No, the interests of companies and customers are usually at odds with big mergers.

Competition is good for customers, it means different things get tried so there’s more diversity in products and pressure to compete on lower prices.

Figma is not selling to gain any efficiency or benefit from being included in Adobe, people are just looking for a pay day.

These kind of just payday mergers along with private equity profit by destruction mergers need a lot of regulatory backpressure because they simply aren’t in the interests of anybody but the people profiting from them.

Only if there is active competition between similarly sized companies with the customers able to move unhindered between them.

Antitrust regulators have long since been forbidden to use their diminishing powers to make that a reality.

Companies aren’t your friends. They exist to maximize what customers will pay in exchange for the minimum effort on their part.

It's good for adobe and figma employees/shareholders, but bad for figma as a product / new sub-business

Generally, companies obtaining a monopoly position is bad for consumers.

I agree so hard that I rage posted the same idea with less polite wording. Sorry for not reading your comment first.

If a company fires all human customer service and leaves you only with bots to interact with, it's a great saving for them, it's the worst case scenario for human customers.

Depends on the customer. The equity has customers too.

That whole market was Photoshop and Illustrator for a long time. That changed because of better and cheaper alternatives (like Sketch).

They have tried and failed to get it back and now seem to have given up on competing and just bought the competition instead.

It's also not just UI. Figma is a very capable vector and general purpose graphic tool. Figma made a lot of common things much easier than they are in Illustrator and Photoshop. While being online and fully collaborative. It's really an amazing tool and imo Adobe was rightfully threatened by it as I don't believe they could deliver anything close. It would just continue taking over more use cases.

Adobe has XD, which is a direct competitor to Figma as a vector based design tool that includes prototyping functionality.

People are moving away from designing in photoshop to figma in large numbers hence the 20bn.

There are use cases where Figma and Adobe already directly compete:

- Product wireframes/mockups

- Memes/social media posts

- Simple vector creation/editing

And that list is only expanding.

Somehow, the dynamic where a company is an organization of humans to be used to further some human cause was reversed, so now humans are elements of a corporation to be used to further the cause of the corporation. We've gone from running companies in service of humans to running humans in service of companies.

Something is broken if a company like Adobe can hold its customers hostage by subscription.

Buying Figma, apparently

> a star destroyer

Come on. Twitter is bad, but not that bad.

Acquisitions from the acquirer side always tank the stock, the acquired always get a bump. The down market and the $20B spend is why it is down.

From an ADBE perspective, this actually is a good long term move and shouldn't be such a hit.

From Figmas perspective, I am sure this was one of their hopeful outcomes.

If people here don't like the outcome, then I wonder if they know what type of game they support. This is the game with VC/growth/exits.

How can you tell what the market thinks about this decision when a company's stock price is a function of what is happening publicly at the company AND externally in the economy? How do you separate the 2 drivers?

How was Nginx affecting F5’s business?

Would valuations not be discounted on interest rate futures, not overnight? Or am I missing a piece?