7 ms·

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?

by t_mann 2y ago

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.
  - fidotron 2y ago
    > Ensuring Adobe can't squash competition helps FAANG? Absolutely. The whole subject of this article is the difficulty of startups securing late stage funding. This means a lot less competition for FAANG. Look at how Meta has not needed to buy anyone in ages and is essentially fine, yet historically was spending vast amounts. Only tiktok, with clear state support, has come close to disrupting anything slightly. Were it not for the AI wave the tech world would be a trainwreck right now.
    - BoiledCabbage 2y ago
      > The whole subject of this article is the difficulty of startups securing late stage funding. This means a lot less competition for FAANG. It was never true or long term competition if FAANG just buys them up. That isn't actual market competition if it only exists for a blink of time. You've misdiagnosed the problem. The problem was letting Meta buy up all of it's competition until almost nobody wants to compete in it's market. The problem was exactly letting market leaders buy up their competition. The bad thing you said is what's being prevented here and somehow you're against it. That line of reasoning doesn't follow. You're arguing your conclusion as your premise. This is a question of is it good for market leaders to be able to buy up their competition? And the answer is "no".
      - fidotron 2y ago
        > The problem was letting Meta buy up all of it's competition until almost nobody wants to compete in it's market It is almost like I said this right at the start and you are all ignoring it. Punishing a relatively small player (Adobe) has had this knock on effect on the entire ecosystem that coincidentally benefits the larger players by making their already big positions unassailable. Follow the second order effects here. Edit to add: > The bad thing you said is what's being prevented here and somehow you're against it. That line of reasoning doesn't follow. The point is that in a world that tolerates the ongoing existence of FAANG (+Adobe +Microsoft +Oracle etc.) as the monopolies they already are you must allow large acquisitions in order to enable the emergence of new competitors, either directly or as a result of the founders making a second shot. Otherwise their defensive moat is just hilarious. The absolute best option is to break up the monopolies, then be stricter about their emergence in future i.e. through blocking acquisitions. But you cannot do this by starting at the end like this, as it makes it worse.
        BoiledCabbage 2y ago
        > The point is that in a world that tolerates the ongoing existence of FAANG (+Adobe +Microsoft +Oracle etc.) as the monopolies they already are you must allow large acquisitions in order to enable the emergence of new competitors You keep asserting this without any evidence. I keep explaining why this is false. Instead of asserting it again, would you mind explaining how you view that Adobe being allowed to purchase Figma in anyway increases competition with any FANNG companies?
        fidotron 2y ago
        > You keep asserting this without any evidence. I keep explaining why this is false. You keep failing to read what I wrote. > Instead of asserting it again, would you mind explaining how you view that Adobe being allowed to purchase Figma in anyway increases competition with any FANNG companies? You are the one making assertions with no evidence. You even make assertions about what I have said which are obviously wrong.
- t_mann 2y ago
  So anti-trust action is good against FAANG and bad against Adobe? What's the general principle here?
  - fidotron 2y ago
    You lot are so blinded by Adobe hate you cannot even read what I actually wrote.
    - Apocryphon 2y ago
      Or you are so blinded by big four hate that you cannot apply the same principles to all wannabe big fours.
      - fidotron 2y ago
        “FAANG and co. ” Means Adobe are included, as it says at the very top. Stopping them buying Figma achieves nothing good. Their monopoly is on print and publishing tools, and no one has been close to them since the actual crime of the acquisition of Macromedia and subsequent killing of Freehand. Had Figma been bought at the valuation Adobe were offering the founders would, given a few years, be free to leverage their expertise and now vast resources on whatever is more valuable at the time, and now that is lost.
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        As other responses to your original post have pointed out, it's quite likely Adobe would have turned Figma into yet another saas offering, dubiously supported and with onerous bloatware, and consumers would be left high and dry when it is inevitably sunsetted.
        fidotron 2y ago
        They will enshittify regardless of if Adobe buy them or not. Now though you will certainly suffer because when Figma inevitably goes to hell the only remaining option will be the janky self hosted clone as no one will be able to fund proper competition for it or any replacement.

