4 ms·

Ensuring Adobe can't squash competition helps FAANG? No. Ensuring market competition helps consumers. An investment industry whose endgame is destroying the p

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.
        BoiledCabbage 2y ago
        I will try one last time. You keep making statements of the form "you must do A to get B". I keep asking you to explain why, and your answer is "I already stated it before. You must do A to get B". Either attempt to actually explain the specific link, the specific steps between A and B, or admit there is nothing more you're giving than empty assertions. Someone who refuses to support his/her points is not worth debating.

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.
      - BoiledCabbage 2y ago
        I will try one last time. You keep making statements of the form "you must do A to get B". I keep asking you to explain why, and your answer is "I already stated it before. You must do A to get B". Either attempt to actually explain the specific link, the specific steps between A and B, or admit there is nothing more you're giving than empty assertions. Someone who refuses to support his/her points is not worth debating.