5 ms·

I am going to say it: blocking the Figma acquisition was the wrong call. The result is that the ability for startups to exit via acquisition has been severely c

I am going to say it: blocking the Figma acquisition was the wrong call. The result is that the ability for startups to exit via acquisition has been severely curtailed. This would have been an OK move if there was more anti monopoly enforcement on FAANG (plus MS and Adobe) but there isn’t. The result is established players get to dump sub standard products on the market and remove the oxygen from the room for competition to emerge.

pclmulqdq 2y ago
Lina Khan has done more to kill the startup market than anyone else in the world. But it's okay because she's making sure there's enough competition in the market for mid-range luxury handbags.
- BoiledCabbage 2y ago
  > kill the startup market than anyone No, what killed the startup market is that people now have to pay for money. There is a whole lot of junk people are willing to do when money is effectively free. When people have to actually pay for money, all of that crap goes out the window.
nine_zeros 2y ago
> I am going to say it: blocking the Figma acquisition was the wrong call. The result is that the ability for startups to exit via acquisition has been severely curtailed. On the flip side, it has also helped customers who are now benefiting from the competition between Figma and Adobe. The quality of Figma has only improved since, and I am happy for them to earn my dollars.
stackskipton 2y ago
People are expecting too much with anti monopoly enforcement. Google is on round two with anti trust. Read here if you want to know more https://www.bigtechontrial.com/ https://www.bigtechontrial.com/ (Sponsor is very into anti monopoly) However, this is 50 year of court inertia she is trying change. It doesn’t go fast.
outlore 2y ago
It was still the right call for the consumer though. Otherwise we’d see it become another enshittified creative cloud product.
- kfarr 2y ago
  "To provide the best experience during our transition to Adobe, Figma users will now be required to download and install Adobe Update Manager native application running 24/7 with file access in order to use this web-based application."
solardev 2y ago
Wrong call for who? Adobe has a track record of absorbing and abandoning or stagnating excellent products. I loved Figma and hate Adobe, and many of its users felt similarly. It would've made investors rich, yes, but it would've taken one of the gems of the internet away from its community. I, for one, and very glad that deal got blocked.
- fidotron 2y ago
  For the economy as a whole, and the quality of products in it. I would refer people to JumpCrisscross’ remarks which are clearer than my own, such as: “The reason anti-trust action has chilled M&A is because there were only four strategic buyers. Due to decades of failed anti-trust.” People are way too emotional about Figma and Adobe and do not see the forest for the trees.
  - t_mann 2y ago
    So you start by saying anti-trust action is negative for the economy, then quote someone who says we should have more anti-trust action?
    - fidotron 2y ago
      I clearly stated at the top that they had failed to perform anti monopoly measures against FAANG and co. and this was the actual root of the problem. Until Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft are broken up, or seriously splintered, other anti trust action is not merely irrelevant but counter productive as it just entrenches the positions of the established players.
      - BoiledCabbage 2y ago
        Ensuring Adobe can't squash competition helps FAANG? No. Ensuring market competition helps consumers. An investment industry whose endgame is destroying the product they created by selling it to their competitor is not an industry we need. IPO is a positive societal exit. Selling to another investor is a positive societal exit. Selling to a competitor so the can smother it should've never been a primary exit and that's being fixed. That's a good thing.
spamizbad 2y ago
Nah, they just lost the game of musical chairs. We need to move away from the mindset of companies getting built to be acquired and then all their product innovation gets snuffed out and their users suffer: it's wasted economic output.
tsycho 2y ago
I am less sure about the Figma acquisition[1] in particular, but overall, I strongly agree with the general point that blanket blocking nearly-all acquisitions by Big Tech (except Microsoft for some reason) is wrong and short-term populism. More startups and more innovation gets created when founders have higher hopes of a positive exit, and in turn, this is good for the world at large. When a startup becomes FCF positive quickly, and can sustain their growth, they generally don't want to get acquired (eg: Facebook, Snap...) and generally aim for an eventual public IPO. But this is a high bar, which only a small number of companies reach. The ones that do choose to get acquired, often do so because they are not as optimistic about their own sustainable growth as outsiders might think. If they can't make a reasonable exit via an acquisition, then their equity becomes zero and their years are wasted. From a founder point of view, acquisitions act as a significant floor of value for the time and effort that the founders and employees are risking. This negative Expected Value risk taking drives innovation and growth for all, significantly curtailing acquisitions makes it severely more negative EV. Worse, the impact of this will not be felt immediately so the new FTC will be able to claim political and populist wins; it will show up in reduced startup creation in the years to come. [1] Figma feels like it has a reasonable chance of surviving on its own, and become genuinely disruptive to Adobe in the future. But if it dies and goes to zero, then I will feel sad and unhappy that the acquisition was blocked.
- dvrp 2y ago
  plausible, but dylan and early employees seem rich
- dmvdoug 2y ago
  Yes, won’t someone think of the poor founders and their desire to exit?
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    Do you want founders or not want founders? Because this is why founders are founders.
    - 2y ago

pclmulqdq 2y ago

Lina Khan has done more to kill the startup market than anyone else in the world. But it's okay because she's making sure there's enough competition in the market for mid-range luxury handbags.

