If you look at Figmas stock price, it started falling right at 11 AM as this news was released.
Anyways, this is 100% a shot at Figma, but also catching Lovable in the crossfire. If anybody from Anthropic is reading this, if you keep developing this with features in Figma and other design tools, you'll have a major hit on your hands.
The folks at Wall Street do not understand this does not replace Figma.
Figma is targeted towards designers who create thoughtful design systems and cohesive UIs and who don't code, while this is targeted towards vibe coders who can't design. Two different circles that intersect to some level.
But like you said, if anthropic adds the tools in Figma, only then they can can take customers from Figma IMO.
>Figma is targeted towards designers who create thoughtful design systems and cohesive UIs and who don't code, while this is targeted towards vibe coders who can't design. Two different circles that intersect to some level.
The challenge is that this sets an expectation of what "design" is, de-valuing the former and shifting us culturally towards the latter and a space where "design" is seen as a subjective visual exercise with little intrinsic value.
I think there's a parallel here in advertising and what AI has done there. It's clearly used nowadays, a seasoned user can probably spot it straight away even if it gets harder over time. Still, it's deemed "good enough". The savings versus having a team and shooting on location etc. can be enormous. Even before this launch, I see it on the web. It's already happening.
Tools like Figma are for an era (and persona) who still wants to have all the various knobs and dials to dial in exactly what they want. And that is one way of working if, like you said people are trying to be more thoughtful and know exactly what they want.
But for the other 95% of people, being able to just say "ok can you make it look more modern" and have 4 variants in 5 mins, (like me) Figma will lose users like me.
But then again I was never a "designer" – more a builder.
> But then again I was never a "designer" – more a builder.
Same here. I work in Claude Code all day long on slightly complex b2b apps, and the builder MVP for what I want to do with Claude.ai, to work on ideas is far simpler.
I just want to be able to create a React artifact prototype on claude.ai, then share it privately with a stakeholder (internal or external.) I want to allow those users to prompt changes, then see their changes in the artifact.
The bespoke design is not what I am really worried about at this phase. For b2b prototype stuff, claude.ai already does an excellent job with just a bit of project-specific prompting.
Why is this shared artifact building not yet doable? This seems "so simple." Yes, maybe some shared artifact specific git to allow version control is required, but is my ask really that hard, or unique?
I'm much closer to your persona than a professional designer. 5 years ago if I was going to spin up a landing page for a side project I was probably getting something mediocre together with bootstrap or material UI. Today I'd probably get something marginally better together with a tool like this. In both scenarios I'd end up with an undifferentiated but acceptable end state.
I've never paid for a figma seat. A couple of employers have so that I can collaborate with designers in the product, but I don't think this changes that.
In an era where it's cheaper and more common to end up at that undifferentiated state, the ability for companies to make their products go above and beyond it is more valuable, not less.
I see this across the board with AI. It lowers the bar to get to passable, but as slop fills the internet we're already seeing people place more value in good products, good writing, good art, thoughtful code architecture, etc. Everyone and their cousin's uber driver is vibe coding a SaaS startup no one's going to pay for right now.
Ah, slopper is hilarious. Too long has the title of builder just been an excuse to make dog shit UI and excusing yourself. If you're going to build user-facing tools, good UI/UX is a requirement not an option. Couldn't imagine this excuse flying in any other industry. Yeah I just made a chair where all 4 legs are different lengths and the back rest is in the middle of the seat, "I'm just more of a builder"
Would you like to attempt a more good faith interpretation on what I meant, and address that (you can even imagine doing this in front a user/client and iterating in minutes with them, ultimately getting even better outcomes), instead of inventing the most un-generous interpretation of what I said, that I'm just adding AI slop?
> > But for the other 95% of people, being able to just say "ok can you make it look more modern" and have 4 variants in 5 mins, (like me) Figma will lose users like me.
This does not describe thoughtful, good work. At best, this will be a one-armed bandit deal where you're gambling on something good in these 5 minutes. It sure sounds like a scenario where you will mostly accidentally end up with something good.
