it's monopoly, in professional setting in most cases is no possibility to use something else even if alternative tools is better for your specific task. It really similar to case of MS Word decades ago, now we have choose but not in the past.
Figma had chance to grow later to level where it could become Adobe competitor, now it's no hope that would be any competition any time soon.
Just to illustrate why I think that. Usually Adobe software used for everything so is no escape in most cases, but Figma became so widespread in popular specific case so it could really transform situation in way: use Adobe for everything but for UI/Web use only Figma. In that way everybody become committed enough to Figma ecosystem and they as company can start offering new tools which will able to capture Adobe businesses bit by bit.
Every dominant piece of software is its own monopoly as long as the documents have a proprietary format and there exist no independent readers/writers.
Note the regulator phrases the concern, not as "monopoly", but as "substantial lessening of competition (SLC)".
In particular, page 6, item 25:
> We consider that Adobe’s and Figma’s platforms are characterised by network effects. These network effects cause the value of the respective platforms to increase with the number of users. These strengthen Adobe’s position in vector and raster editing software. They also strengthen Figma’s position in product design software. Network effects operate across markets. For example, the value of using Figma’s vector and raster editing offerings is greater the more Figma is used for product design, and vice-versa. Therefore the strength of the Parties’ positions in each of these markets is influenced by their strengths in the others, implying that the Parties exert multi-market competitive pressure on each other across vector editing, raster editing, and product design.
Page 9, item 41:
> The Parties identified more than 45 competitors in vector editing and more than 65 in raster editing. We undertook an assessment to identify the most relevant competitors in each of vector and raster editing software. We considered the extent to which these competitors are referred to in the Parties’ internal documents and in third-party evidence. We consider that very few competitors in vector editing software (Affinity and Corel Draw) and raster editing software (Affinity) provide any meaningful competitive constraint on Adobe’s product development for professional users, and that constraint is weak to moderate at most. This is particularly true for product design and related digital use cases
Sports also has rules. Can't pick up the ball and run across the pitch in association football. Can't use an anti-material rifle to knock the bails of the wickets in cricket. Can't respond to the Tennison Gambit in Chess with an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2xNlzsnPCQ
One of the economic rules in certain countries is "we like competition, don't thwart it".
Uh, yes? That is literally the entire reason competition regulatory bodies like the CMA exist. To prevent monopolistic behavior and ensure no single entity gets big enough to squash all competition.
Tell me you don't know about sports without telling me you don't know about sports.
There's a huge problem in most sports precisely because of money. Those that have the money have the best players, the best equipment, the best facilities etc. And yes, they spend money on exclusive contracts and deals so that others don't get the same.
Some sports even go as far as try and implement certain restrictions and limits so that money don't play such an outsized role
> How does this "hinder the growth of human development"
Easy. The larger any company gets, the more difficult it becomes to compete with them as customers of a potential competitor expect a certain set of features to be available to even consider migration, and thus the large company gets ever more and more market share over time. On top of that the large company may simply outspend a competitor in advertising or sue competitors for barely-legal patents.
Capitalism at its core is the ruthless elimination of inefficiencies, and competition is inefficiency (just look how many dozens of billions of VC were burned in the "gig economy" sector to get rid of competitors).
The problem for the development of humanity is that an entrenched, dominant/monopolist company has zero reasons to innovate and progress.
> Consumers always have the opportunity to switch.
For that, there needs to be an alternative option. Just look at Walmart and how they destroy small food stores in a massive radius around them as no small retailer can compete with their scale.
That's every monopoly in history. Any smart monopoly allows just enough competition to tread water to show regulators that "hey, look, there's competition, we're just dominant".
Because they commonly swap to profit extraction models when they fail to integrate the acquisitions, and after that they typically shutter otherwise viable businesses. Most recently seen with Unity and Weta Technologies
How does this "hinder the growth of human development"