Figma’s AI Gambit: Are Figma Sites and Make Edging Out Developers?

Figma, the ubiquitous design tool, recently dropped a couple of bombshells: Figma Sites and Figma Make. The pitch? AI-powered tools that let designers bypass developers for many web creation tasks. Figma Sites acts as a web builder and CMS, aiming squarely at non-technical users 6 think Figmas version of WordPress. Figma Make employs AI for ‘vibe coding,’ translating Figma designs into actual code. The underlying message is clear: Figma wants to keep designers glued to its platform, even if it means developers get less screen time.

If designers can truly get 90% of the way to a live site without ever leaving Figma, the traditional designer-developer handoff changes dramatically. For some projects, developers might not be needed at all. This isn’t just about adding features; it’s a strategic power play. And yes, they’ve even got one-click publishing, a feature that bears a striking resemblance to tools like Lovable. In fact, a lot of Figma Make looks suspiciously like a Lovable clone, which might explain Figma’s aggressive stance on trademarks like ‘Dev Mode’.

The big question is whether this will actually work for Figma. Their ambition is palpable, but a live demo failing on stage doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. This move is less about Figma suddenly caring about design automation 6 they’re clearly scared to automate their core user base of designers out of a job. Automating developer tasks, however? That’s fair game, especially since Figma arguably failed to capture a significant developer following for its existing developer-focused features.

Breaking Down Figma’s New Arsenal: Sites and Make

Figma’s announcements aren’t just incremental updates; they represent a significant strategic shift. Let’s look at what these tools promise on paper.

Figma Sites: The All-in-One Web Builder and CMS?

Figma Sites is positioned as a user-friendly web builder and content management system. The goal is to empower designers, and even non-technical individuals, to transform their Figma designs into fully functional, live websites. No more exporting assets and specs for a developer to painstakingly recreate; the idea is a seamless transition from design canvas to published reality, all within the Figma ecosystem.

• Target Audience: Primarily designers who want more control over the final product, and potentially small businesses or individuals needing simple websites without the budget or need for a dedicated developer.
• Functionality: It intends to combine the design strengths of Figma with the publishing capabilities of platforms like WordPress or Webflow. An upcoming CMS feature promises in-editor content management, blog post generation, and asset handling, aiming to reduce the common complexity of using multiple tools.
• The Pitch: Reduce friction, speed up time-to-market, and give designers end-to-end control.

This move puts Figma in direct competition with established players. The allure is strong: if you’re already designing in Figma, why not publish from there too? However, building a robust and flexible CMS is a colossal undertaking. WordPress has decades of development and a massive plugin ecosystem. Webflow offers deep customization for designers who code. Figma Sites will need to offer compelling advantages beyond mere convenience to truly challenge these giants.

Figma Make: AI-Powered ‘Vibe Coding’

Figma Make is where the AI magic (or marketing) really kicks in. Termed ‘vibe coding,’ this tool uses artificial intelligence to interpret Figma designs and simple text prompts, generating code in response. The claim is that designers can get about 90% of the way to a functional site. This isn’t about designers becoming coders overnight; it’s about the AI bridging the gap.

• How it Works (Theoretically): A designer provides the visual layout in Figma and perhaps adds text prompts like “make this section a three-column responsive grid” or “animate this button on hover with a subtle pulse.” The AI then attempts to generate the corresponding HTML, CSS, and possibly JavaScript.
• The Promise: Drastically reduce the need for manual front-end coding for many standard components and layouts. This allows for rapid prototyping and iteration directly from the design file.
• Developer Role: While the aim is to reduce reliance, Figma acknowledges developers can still step in to refine, extend, or debug the AI-generated code. The question is, will they want to, or will the AI output be a tangled mess?

The concept of ‘vibe coding’ is intriguing but also vague. AI’s ability to interpret nuance and subjective ‘vibes’ is still very much a developing field. Early user feedback does highlight workflow simplification, but the real test will be the quality, maintainability, and accessibility of the generated code. If it produces spaghetti code that no developer wants to touch, the 90% claim becomes a liability, not an asset.

Figma’s Strategic Calculus: Designers In, Developers… Less So?

Figma’s strategy appears twofold: solidify its dominance among designers and make a calculated incursion into tasks traditionally handled by developers. Why this approach? Figma’s user base is overwhelmingly designers. Automating core design tasks with AI would be like a saw company selling self-cutting trees 6 risky for their primary customers. So, they tread carefully there.

Developers, however, represent a different calculation. Figma has made previous attempts to woo developers with features like ‘Dev Mode,’ but adoption hasn’t made developers a core Figma constituency in the same way designers are. By automating parts of the development workflow, particularly front-end implementation of designs, Figma aims to make its platform even more indispensable for designers. If a designer can do more *within* Figma, they’re less likely to leave or demand other tools.

This is not about Figma suddenly becoming a developer tools company. It’s about increasing the value proposition for its existing design audience by extending their capabilities downstream. Its a classic moat-building strategy: make your platform so sticky and encompassing that switching costs become prohibitively high. My thinking is that Figma is pushing into developer automation partly because their previous efforts to win over developers more directly didn’t achieve the desired market penetration. If you can’t always bring developers to Figma, bring Figma’s capabilities to where developers *used to* be essential.

The Developer Dilemma: Disruption or Augmentation?

Figma is careful to state their new tools will reduce *reliance* on developers, not replace them entirely. This is a common refrain in the AI automation space. For simple brochure sites, marketing landing pages, or personal portfolios, these tools might indeed allow designers to go solo. This could free up developers from more mundane, repetitive tasks to focus on complex back-end logic, API integrations, performance optimization, and security 6 areas AI is still far from mastering.

