4 ms·

> a clear attempt at Adobe trying to buyout their competition because they can't seem to compete. You paint this like it's a bad thing, that's why many acquisi

> a clear attempt at Adobe trying to buyout their competition because they can't seem to compete. You paint this like it's a bad thing, that's why many acquisitions occur.

karaterobot 3y ago
It would have been a bad thing for consumers, which is why it's good that it was blocked by regulators. I don't believe it's always the case that an acquisition of a competitor by a large company is a bad thing, but it would have been in this one for sure. The only problem is that it ruined my optimism about Figma's leadership and direction without actually changing the status quo at all.
phmqk76 3y ago
Well it is obviously a bad thing, and goes to the heart of antitrust. US regulators understood this clearly all the way up until Reagan, and his DOJ instituted a paradigm shift that let companies get away with obliterating their competition through acquisitions - instead of assessing whether companies could compete in a healthy market, the focus became solely the impact on consumers. That’s why, under this new-ish paradigm, Amazon is fine, because prices are kept low through monopolistic and monopsonistic effects. The EU has a better enforcement paradigm that says a healthy economy can only exist where new market entrants can also earn a living, even if it means consumer prices aren’t the lowest they could possibly be.
wisemang 3y ago
Just because it’s relatively common doesn’t mean it’s good..
ceejayoz 3y ago
> You paint this like it's a bad thing, that's why many acquisitions occur. You paint that like it's a good thing.
- foooorsyth 3y ago
  A lot of founders see it as a good thing -- not everyone wants to stay in the game. Some want a big liquidity event after 10 years of grind and a sale to a large competing company typically yields the biggest windfall.
  - latexr 3y ago
    > A lot of founders see it as a good thing Yes, for themselves. But I doubt anyone on this current thread is a Figma founder, meaning we’re discussing if it’s a good or bad thing for users.
    - foooorsyth 3y ago
      It's a good thing for me for Ferrari to sell me a car for $1 -- doesn't mean that's what should be brought into reality by regulators.
  - MSFT_Edging 3y ago
    It might just be me but I don't think we should structure the economy around how easily founders can sell their business to escape to the next one. All that has done is make mega corps bigger and killed competition.
Kye 3y ago
It's a bad thing if their intention is to buy out the competition, learn nothing from them, shut it down, and continue being something people use for lack of options, not because it's good.
latexr 3y ago
> You paint this like it's a bad thing, that's why many acquisitions occur. The second part of your sentence does not justify the first. Just because something happens a lot does not make it good.
paulddraper 3y ago
It's a bad thing for Adobe that they can't compete. It's a good thing for Figma that they can compete.
hahamaster 3y ago
It's similar to you buying a car because you're unable to make one yourself, really.

> a clear attempt at Adobe trying to buyout their competition because they can't seem to compete. You paint this like it's a bad thing, that's why many acquisitions occur.

karaterobot 3y ago

It would have been a bad thing for consumers, which is why it's good that it was blocked by regulators. I don't believe it's always the case that an acquisition of a competitor by a large company is a bad thing, but it would have been in this one for sure. The only problem is that it ruined my optimism about Figma's leadership and direction without actually changing the status quo at all.

phmqk76 3y ago

Well it is obviously a bad thing, and goes to the heart of antitrust. US regulators understood this clearly all the way up until Reagan, and his DOJ instituted a paradigm shift that let companies get away with obliterating their competition through acquisitions - instead of assessing whether companies could compete in a healthy market, the focus became solely the impact on consumers. That’s why, under this new-ish paradigm, Amazon is fine, because prices are kept low through monopolistic and monopsonistic effects. The EU has a better enforcement paradigm that says a healthy economy can only exist where new market entrants can also earn a living, even if it means consumer prices aren’t the lowest they could possibly be.

wisemang 3y ago

Just because it’s relatively common doesn’t mean it’s good..

ceejayoz 3y ago

> You paint this like it's a bad thing, that's why many acquisitions occur. You paint that like it's a good thing.

foooorsyth 3y ago
A lot of founders see it as a good thing -- not everyone wants to stay in the game. Some want a big liquidity event after 10 years of grind and a sale to a large competing company typically yields the biggest windfall.
- latexr 3y ago
  > A lot of founders see it as a good thing Yes, for themselves. But I doubt anyone on this current thread is a Figma founder, meaning we’re discussing if it’s a good or bad thing for users.
  - foooorsyth 3y ago
    It's a good thing for me for Ferrari to sell me a car for $1 -- doesn't mean that's what should be brought into reality by regulators.
- MSFT_Edging 3y ago
  It might just be me but I don't think we should structure the economy around how easily founders can sell their business to escape to the next one. All that has done is make mega corps bigger and killed competition.

Kye 3y ago

It's a bad thing if their intention is to buy out the competition, learn nothing from them, shut it down, and continue being something people use for lack of options, not because it's good.

latexr 3y ago

> You paint this like it's a bad thing, that's why many acquisitions occur. The second part of your sentence does not justify the first. Just because something happens a lot does not make it good.

paulddraper 3y ago

It's a bad thing for Adobe that they can't compete. It's a good thing for Figma that they can compete.

hahamaster 3y ago

It's similar to you buying a car because you're unable to make one yourself, really.