The end of Adobe’s proposed acquisition of Figma was more than a headline about two software companies. It left businesses with questions about competition, design tools, subscription costs, and the direction of creative work. For companies that rely on Adobe Creative Cloud or collaborative design platforms, the deal’s collapse is a useful reminder to assess software choices on their merits—not on assumptions about a future merger.
Adobe and Figma ended their planned $20 billion transaction in December 2023 after regulatory scrutiny in the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union. The companies said they could not obtain the approvals needed to complete it, and Adobe paid Figma a $1 billion termination fee. The story behind the failed acquisition helps explain why regulators viewed the deal as significant and what its outcome may mean for the market.
Why the proposed deal mattered
Figma had established itself as a browser-based design and prototyping platform built around real-time collaboration. Adobe, meanwhile, has a broad portfolio of creative software, including tools used for image editing, illustration, video, and interface design. The proposed acquisition would have brought a fast-growing collaborative design company under the ownership of a major incumbent.
For regulators, the central concern was not simply whether the combination would make Adobe larger. It was whether absorbing Figma could reduce competition in digital design tools and limit future choices for customers. That question matters to businesses because competition can influence product development, pricing, compatibility, and the pace at which software companies respond to user needs.
What changes for customers now?
Figma continues as an independent company, while Adobe continues to develop and sell its own products. That leaves design teams with more than one major option and no automatic integration between the companies’ product ecosystems. In practical terms, businesses should evaluate tools based on current capabilities, workflows, and costs rather than on features that might have arrived had the acquisition gone through.
-
Compare the work, not just the brand. Test how each platform handles the tasks your team performs most, such as interface mockups, asset production, prototyping, and review.
-
Account for collaboration. A tool’s value depends partly on how easily designers, developers, marketers, and clients can share feedback and keep files organized.
-
Review total cost. Subscription fees are only one factor. Include training, migration, add-ons, and the time required to move projects between systems.
-
Check portability and access. Consider file formats, export options, permissions, and how your team can retrieve work if its needs or vendor arrangements change.
For some organizations, Adobe Creative Cloud remains a practical choice because it offers a connected set of tools and may already fit established production processes. Others may prefer a specialist platform for collaborative interface design. There is no universal winner: team size, project type, existing skills, security requirements, and client expectations all shape the decision.
What the outcome signals about software strategy
The failed transaction illustrates how regulatory review can shape the technology market even when a deal never closes. Large acquisitions can promise faster product integration or broader resources, but they also raise questions about whether customers will retain meaningful alternatives. For smaller software companies, the outcome may also influence how investors and founders think about growth, partnerships, and potential exits.
Businesses should treat vendor concentration as a planning issue, not an abstract policy debate. If one provider supplies several essential services, review how a pricing change, product retirement, or shift in support could affect operations. Maintaining current documentation, training staff on transferable skills, and avoiding unnecessary dependence on proprietary workflows can make a company more resilient.
Connect software decisions to business goals
Design software is only one part of a company’s digital presence. A business website, for example, may need brand assets, interface design, copy, development, and testing before it is ready to launch. The schedule depends on the project’s scope, the number of decision-makers, and how quickly feedback is provided. A useful planning overview is how long a business website can take to build.
Once the work is defined, a business can decide which tasks belong in-house and where outside expertise makes sense. Osdire is one marketplace where buyers can hire freelancers across areas such as programming, design, writing, and marketing. Whichever route a company chooses, a clear brief, agreed milestones, and a named approver help prevent avoidable delays and rework.
Conclusion
The Adobe–Figma deal did not produce a combined company, so customers can continue to assess the two businesses as separate providers. The larger lesson is to make software decisions around measurable needs: the work a tool supports, how well it fits team processes, and what it costs over time. By revisiting those factors regularly, organizations can stay flexible as design products—and the competition between their makers—continue to evolve.