However, the impact on front-end developers, particularly those focused on translating static designs into HTML/CSS, could be more direct. If AI can genuinely handle 90% of that work, the demand for those specific skills might shrink, or at least shift towards overseeing, refining, and troubleshooting AI-generated code. This aligns with what I’ve said before: AI is already impacting roles like non-expert copywriters and graphic designers; front-end development for basic sites could be next. The value shifts to those who can work *with* AI or handle the complex 10% AI can’t touch.

There’s also the concern of code quality. AI-generated code, especially from ‘vibe coding’, can be verbose, inefficient, or difficult to maintain. Many developers dread inheriting poorly written code, and AI-generated code without strong oversight could become a new source of technical debt. As I often point out from my experience with AI content automation, tools are only as good as the framework and expertise guiding them.

The Competitive Arena: WordPress, Webflow, and Lovable in Figma’s Sights

Figma isn’t stepping into an empty ring. The web development and CMS space is crowded and fiercely competitive.

The WordPress comparison is natural, given its market share. However, Figma Sites is unlikely to match WordPress’s extensibility or community support anytime soon. Its appeal will be for users who prioritize ease of use from within Figma over WordPress’s vast feature set. Webflow offers a more direct comparison for designers who want fine-grained control; Figma Make with its AI might offer a different path to similar ends, but Webflow’s visual coding tools are already very powerful for those willing to learn them.

The Lovable situation is particularly interesting. The reported similarities between Figma Make and Lovable, coupled with Figma’s zealous protection of its ‘Dev Mode’ trademark against Lovable, suggest Figma isn’t afraid to play hardball. If Figma Make is perceived as a clone, it could damage Figma’s reputation for innovation, even if it succeeds in crushing a smaller competitor. This sort of aggressive behavior is common in tech, as seen with OpenAI’s moves to dominate developer stacks, which I discussed in relation to their Windsurf acquisition. It’s about market control.

The Reality Check: Can Figma Actually Pull This Off?

Ambition and slick marketing slides are one thing; execution is another. The fact that a live demo of these new tools failed on stage is more than just an embarrassing hiccup. It raises serious questions about the maturity and reliability of the underlying technology. If the tools are buggy or produce subpar results, designers will quickly lose faith, and the dream of a seamless Figma-centric workflow will crumble.

Here are some key challenges Figma faces:

• AI Reliability and Consistency: ‘Vibe coding’ needs to be more than a gimmick. Can the AI consistently interpret design intent and generate high-quality, predictable code across a wide range of styles and complexities?
• Code Quality and Maintainability: Will the AI-generated code be clean, semantic, accessible, and performant? Or will it be a black box of divs and inline styles that developers (or even designers) struggle to manage and update? Bad code is a long-term cost.
• Scalability: Can Figma Sites handle more than just simple websites? What about e-commerce, complex user interactions, or database integrations? The CMS functionality will be critical here.
• User Trust: The failed demo hurts. Figma needs to demonstrate overwhelmingly positive results and reliability to win over skeptics. First impressions matter, especially when you’re asking users to change fundamental workflows.
• Educating Users: Designers will need to learn how to effectively prompt and guide the AI. This is a new skill set, and Figma will need to provide excellent training and support.

The Broader Implications for Design and Development

If Figma succeeds, even partially, it could significantly alter the dynamics between designers and developers. Designers could gain more autonomy and speed, taking ideas from conception to deployment faster than ever before. This could be empowering, especially for smaller teams or solo practitioners.

However, it also raises questions: Will this lead to a flood of mediocre, AI-generated websites that all look vaguely the same? Will it devalue the craft of front-end development? Or will it, more optimistically, elevate the role of developers to focus on more challenging and creative problems?

The truth is likely somewhere in between. AI tools are becoming powerful aids, but they are still tools. The quality of the output will depend heavily on the skill of the operator and the sophistication of the AI. My stance has always been that AI can greatly augment human capabilities, but it’s not a magic bullet. It can handle much of the grunt work, but strategic thinking, true creativity, and complex problem-solving still require human expertise.

My Perspective: A Bold, Risky Bet by Figma

Figma’s launch of Sites and Make is a bold, calculated risk. They are betting that the convenience of an integrated design-to-publish pipeline will outweigh the potential shortcomings of early-stage AI and the established strengths of competitors. They are also betting that they can further entrench themselves with designers without completely alienating the developer community whose goodwill they still need for Figma itself to thrive.

Is this good for designers? Potentially, yes, if it genuinely simplifies their workflow and gives them more creative control. Is it good for the web? That depends on the quality of what gets produced. An explosion of quickly-built, low-quality sites isn’t progress. Is it good for Figma’s bottom line? In the short term, it might boost engagement and subscriptions. Long term, it depends on whether they can deliver a robust, reliable product that users genuinely value.

The risk of alienating developers is real. While Figma might not see them as their primary target for these tools, the broader tech ecosystem relies on a healthy relationship between design and development disciplines. If Figma is perceived as actively trying to ‘cut out’ developers, it could foster resentment that has long-term consequences.

Figma’s move is characteristic of the current AI gold rush: launch ambitious products, iterate in public, and try to capture market share before the technology is fully mature. The failed demo is a stark reminder that AI is still a work in progress. Whether Figma’s gamble pays off will depend on their ability to rapidly improve these tools and convince the design world that ‘vibe coding’ is more than just a catchy phrase for ‘AI might get it right… eventually’.

We’ll be watching closely. The promise is there, but so are the pitfalls. For now, designers get new toys to play with, and developers get another round of existential conversations about the future of their profession. Welcome to the age of AI-driven creative tools.