5 ms·

I see a lot of people in the thread thinking this is a good thing, it's not. First of all the reason for the UK not allowing the merger is completely absurd an

I see a lot of people in the thread thinking this is a good thing, it's not. First of all the reason for the UK not allowing the merger is completely absurd and based on a false premise which is most likely based on not understanding the field they are regulating. Regulation based on speculation about the future means that regulators can simply just make up reasons. Thats akin to when kings could just make up reason for their ruling. We were supposed to move away from that so that rule of law was the base. Second, the fact that the UK can kill a deal like this is wildly problematic and unfortunately not the first time. They did the same with Facebook and Giphy where it made no sense either. It's immature and they obviously aren't understanding the field they regulate. Talk about undermining the growth of society. Lastly I see a lot of people saying exits is not a good thing and shouldn't be the purpose. But the fact is that a healthy M&A culture is good for startups as that will encourage investors. Once you start killing the ability for exits by introducing such unquantifiable into the settings you are making investors more nervous of spending their money and much more risk averse. Sad.

airstrike 3y ago
You're surely entitled to your opinion. It doesn't mean you're right. I tend to agree the CMA is pushing some esoteric arguments in their rulings, but I don't thinks deal is at all like Facebook / Giphy. "A healthy M&A culture" isn't undone by a single deal being pulled, especially when that deal is clearly an anti-competitive one. Also if anything, Adobe overpaid for Figma given it was one of the last deals before Tech stocks properly melted, so even Adobe shareholders can be happy with this outcome
- ThomPete 3y ago
  You are right its not like Facbook/Giphy, it's worse and we aren't talking about a single deal being pulled but multiple. It's not clearly anti-competitive in fact if anything in the B2B space M&A done by bigger companies is where products go to die and opens up for a whole new set of competitors.
barnabee 3y ago
There is no way a company Adobe's size should ever be allowed to grow by acquisition. At a certain point that route needs to be cut off forever.
- ThomPete 3y ago
  You don't measure this on the size of the company but on market share. By that definition of course it should be allowed. There are many powerful competitors in this space Canva being just one of them.
  - airstrike 3y ago
    Canva is nowhere near Adobe. Adobe is the dominant software seller for creatives. Figma and Canva are the two only notable competitors to have emerged in the past 10 years or so. Doing away with one of them isn't better for society.
    - ThomPete 3y ago
      Canva is 5 times bigger than Adobe Express which is how you compare the two. Adobe don't dominate 3D, illustration, ads, video and I could go on.
  - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
    Depending on how exactly you segment the market, Adobe's market share is somewhere between 33% and 75%. The runner-up is in the single digits. In my view, the case for blocking this acquisition couldn't be any clearer. If Adobe wants to grow in this space, it should make better software or cut prices or both.
    - ThomPete 3y ago
      You have to segment it into the verticals. Canva is 5 times bigger if not more than Adobe Express which is the equivalent. Substance is miniscule in the 3d market compared to Max, Softimage, Maya etc. Adobe is big because of the many vertical they are in, not because they own them.

airstrike 3y ago

You're surely entitled to your opinion. It doesn't mean you're right. I tend to agree the CMA is pushing some esoteric arguments in their rulings, but I don't thinks deal is at all like Facebook / Giphy. "A healthy M&A culture" isn't undone by a single deal being pulled, especially when that deal is clearly an anti-competitive one. Also if anything, Adobe overpaid for Figma given it was one of the last deals before Tech stocks properly melted, so even Adobe shareholders can be happy with this outcome

ThomPete 3y ago
You are right its not like Facbook/Giphy, it's worse and we aren't talking about a single deal being pulled but multiple. It's not clearly anti-competitive in fact if anything in the B2B space M&A done by bigger companies is where products go to die and opens up for a whole new set of competitors.

barnabee 3y ago

There is no way a company Adobe's size should ever be allowed to grow by acquisition. At a certain point that route needs to be cut off forever.

ThomPete 3y ago
You don't measure this on the size of the company but on market share. By that definition of course it should be allowed. There are many powerful competitors in this space Canva being just one of them.
- airstrike 3y ago
  Canva is nowhere near Adobe. Adobe is the dominant software seller for creatives. Figma and Canva are the two only notable competitors to have emerged in the past 10 years or so. Doing away with one of them isn't better for society.
  - ThomPete 3y ago
    Canva is 5 times bigger than Adobe Express which is how you compare the two. Adobe don't dominate 3D, illustration, ads, video and I could go on.
- fauigerzigerk 3y ago
  Depending on how exactly you segment the market, Adobe's market share is somewhere between 33% and 75%. The runner-up is in the single digits. In my view, the case for blocking this acquisition couldn't be any clearer. If Adobe wants to grow in this space, it should make better software or cut prices or both.
  - ThomPete 3y ago
    You have to segment it into the verticals. Canva is 5 times bigger if not more than Adobe Express which is the equivalent. Substance is miniscule in the 3d market compared to Max, Softimage, Maya etc. Adobe is big because of the many vertical they are in, not because they own them.