BoiledCabbage 2y ago
> kill the startup market than anyone No, what killed the startup market is that people now have to pay for money. There is a whole lot of junk people are willing to do when money is effectively free. When people have to actually pay for money, all of that crap goes out the window.

nine_zeros 2y ago

> I am going to say it: blocking the Figma acquisition was the wrong call. The result is that the ability for startups to exit via acquisition has been severely curtailed. On the flip side, it has also helped customers who are now benefiting from the competition between Figma and Adobe. The quality of Figma has only improved since, and I am happy for them to earn my dollars.

stackskipton 2y ago

People are expecting too much with anti monopoly enforcement. Google is on round two with anti trust. Read here if you want to know more https://www.bigtechontrial.com/ https://www.bigtechontrial.com/ (Sponsor is very into anti monopoly) However, this is 50 year of court inertia she is trying change. It doesn’t go fast.

outlore 2y ago

It was still the right call for the consumer though. Otherwise we’d see it become another enshittified creative cloud product.

kfarr 2y ago
"To provide the best experience during our transition to Adobe, Figma users will now be required to download and install Adobe Update Manager native application running 24/7 with file access in order to use this web-based application."

solardev 2y ago

Wrong call for who? Adobe has a track record of absorbing and abandoning or stagnating excellent products. I loved Figma and hate Adobe, and many of its users felt similarly. It would've made investors rich, yes, but it would've taken one of the gems of the internet away from its community. I, for one, and very glad that deal got blocked.

fidotron 2y ago
For the economy as a whole, and the quality of products in it. I would refer people to JumpCrisscross’ remarks which are clearer than my own, such as: “The reason anti-trust action has chilled M&A is because there were only four strategic buyers. Due to decades of failed anti-trust.” People are way too emotional about Figma and Adobe and do not see the forest for the trees.
- t_mann 2y ago
  So you start by saying anti-trust action is negative for the economy, then quote someone who says we should have more anti-trust action?
  - fidotron 2y ago
    I clearly stated at the top that they had failed to perform anti monopoly measures against FAANG and co. and this was the actual root of the problem. Until Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft are broken up, or seriously splintered, other anti trust action is not merely irrelevant but counter productive as it just entrenches the positions of the established players.
    - BoiledCabbage 2y ago
      Ensuring Adobe can't squash competition helps FAANG? No. Ensuring market competition helps consumers. An investment industry whose endgame is destroying the product they created by selling it to their competitor is not an industry we need. IPO is a positive societal exit. Selling to another investor is a positive societal exit. Selling to a competitor so the can smother it should've never been a primary exit and that's being fixed. That's a good thing.

spamizbad 2y ago

Nah, they just lost the game of musical chairs. We need to move away from the mindset of companies getting built to be acquired and then all their product innovation gets snuffed out and their users suffer: it's wasted economic output.

tsycho 2y ago

I am less sure about the Figma acquisition[1] in particular, but overall, I strongly agree with the general point that blanket blocking nearly-all acquisitions by Big Tech (except Microsoft for some reason) is wrong and short-term populism. More startups and more innovation gets created when founders have higher hopes of a positive exit, and in turn, this is good for the world at large. When a startup becomes FCF positive quickly, and can sustain their growth, they generally don't want to get acquired (eg: Facebook, Snap...) and generally aim for an eventual public IPO. But this is a high bar, which only a small number of companies reach. The ones that do choose to get acquired, often do so because they are not as optimistic about their own sustainable growth as outsiders might think. If they can't make a reasonable exit via an acquisition, then their equity becomes zero and their years are wasted. From a founder point of view, acquisitions act as a significant floor of value for the time and effort that the founders and employees are risking. This negative Expected Value risk taking drives innovation and growth for all, significantly curtailing acquisitions makes it severely more negative EV. Worse, the impact of this will not be felt immediately so the new FTC will be able to claim political and populist wins; it will show up in reduced startup creation in the years to come. [1] Figma feels like it has a reasonable chance of surviving on its own, and become genuinely disruptive to Adobe in the future. But if it dies and goes to zero, then I will feel sad and unhappy that the acquisition was blocked.

dvrp 2y ago
plausible, but dylan and early employees seem rich
dmvdoug 2y ago
Yes, won’t someone think of the poor founders and their desire to exit?
- paulddraper 2y ago
  Do you want founders or not want founders? Because this is why founders are founders.
  - 2y ago