As someone close to UX my entire life, Figma is a well positioned and useful app that has no decent substitute on the Adobe side. It has market share and potentially a huge data moat giving them a leg up on the "AI Designer" problem. Now more than ever, it is worth a lot.
As someone that is only tangentially in the design space, why do you think collaborative design works so poorly? I have noticed that, in engineering reviews, complex backend designs get scrutiny, but rarely "I feel..", "I prefer..." types of comments, whereas frontend teams get all types of those comments. Is it a matter of too many cooks in the kitchen or something else?
It is a bunch of lists, but the UI is sometimes the lists are scrolling horizontally album covers, sometimes they are popping up from menu buttons, sometimes they go full screen and scroll normally, sometimes they are cut short to 5 elements and you cannot see more, sometimes they continue to 20 elements and you can press to see more, sometimes it's a list with headers that all contain more than a presentable number of elements and you have to tap the header to see more, sometimes it's a mix of horizontal and vertical scrolling sections, sometimes it's squares and sometimes it's rectangles, sometimes your whole list is shrunk because of a popup up top that is going through a list of items they want to notify you about but the popups are shown one session at a time, sometimes they have a full screen popup that is going through that list of items, sometimes you are driving your car or trying to find a song for a baby or trying to do your run and you are being shown many different kinds of lists when a simple, scrolling up and down list with a search box would be preferred, but instead there is so much stuff they want to show you in these lists in so many different shapes that you didn't ask for.
Do you know what the provenance of this morass is, at Spotify? There are many, many Figmas, each a UX designer hoping to reinvent the list in their own way, various product managers competing for attention from the user to introduce a Feature and Increase Engagement for their Key Performance Indicators. The user is better served without any of this stuff.
Man, have you seen the Google Maps and Gmail apps? Google doesn't use Figma either, but the ethos isn't unique to Spotify, it is absolutely toxic. The amount of crap I can accidentally tap on while driving using Google Maps, telling me information I absolutely do not care about, trying to get me to Do Something for Some Product Manager's Product: it's negative ROI.
> why do you think collaborative design works so poorly?
To me, using Figma is a symptom of the incompetent people outnumbering the opinionated and competent. It's not so much that collaborative design works poorly, I'm sure it works very well in Apple's design org. But that's not what the Figma product is. It's a holistic social experience of giving 10x as many people the ability to inscribe their opinions and get credit for participating in a project, as corporate people do, which is very valuable to 10 subscribers as opposed to the 1 person actually doing the work. It's a great business!
It’s always been wild to me how incongruous / inconsistent the experience of using Spotify’s web/ios/android apps have been. It points to an organizational mess rather than a Figma mess, but maybe it also shows that Figma doesn’t address the entire picture yet of addressing org level communication and syncing with prod assets
> It points to an organizational mess rather than a Figma mess
The two are related. It's like Conway's law.
Figma has some pretty generic opinions about how apps or shit should be made. (https://www.figma.com/blog/working-well/). Like it has this collaborative editing multiplayer thing going on, but you could just ignore that, many bosses effectively use it to tell subordinates exactly what to do without any feedback. Nonetheless they have countless public materials espousing the things it can do and how using those features to the max, especially collaboration, is the Right Way.
However if your way of doing things aligns with its unique value proposition, such as by requiring many people to collaboratively turn simple lists into confusing lists, that is bad.
If you lean into what Figma writes is "Working Well," you will create an app that looks and feels like Spotify. That is what I am saying. It's on Figma.
This isn't a fringe opinion by any means. SAP users get the most success from conforming their business to the way their SAP vertical solution says to do things. Git is also opinionated.
Jira had an opinionated way of working, Agile is a manifesto for how people should do stuff. One task, exactly one assignee is really radical! You can go and read about Jira and Asana saying "no" when people ask to allow multiple assignees. Trello got rid of that, assign as many people to a card or task as you'd like, it's less opinionated, and in my opinion, it's an inherent flaw. And woe be onto people who use Trello, that is telling me right away that they are going to be slower than Jira and Asana users.
> Figma doesn’t address the entire picture yet
The core dynamic they provide software for - and this is just as true of Google Docs and Sharepoint - is that BigCo employees need to touch things and get credit. Every BigCo I've worked with, without fail. There are like 10 people on meetings, and 9 people don't do anything but they use the stuff they touch and the calendar entries as collateral in their performance reviews.
Adobe dodged a huge bullet with this one.
For an app like that I just need the UX to be "good enough".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification#%3A%7E%3Atext...
I hadn't thought about figma specifically as being a symptom. I'm sure some organizations use it effectively, but I can see how it might spiral out of control to result in an "I'm helping too" sort of ethos, with a poor net outcome.
The poster clearly has an axe to grind with Figma and anyone who is involved with UX decisions at most companies. Being mad at Spotify doesn't mean Figma is worth around 1 years of ARR (assuming they met their 2023 growth)
It's How Capitalism Works™
Yeah... I mean the pre-trained text encoder Firefly uses is filled with copyrighted, unlicensed-for-express-purpose training data.
Firefly is successful in the same sense that DocuSign is, in that it is selling a holistic social experience, but I think maybe don't opine on "legal provenance on their training data" until you have seen the whole pipeline with your own eyes. Sophisticated people sort of know Adobe's claims are bullshit, but what exactly do you expect the community to do, speculate on the exactly zero evidence Adobe has shown of how any of their stuff works?
Anyway, I am pretty sure Adobe is delighted they are not paying $20b for something that is worth way, way less. Like maybe $500m at most.
Meanwhile the people using Figma at many companies are getting laid off. Etsy, Bytedance, Unity Spotify, Salesforce all made massive UX designer cuts.
The real question is, is the thing people are using Figma for even worth $20b? No, no way. Figma users work in the Making Bugs department: they make new buggy things nobody asked for, that aren't lists or spreadsheets but should just be lists and spreadsheets, which makes everything worse. There is nowadays positive ROI to doing less Figmaing. In my opinion there has always been more ROI to doing less Figmaing, to straight up not having those people around and not gathering so many opinions on designing lists from so many stakeholders. That holistic experience is expensive in many ways, and while again you can be successful delivering that, it doesn't mean it makes sense.
Just look at the Spotify app. It's a hot abject mess of absolute garbage UI. They have been diehard Figma users for years. They are the prime example of Figmafication ruining something extremely simple. It's fucking lists! Lists are not worth $20b.