4 ms·
I think it's fine if no one starts vampiric companies that dump free services on the public destroying the perceived value of software for the purpose of a fast
by whatisthiseven 3y ago
I think it's fine if no one starts vampiric companies that dump free services on the public destroying the perceived value of software for the purpose of a fast unicorn exit. Of course, these companies always look to advertising for funding so they are obtrusive.
Unless you are thinking of real companies that would be affected by this ban? Retail stores don't care about this ban. Companies that sell real products wouldn't care. If they sell real software services and plan to turn a positive profit rather than exit this wouldn't impact anyone other than unicorn chasers, which are bad for everyone.
- matthewowen 3y agoBut Figma isn’t a vampiric company dumping free services for the purpose of a fast exit. It’s been around for over a decade and charges _more_ for its principal product than Adobe charges for comparable products. So by your own definition, real companies are affected by this!
- ivan_gammel 3y agoThe company will probably do well for the reasons you mentioned, only some late shareholders are affected. A good exit for the economy would be actually an IPO.
- Lutger 3y agoI didn't know Figma was going bankrupt, is it?
- matthewowen 3y agoI don’t see the relevance of that question: outcomes for companies fall onto positivity/negativity ranges beyond merely a bankrupt / not bankrupt bjnary.
- whatisthiseven 3y agoI'm also ok with mega corps not buying smaller companies. It encourages further mega-corpification.