I don’t think I can interpret it in better faith. You’re excusing low quality output by calling yourself a “builder” (meaningless term btw), is “slopper” not an accurate term here? How else would you describe somebody who spends 5 minutes prompting an LLM on one of the most important aspects of a product?
Everyone who creates something is a “builder”, that term doesn’t excuse someone from not putting effort in. I don’t care if you aren’t a designer, it’s about the effort you put into your work :)
The obvious bad faith part of your argument is assuming that it's "low quality output." Another is using a blanket negative and dismissive term like slopper, without taking a chance to actually see the work output (at least in my case).
You also clearly misread what I said. I didn't say I spent 5 minutes prompting an LLM. I say the ability to get FEEDBACK (a revision) in 5 minutes is amazing. And I stand by that. That allows me to do 20 more revisions and do in a couple of hours what would take two weeks.
You seem to be romanticizing the concept of grunt work – that for something to have value or be of good quality, you have to put in some sort of minimum amount of time on it, and it has to be tedious. It's the same concept that nobody can make a good quality piece of furniture unless they used a hand saw and spoke sweet nothings to the tree before it was cut.
There are ways to do things quicker while preserving quality. I had already left a caveat saying that for the 5% of people that really want to push web design forward, totally, go ahead. But for the rest of us (including those of us who have lived and breathed code and engineering principles for decades), these tools are phenomenal for iterating quickly.
Anyway, the term builder is more about separating the goals from a vanilla "programmer" - even though i've programmed my whole life, it's always been in service of an outcome. And the outcome is almost never "good code for the sake of good code" - it has to serve a real outcome in the real world.
By the way, lots of good designers are also using coding agents now, so you can keep romanticizing grunt work while most of the market moves on.
> But for the other 95% of people, being able to just say "ok can you make it look more modern" and have 4 variants in 5 mins, (like me) Figma will lose users like me.
Perhaps this phrasing is what invited the interpretation you seem to be annoyed with.
There is not much to gain by suggesting everyone is simply bad faith.
No the bad faith part comes from assuming that the output is low quality, and that just because I get _feedback_ in five minutes (read again what I said) it somehow implies that I spent 5 minutes on it and then moved on, never to revisit.
I think you like the other person is assuming that 5 minutes = low quality. Instead of thinking "5 mins means you can make 8-10 iterations in an hour" or "5 minutes making the front end look pretty good means I can spend more time on the backend"
There are many ways to interpret this, yes. I only mean to disrupt the framing you keep asserting of good and bad faith, I'm still not sure I understand what you are getting at.
No one is assuming the output is strictly low quality from what I can tell. I am personally evaluating the method you provided, which suggested you are championing a sloppy but highly iterative design flow against a seasoned curated suite for defining design. I dont see any reason to assume the other comment was doing anything otherwise.
You made a broad generalized strong claim and were met with the opposing force, which is actually acting from their own understanding of good faith, believe it or not (see how this analysis is void of meaning?).
This take might have sounded convincing a year ago. Now it just sounds foolish. The best coders on the planet are using AI. Why wouldn’t they use this?
"Use AI" sounds like "programmers use a machine that can be programmed to automatically carry out sequences of arithmetic or logical operations" - without the details or context how they use it, what tools and for what tasks - doesn't mean anything and also sounds foolish, sorry.
It probably reduces the tasks which customers might engage an agency using Figma, though. Down the line, creeping onto Figma’s turf absolutely becomes a strategy for Anthropic.
> Figma is targeted towards designers who create thoughtful design systems and cohesive UIs and who don't code, while this is targeted towards vibe coders who can't design. Two different circles that intersect to some level.
this overlap has been widening incredibly quickly. lots of designers are now writing code with the help of cursor, claude code, etc.
even if you believe "real designers" wont ever use this product, it's not hard to see how a low barrier-of-entry tool could affect Figams bottom line. slowing down Figma's adoption from the new wave of entry-level designers who dont already have muscle memory would not at all surprise me at all.
