5 ms·

Strangely enough every actor here is doing the right thing. Adobe is serving their shareholder interests by munching up the competition, Figma is selling to Ad

Strangely enough every actor here is doing the right thing. Adobe is serving their shareholder interests by munching up the competition, Figma is selling to Adobe because of the reasons you outlined, and the regulators are stepping in to represent the interests of the public. This is very much the system working as-designed

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
No, something is off: > The $20 billion purchase price for Figma equated to 50 times its forecast $400 million annualized recurring revenues in 2022 If you think that serves Adobe shareholder interest, you are mistaken.
- ideamotor 4y ago
  It only serves their interest if it creates a monopoly.
- freeqaz 4y ago
  What's growth rate on that revenue though? If it's like 20-30% growth per year... you're talking a pretty short amount of time (3-5 years) until that revenue multiplier is at parity with many publicly traded tech companies.
- DrewADesign 4y ago
  Out of context? Sure. But Adobe isn't going to just buy it, operate it, and collect its revenue. Adobe rightfully sees itself standing on the edge of a cliff. Adobe XD, despite having some great features, was handily clobbered in the market first by Sketch, and then by the vastly lighter-weight Figma. Beyond that, Figma has a great, intuitive, smooth interface for making vector graphics. It's not nearly as powerful as Illustrator, but easily does what most interface and web designers need, and that's probably a huge chunk of Illustrator's market rather than the more intensive digital artist users. If they lose Illustrator, the ecosystem is a lot less valuable. Photoshop has significant competition from relative newcomers and print media, etc. made in InDesign is has much less gravity than it used to. So rather than trying to make better and more innovative products in earnest, they're going to try to buy and suppress their competition just like Autodesk and so many other dinosaur graphics companies.
  - kitsunesoba 4y ago
    I would say that for many users, Photoshop suffers from feature bloat even more than Illustrator does. In my personal usage, nothing that’s been added since CS1/CS2 has much meaningful impact. Heck rewinding to 7.x or even 6.x would pose only minor inconveniences.
    - DrewADesign 4y ago
      Sure, but in terms of broad software design industrial adoption, which is the only relevant metric when looking at Figma, those users wouldn't factor in. Anyone tinkering with old standalone versions of Adobe programs would not likely become paying Adobe Ecosystem customers regardless of how great the new Photoshop features were. Most companies just pop users into their corporate CC site license and give them a brand new fast laptop to run it on and be done with it. It's basically SAAS at this point.
      - 7speter 4y ago
        Except now its a malware minefield to try and acquire old adobe software
        TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        But used packqged software on eBay.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Creating a monopoly is in every business's interest.
oldgradstudent 4y ago
> This is very much the system working as-designed The system was designed to criminalize any attempt to monopolize, not just block the transaction. The Sherman antitrust act was quite clear about it: > Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Later it was made a felony. It is not enforced this way by the courts.
- meany 4y ago
  Are you suggesting that Adobe and Figma executives should be criminally charged with an attempt to monopolize the market? Edit: I looked up the justice department’s stance. From: https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you The Sherman Antitrust Act This Act outlaws all contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate and foreign trade. This includes agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate customers, which are punishable as criminal felonies. The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct. The Act, however, is not violated simply when one firm's vigorous competition and lower prices take sales from its less efficient competitors; in that case, competition is working properly.
  - oldgradstudent 4y ago
    Yes. Or at least join the queue. It it turns out, as almost everyone suspects, that Adobe is buying Figma not because Figma will be a source of revenue, but mainly to prevent competition, then it's a clear violation of the Sherman antitrust act and should be punished accordingly. Before then in the front of the queue should be companies like Uber whose entire business plan was dumping to destroy the existing taxi industry, and then have the monopoly power to raise prices. That's a pure monopoly play.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago

No, something is off: > The $20 billion purchase price for Figma equated to 50 times its forecast $400 million annualized recurring revenues in 2022 If you think that serves Adobe shareholder interest, you are mistaken.

ideamotor 4y ago
It only serves their interest if it creates a monopoly.
freeqaz 4y ago
What's growth rate on that revenue though? If it's like 20-30% growth per year... you're talking a pretty short amount of time (3-5 years) until that revenue multiplier is at parity with many publicly traded tech companies.
DrewADesign 4y ago
Out of context? Sure. But Adobe isn't going to just buy it, operate it, and collect its revenue. Adobe rightfully sees itself standing on the edge of a cliff. Adobe XD, despite having some great features, was handily clobbered in the market first by Sketch, and then by the vastly lighter-weight Figma. Beyond that, Figma has a great, intuitive, smooth interface for making vector graphics. It's not nearly as powerful as Illustrator, but easily does what most interface and web designers need, and that's probably a huge chunk of Illustrator's market rather than the more intensive digital artist users. If they lose Illustrator, the ecosystem is a lot less valuable. Photoshop has significant competition from relative newcomers and print media, etc. made in InDesign is has much less gravity than it used to. So rather than trying to make better and more innovative products in earnest, they're going to try to buy and suppress their competition just like Autodesk and so many other dinosaur graphics companies.
- kitsunesoba 4y ago
  I would say that for many users, Photoshop suffers from feature bloat even more than Illustrator does. In my personal usage, nothing that’s been added since CS1/CS2 has much meaningful impact. Heck rewinding to 7.x or even 6.x would pose only minor inconveniences.
  - DrewADesign 4y ago
    Sure, but in terms of broad software design industrial adoption, which is the only relevant metric when looking at Figma, those users wouldn't factor in. Anyone tinkering with old standalone versions of Adobe programs would not likely become paying Adobe Ecosystem customers regardless of how great the new Photoshop features were. Most companies just pop users into their corporate CC site license and give them a brand new fast laptop to run it on and be done with it. It's basically SAAS at this point.
    - 7speter 4y ago
      Except now its a malware minefield to try and acquire old adobe software
      - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        But used packqged software on eBay.
HDThoreaun 4y ago
Creating a monopoly is in every business's interest.

oldgradstudent 4y ago

> This is very much the system working as-designed The system was designed to criminalize any attempt to monopolize, not just block the transaction. The Sherman antitrust act was quite clear about it: > Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Later it was made a felony. It is not enforced this way by the courts.

meany 4y ago
Are you suggesting that Adobe and Figma executives should be criminally charged with an attempt to monopolize the market? Edit: I looked up the justice department’s stance. From: https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you The Sherman Antitrust Act This Act outlaws all contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate and foreign trade. This includes agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate customers, which are punishable as criminal felonies. The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct. The Act, however, is not violated simply when one firm's vigorous competition and lower prices take sales from its less efficient competitors; in that case, competition is working properly.
- oldgradstudent 4y ago
  Yes. Or at least join the queue. It it turns out, as almost everyone suspects, that Adobe is buying Figma not because Figma will be a source of revenue, but mainly to prevent competition, then it's a clear violation of the Sherman antitrust act and should be punished accordingly. Before then in the front of the queue should be companies like Uber whose entire business plan was dumping to destroy the existing taxi industry, and then have the monopoly power to raise prices. That's a pure monopoly play.