if entrepreneurs in general shared your view. The job of an entrepreneur is to calculate everything and to make the right decision in every situation. There could be many reasons behind the decision to sell to Adobe for $20B: – Maybe reaching the $20B market cap after an IPO would have taken a very long time for Figma on its own; – Maybe were was an extremely high risk of Adobe acquiring another competitor or building a competitive product in-house; – Maybe the investors wanted the have an exit now, 10 years after the company's creation; – Maybe the founders had other ideas they wanted to work after their vesting with Adobe expires. > The fact that many of the acquiring companies in these stores are still largely controlled by their founders is telling. For some companies the right exit is IPO, for others – acquisitions. But if they took any money from investors, they must have an exit.
  - biztos 4y ago
    You're right, my comment was overblown (night-posting) and I wasn't even reacting to the Figma acquisition but rather to the general implication that entrepreneurs should want money as opposed to wanting to create a good thing (like Figma!) in the world. In the best case they want both. I wish both Figma and Adobe well, and I hope they do cool stuff together.

by krn 4y ago

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.

biztos 4y ago

> 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. Sorry, but: no. There are many ways to work in the world, and certainly one way is to be an amoral mercenary in search of profit. But if you think "the job" of the entrepreneur is simply to have a good exit, well the world would be gravely impoverished if entrepreneurs in general shared your view. The fact that many of the acquiring companies in these stores are still largely controlled by their founders is telling.

krn 4y ago
> But if you think "the job" of the entrepreneur is simply to have a good exit, well the world would be gravely impoverished if entrepreneurs in general shared your view. The job of an entrepreneur is to calculate everything and to make the right decision in every situation. There could be many reasons behind the decision to sell to Adobe for $20B: – Maybe reaching the $20B market cap after an IPO would have taken a very long time for Figma on its own; – Maybe were was an extremely high risk of Adobe acquiring another competitor or building a competitive product in-house; – Maybe the investors wanted the have an exit now, 10 years after the company's creation; – Maybe the founders had other ideas they wanted to work after their vesting with Adobe expires. > The fact that many of the acquiring companies in these stores are still largely controlled by their founders is telling. For some companies the right exit is IPO, for others – acquisitions. But if they took any money from investors, they must have an exit.
- biztos 4y ago
  You're right, my comment was overblown (night-posting) and I wasn't even reacting to the Figma acquisition but rather to the general implication that entrepreneurs should want money as opposed to wanting to create a good thing (like Figma!) in the world. In the best case they want both. I wish both Figma and Adobe well, and I hope they do cool stuff together.