The bulls' theory is that right now the person who doesnt know how to design pay a designer that will use figma, but with something like claude design they can just vibecode the thing without having to get a designer involved.
Its making alot of bold assumptions, but we live in interesting times so thats par for the course
Design systems are a means to an end. They’re as much about enabling delivery without requiring a designer to design every feature from scratch each time as they are about ensuring cohesive overall design. I can see this being a viable alternative path to the first if you’re happy with a slight hit to the second.
I think they understand that the people running businesses are going to look at this vs a human who uses Figma and realize how much more cost and time efficient it is to pay for a machine than a human.
As with anything, it depends on the quality and skills of the people doing the designing. I have yet to really work with a designer that embedded themselves enough in the UX to design anything I thought was good.
Granted, I have not worked with that many designers so it’s maybe small N problem.
The gap between figma and where our front end teams work and design is still too large.
I think the more likely result of this is fewer designers and more work for developers with some design skills.
I'm not sure they don't care anymore, as much as they experienced the same pressure every company faced when AI went mainstream.
Had they not included support for it, where would they be now? I'd wager a critical mass would be screeching to High Heaven for integrations, seeing as a Figma document is effectively a config file that can be translated to real code.
Figma was never needed. they were useful when enterprises allowed people with no coding experience to mandate how ui should look. It is the powerpoint of dumb people that wanted a career in tech. happy to see it dying.
Hard disagree. There's more to UX than pushing pixels around. Usability, accessibility, and capturing the broader customer experience at 40,000 ft isn't a trivial process when you're designing a large product (or suite of products) especially.
These areas obviously tie into engineering very closely, but the thinking that goes into them happens at the design stage, at a lower cost than starting with engineering. AI models suck at getting every facet of this process right, because designers are achieving a balance between branding, usability, standards, taste, and differentiation -- the exact opposite of a model trained to reach for the most average outputs.
My SO is a UX designer and uses Figma. She wanted to try out Claude integration there, but was frustrated by limitations - like why she can't export interactive elements to Figma file format so that they can be edited further.
So I helped her look into it and I was shocked to find out that it just a react slop generator, not a Figma file generator. And extremely limited at that, too.
Who is Figma targeting with this exactly? Developers, who are interested in react apps will simply use claude code, and UX designers don't really care for react apps.
I think the target market for this is small businesses wanting to throw together quick concepts without needing to hire a contractor necessarily. This smells more like Squarespace and what they did for brochure websites / portfolios than anything else, but perhaps more general purpose.
Just last week, I asked the designer on my team to try working in Codex instead of Figma. It’s just not a great workflow to pass a figma file to a developer to implement. She hasn’t wanted to go back yet…
100% this, Figma is more than just a "design" tool. Same as jira is not just a crud app for tasks. It is integrated in pipelines, people's expertise, CVs and CTO's minds. And to bet on AI company building a competitor to Figma - good luck with that. Just a pilot project for PR, nothing more than that. Sora 2.0 basically.
This is 100% a response to "Stitch With Google" which has been doing amazing work in this space for a long time now, and is Google's answer to Lovable.
I'm now pasting all my Stitch output into Claude Design to see what happens.
edit: First impressions are great. It asked me a ton of really great questions about my design aspirations and direction, which were incredibly relevant and insightful. Waiting to see what it makes.
edit2: It did astonishingly well with the first design pass. Really outstanding. This is probably going to be my primary prototyping tool until the Next Best Thing(tm) drops in a few weeks.
Just to follow-up, the limits are awful. Even on the Max plan you're going to hit the weekly limit after about 10 mins of use. Then you have to wait another 6 days.
I tried stitch. Overall preplanned sections.
Issue is... You can't wellllll stitch! E. G. Take section1 migrate mix with section 2 etc. Good idea - but still a mess!
