Adobe x Figma
Adobe’s proposed acquisition of Figma has caused a stir in the design community. While the companies involved claim that this move will benefit their products and services, it will instead have detrimental effects that ultimately harm consumers and stifle competition. As someone passionate about design and frustrated by Adobe’s past actions, I am deeply concerned about the consequences of this merger.
ANTI-CONSUMER / ANTI-COMPETITIVE
Adobe has a reputation for high prices, cancellation fees, and a subscription-based business model that many designers find financially unsustainable, particularly in non-US markets. In contrast, Figma has gained popularity with its free tier and reasonably priced paid plan. If the merger continues, Adobe, the company that invented the modern software subscription model, will not allow just Figma to live outside this model indefinitely. Although both companies claim that this won’t happen, I am unconvinced.
The proposed merger has reignited concern about Adobe’s historical performance in maintaining and improving its current suite of creative software. Furthermore, the acquisition of Figma seems even more dubious, considering that Adobe already has a strikingly similar product, XD. If Adobe were committed to being a responsible steward, it would instead strive to improve and compete with XD. If the merger were to go through, I expect Figma’s current level of quality and rate of innovation year over year to drastically diminish.
MONOPOLY MONEY
The merger’s shocking $20 billion price tag reveals that Adobe is more interested in market dominance than in providing better products for its customers. If Adobe were genuinely committed to serving its customers, it would instead allocate these funds to improving its existing products, such as After Effects and XD.
This merger only strengthens Adobe’s current monopoly in the design software market. Adding Figma’s capabilities would only reinforce its stranglehold on the industry. Adobe has a track record of acquiring smaller companies and their products, only to neglect and diminish their products over time. Notable examples include Macromedia Director, Macromedia Flash, and Aldus Freehand. This troubling pattern of behavior has caused concern among many designers and industry experts, who fear that Figma’s product will suffer a similar fate after the proposed merger.
CONCLUSION
The proposed acquisition of Figma by Adobe is a misguided and harmful decision. I’ve been frustrated with Adobe’s actions for years, furthering my concern for the implications of this merger. It is essential that the creative community remains vigilant and holds companies like Adobe accountable for their actions to ensure that the design industry remains competitive and consumer-focused.
We can begin by supporting non-Adobe software like Affinity, Blackmagic Design, and Calvary whenever possible, staying informed about the latest developments in the case, and sharing information with others. Additionally, creatives can reach out to their representatives in Congress to express their concerns about the potential merger and advocate for policies that promote fair competition in the creative software industry. Finally, creatives can support advocacy organizations promoting competition and consumer rights, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen, or the Open Markets Institute.