Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

Adobe Defends Its $20 Billion Deal for Figma (axios.com) 19

Adobe executives think there's a lot that critics of its $20 billion purchase of Figma are missing. From a report: In a meeting with Axios, Adobe general counsel Dana Rao defended the deal's price tag and highlighted why Adobe believes it needs Figma to help shape the design-software giant's broader future. Adobe XD just wasn't cutting it. It was a product designed for a single user sitting at a PC in a world that wants cloud-based tools for real-time multi-user collaboration. After seven years of investment, Adobe XD was bringing in just $15 million in annual recurring revenue on a standalone basis -- a minuscule fraction of Figma's $400 million annual recurring revenue. (That, in turn, is a minuscule fraction of Adobe's overall annual revenue of $17 billion.)

Adobe has essentially put XD on ice, assigning just 20 employees to the product in what it sees as "maintenance mode." Figma has more than 800 people. Adobe needs a rethink for the cloud era. Its current efforts have been about bringing its existing tools to the web. The Figma deal offers help with the longer-term challenge of "reimagining the whole thing," in Rao's words. Adobe Express is an early homegrown attempt, but Rao said Figma will help the company fully reinvent itself for the next era of design. Rao said over time Figma customers will benefit from Adobe's other resources, including its troves of fonts and stock imagery.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Defends Its $20 Billion Deal for Figma

Comments Filter:
  • They want to pay 50 times *gross* *revenue*?! Isn't that a bit much?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Adobe's overall annual revenue of $17 billion

      If a company that big can't figure things out, tough shit. Adobe's incompetence is their problem.

      All corporate mergers and acquisitions reduce competition and in the long run harm consumers. None should be allowed when it involves a company as big as Adobe.

    • Clearly you don't get paid millions a year to come to such brilliant decisions, you'd never understand it!

  • As a rule, a company that buys another company, always overpay. And it's a bad signal, it means that you are not capable of doing what the other company is doing, but trust that they will keep doing it when they are under your management.

    • Rule #2: The failures that led to this point are the result of bad employees, not bad executives (from the exec PoV of course)
    • by PCM2 ( 4486 )

      As a rule, a company that buys another company, always overpay. And it's a bad signal, it means that you are not capable of doing what the other company is doing, but trust that they will keep doing it when they are under your management.

      Well, "overpay" is sort of relative. Of course you pay more than the company is currently worth. Otherwise, what's their incentive to accept the offer? It would also be a signal to your shareholders that you don't actually have much faith in the business, so they might vote to reject the merger.

    • by MpVpRb ( 1423381 )

      Another rule
      When a company is acquired, it's never good news for the customers

  • I remember when the 1.6B $ that Google paid for YouTube was considered complete lunacy.
    And nowadays, double digit billion dollar acquisicions of relatively obcure tech companies barely make the news.
    How can any of these number make any sense?
    • Same way the stock market makes sense/cents.

      No one gives a shit about sanity or common sense in finance if the right people are getting rich.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Friday September 23, 2022 @05:00PM (#62908969)

    No, it's quite clear you're just eliminating another competitor.

    • by PCM2 ( 4486 )

      No, it's quite clear you're just eliminating another competitor.

      I experienced one of those. We were a very small startup and we were acquired by a very large company in the open source software business that already had a product that was substantially similar, if not indistinguishable from our own flagship product. The problem was that we were winning deals. Barring some extraordinary level of 24/7 support, we offered nearly everything the big guys did, and we were cheaper. The big guys knew it, and they knew that once a customer signed a deal with us, the big guys wer

  • by gibbons ( 949775 ) on Friday September 23, 2022 @05:07PM (#62908989)
  • by DarmokandJalad ( 10147593 ) on Friday September 23, 2022 @05:10PM (#62908997)
    Figma is the de facto market leader in collaborative design. Adobe is an expensive also-ran. The buy out stinks of anticompetitive behavior. The FTC must step in to stop the takeover. We cannot allow Adobe to become a monopoly. Consumers will suffer higher prices and decreased innovation.
  • One thing that Adobe can argue is that Figma is a relatively young company. So it proves that the barrier to entry is not high. However, the shareholders will then question the CEO, why buy and not develop?

  • by Walt Dismal ( 534799 ) on Friday September 23, 2022 @08:55PM (#62909495)
    I have used both Figma and Visio, and Figma is basically Visio for the web. The base functionality is much the same but terribly limited compared to Visio. All Microsoft has to do is extend its MS Visio to do proper web collaboration (making it browser-based with all the functions admittedly is not a walk in the park), and then tell Adobe to go suck eggs on its 20 billion folly. Also, Adobe has the reverse Midas touch anyway - I have had too many problems with their incompetence on products, issues with their lack of support, rats nest ecosystem. It is a bureaucracy driven by the native culture of its foreign-born management these days, and that culture's incompetent offshore programmer hordes.
  • Figma balls.
  • ...is a Figma of Adobe's imagination?

2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League

Working...