Again no slight intended. If they have the money they might as well enjoy it (I did when I was young and in the same situation). But for a company that had its first release what about 2 years ago they're living large.
The 90s are back after all.
Again no slight intended. If they have the money they might as well enjoy it (I did when I was young and in the same situation). But for a company that had its first release what about 2 years ago they're living large.
The 90s are back after all.
What? Company that generates a metric shit-ton of revenue is spending some of it on employee perks, and this is somehow indicative of a bubble?
I was under the impression that the 90s were all about lavish spending without revenue. Although I guess people will see any trend they want to see if they try hard enough...
What is publicly known is that Dropbox passed 4 million users a year ago (http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=339), and that according to Crunchbase they have not raised any outside funding since 2008. Infer from that what you will.
At the rate at which they are going, I can almost guarantee you that their public filings - or the first public confirmation of their financials - will be bombshellish (if it is anything like I suspect, and I am seeing no evidence to suggest that it is not - in fact, this video further confirmed my impressions).
Btw, I don't mean it as a bash against Dropbox. I just feel like they have discovered a pot of gold, and are being shy about it - heck, that makes total sense. If I were them, I would probably do the same thing until it was too late for anybody to clue in and catch up. So that might be what they are doing. Can't say I blame them, just wish I got confirmation - for my own curiosity's sake.
If that is the case, it's a HUGE deal. No hyperbole can do it justice.
But how can it be viable? Like most files in my account are personal. Only few are such that others too might have them. Isn't it same for everyone? I think most people have mostly unique files in their account.
So how can dropbox rely on the model mentioned in the link?
Well, this is what I think happens. For some people, the majority of their files will be unique - but for many people, they won't be. The more people they get using dropbox (with the free account) is the more files they can get, which means the more things they have access to that they can charge for.
In other words, as their network of files grows and their user base grows, their costs shrink and their margins get wider - because the higher the likelihood that they are to be able to charge for files that are already there.
So to put some numbers to it.
Say when they had 100 users, 5% share the same files. That means, essentially they are charging 5 people for access to the same files. However, when they reach 10,000 users more people upload similar files I suspect that 5% increases to say 7%. That means that they can now charge 700 people for access to the same files.
Imagine when they reach 1,000,000 users and 10% have the same files - that's 100,000 users they can charge for access to the same files.
I don't know what the true percentage breakdowns are, but I suspect they will be much higher than many people expect. Double digits.
In any case, even if it is not higher than people expect, network effects work for their model - like nothing I have ever seen before. The more people join, is the more files they have which increases the % of their userbase that they can charge for. So not only is the absolute numbers of users growing, but the portion of the userbase they can charge to the same files are growing too.
It's FRIKKIN BRILLIANT!!!!!
Also, there could be several users who do not consume the allocated space completely all the time. Using your argument, this too will have positive effect on their revenue model.
It IS brilliant!
So technically, it wouldn't make much sense for them to really consider that against their profit margins. Although, over time I am sure they have realized that X% of their users never use up more than say 1GB (and various levels) of their storage - so you may be right. But I didn't want to get into all of that because of the questions surrounding it.
It's really the structure of the way they charge for storage and the way they pay for it.
I can't think of any other company that can do what they are doing.
Amazon with their web services can't. A car rental company can't. Neither can a restaurant, retail store, manufacturer of anything, nor a hotel or anything of that nature.
I can't think of any other business model (in history) that is as lucrative of what they are doing.
I would love for someone to provide a counter example, because I think I am going crazy - because it is very rare that you find something 'too good to be true'. But this might be one case, for the founders and investors, that truly is.
Unless they mess it up.
When I left SF all those old buildings off Market were the cheapest options in The City. Also, you could usually take over the lease for cheap from some other startup wipeout.
It's a more expensive than an extra $5K or $10K a month in rent, that's for sure.
Seriously, $5 or $10K increase in monthly rent is a pittance. There are a lot more wasteful things I could bitch about than that, and I'm a cheap-ass.
Does that make every expense that can be rationalized in comparison to headcount, revenue, or (worst of all) potential pull-through revenue valid? No! Some are valid, some aren't.
All I am saying is, this notion of "we need the very best talent, and we need to make it is as happy as can be" is a platitude that was used by execs to justify a lot of excess.
As a Brit, this made me laugh.
I'd agree with you about watching out for dotcom excess if it wasn't so inaccurate in this case. :-)