I too use Stitch, seems like not many have heard of it. Stitch also asks good questions, do you have any examples of both side by side with the same prompt or idea?
Really annoying but I can't figure out how to share a link from Claude Design? It seems to only allow you to share the design with other people on your account? It'll let me export all the HTML and assets, but that's a bit rough to have to download it all and upload it to a host somewhere just to send it to a client for review or something. On Stitch you can just grab a link to the design.
If we expect Anthropic not only trying to replace just all software developers with Claude, but also all software product companies with Claude, then i really wanna know why the fuck are we cheering here for Anthropic on Hacker News? What kind of dumb sheep would do this?
It's good to have a discussion here so I am ready for all the dumb peer chats I am going to have in the next few weeks with people who don't use these tools but rely on Linkedin wisdom.
Yes; more depression and anxiety about an uncertain future.
The SWE people I know at SW companies now heavily using these agents complain to me how their workday is nothing but code-reviews of the agents output and tedious prompting to prod it back into line; they say they don’t get to actually write code until they get home to work on their personal projects.
3 years ago I never would have believed this capability was possible; I’ve since adjusted my expectations to now assume that in another 3 years the models/agents will have improved enough to reduce the amount of code-review required, leaving us with precious little else to do for our shareholders, or the opposite: they don’t improve and we’re stuck doing thankless PR reviews until the end.
Please tell me where and how in this future I’m supposed to find satisfaction and pride in my work when what-gets-produced isn’t my own work anymore?
Figma's stock has been on a sharp downward trend over the last year. This isn't a notice-able change to their stock price at all. They're down 30% just in the last month, with many days being -5% to -10%.
Judging by Anthropic's track record for sloppy, buggy software, I can't see this taking off quite as well as people might think, when compared to Figma and its captive customer base.
Figma actually put the work in to make a great product that performs well and offers anything you could imagine to design just about anything you need, with AI integrations and deep manual editing to sweat the details.
figma has figma make to do these things, and it's much worse. It can only generate react code, even if you ask it not to. claude design worked great on the first attempt for me, miles ahead of what figma make does.
Exactly, most SAAS tools out there are going to be fighting off AI based alternatives popping up or being integrated into general purpose tools. The people using the old tools will be switching to tools that offer them better productivity. For this particular tool, that means designers and frontend developers.
Design work is already under a lot of pressure. I work with somebody that has an industrial design background and he's having a lot of fun with AI tools. There is still a need for good designers. But not to do a lot of the low end design work that has been common in a lot of front end teams. That stuff was always a bit questionable in value. I know some decent designers that were actually getting bored with that type of work. It's very repetitive.
We independently scanned 500+ Lovable-deployed apps as part of a larger study of 1,764 vibe-coded apps. The RLS problem is systemic — not a one-off. X% of Lovable apps we tested had wide-open Supabase tables where the anon key could read/write everything. The $6.6B question isn't whether the product is useful, it's whether the security liability of millions of deployed apps becomes a material risk. We published the full breakdown: securityscanner.dev/reports/2026-q2
That valuation is more insane than most, I would’ve loved to hear the arguments for it, it was a given they would have to compete with the companies who provides them with the models, anyone who thought they would just leave that market alone is a damn fool (the vendor lock-ins are great too, add some hosting, domain selling, etc and you got free money).
We all hope this to be easy but it is extremely difficult to get 2 departments with different reporting structure work together. Getting 2 companies work together for mutual benefit is like asking 2 political parties to work together.
I started using Pencil for my UI designs and they just introduced animations and I was like they just kicked Figma and now this. Figma might just become another Blockbuster.
As far as I can tell these tools have quite a low ceiling. Great to start off with but but at some point I just find it easier to express myself with bezier curve handles than prompting. Canva, and Stitch (and maybe Claude Design) don't go that far.
Anyways, this is 100% a shot at Figma, but also catching Lovable in the crossfire. If anybody from Anthropic is reading this, if you keep developing this with features in Figma and other design tools, you'll have a major hit on your hands.