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?

by 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.
- fidotron 2y ago
  > Ensuring Adobe can't squash competition helps FAANG? Absolutely. The whole subject of this article is the difficulty of startups securing late stage funding. This means a lot less competition for FAANG. Look at how Meta has not needed to buy anyone in ages and is essentially fine, yet historically was spending vast amounts. Only tiktok, with clear state support, has come close to disrupting anything slightly. Were it not for the AI wave the tech world would be a trainwreck right now.
  - BoiledCabbage 2y ago
    > The whole subject of this article is the difficulty of startups securing late stage funding. This means a lot less competition for FAANG. It was never true or long term competition if FAANG just buys them up. That isn't actual market competition if it only exists for a blink of time. You've misdiagnosed the problem. The problem was letting Meta buy up all of it's competition until almost nobody wants to compete in it's market. The problem was exactly letting market leaders buy up their competition. The bad thing you said is what's being prevented here and somehow you're against it. That line of reasoning doesn't follow. You're arguing your conclusion as your premise. This is a question of is it good for market leaders to be able to buy up their competition? And the answer is "no".
    - fidotron 2y ago
      > The problem was letting Meta buy up all of it's competition until almost nobody wants to compete in it's market It is almost like I said this right at the start and you are all ignoring it. Punishing a relatively small player (Adobe) has had this knock on effect on the entire ecosystem that coincidentally benefits the larger players by making their already big positions unassailable. Follow the second order effects here. Edit to add: > The bad thing you said is what's being prevented here and somehow you're against it. That line of reasoning doesn't follow. The point is that in a world that tolerates the ongoing existence of FAANG (+Adobe +Microsoft +Oracle etc.) as the monopolies they already are you must allow large acquisitions in order to enable the emergence of new competitors, either directly or as a result of the founders making a second shot. Otherwise their defensive moat is just hilarious. The absolute best option is to break up the monopolies, then be stricter about their emergence in future i.e. through blocking acquisitions. But you cannot do this by starting at the end like this, as it makes it worse.
      - BoiledCabbage 2y ago
        > The point is that in a world that tolerates the ongoing existence of FAANG (+Adobe +Microsoft +Oracle etc.) as the monopolies they already are you must allow large acquisitions in order to enable the emergence of new competitors You keep asserting this without any evidence. I keep explaining why this is false. Instead of asserting it again, would you mind explaining how you view that Adobe being allowed to purchase Figma in anyway increases competition with any FANNG companies?
        fidotron 2y ago
        > You keep asserting this without any evidence. I keep explaining why this is false. You keep failing to read what I wrote. > Instead of asserting it again, would you mind explaining how you view that Adobe being allowed to purchase Figma in anyway increases competition with any FANNG companies? You are the one making assertions with no evidence. You even make assertions about what I have said which are obviously wrong.
t_mann 2y ago
So anti-trust action is good against FAANG and bad against Adobe? What's the general principle here?
- fidotron 2y ago
  You lot are so blinded by Adobe hate you cannot even read what I actually wrote.
  - Apocryphon 2y ago
    Or you are so blinded by big four hate that you cannot apply the same principles to all wannabe big fours.
    - fidotron 2y ago
      “FAANG and co. ” Means Adobe are included, as it says at the very top. Stopping them buying Figma achieves nothing good. Their monopoly is on print and publishing tools, and no one has been close to them since the actual crime of the acquisition of Macromedia and subsequent killing of Freehand. Had Figma been bought at the valuation Adobe were offering the founders would, given a few years, be free to leverage their expertise and now vast resources on whatever is more valuable at the time, and now that is lost.
      - Apocryphon 2y ago
        As other responses to your original post have pointed out, it's quite likely Adobe would have turned Figma into yet another saas offering, dubiously supported and with onerous bloatware, and consumers would be left high and dry when it is inevitably sunsetted.
        fidotron 2y ago
        They will enshittify regardless of if Adobe buy them or not. Now though you will certainly suffer because when Figma inevitably goes to hell the only remaining option will be the janky self hosted clone as no one will be able to fund proper competition for it or any replacement.