6 ms·

Drew Houston definitely knew the threats to DropBox. I'm sure he already has a plan to counter this. He's been ready since 2007.

SODaniel 14y ago
Of course Google Drive is not a surprise to DropBox but I still feel that a 'One does not simply counter Google' Meme could be appropriate here.
- thpoul 14y ago
  Drew Houston has an amazing sense of humor. https://twitter.com/#!/drewhouston/status/194837482490179584 https://twitter.com/#!/drewhouston/status/194837482490179584
  - redthrowaway 14y ago
    Some of the responses are downright depressing: Vijay Vasu ‏ @gunshotdigital @drewhouston @Dropbox huh what? will people be able to search my files!!! #NOTCOOL
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - EREFUNDO 14y ago
    haha.....love that guy!
- kruipen 14y ago
  dropbox presumably pays for s3 slightly less or slightly more (depending on redundancy level) than goog end user price: Over 5000 TB / month $0.055 per GB $0.037 per GB
  - sakai 14y ago
    Well, they're doing pretty heavy de-duping, but point well taken.
    - rdl 14y ago
      The de-duping is certainly more than the discount off list price, too -- I suspect they de-dupe 10-100x. I really doubt their discount off the lowest public S3 volume price is more than 50%.
      - tlb 14y ago
        Personal photos take up a large fraction of people's cloud storage, and they are completely non-de-dupable. I doubt it's possible to get more than 3x on average.
        josscrowcroft 14y ago
        [citation needed]
        apu 14y ago
        For which part? That photos take most of the space? Or that they're virtually un-de-dupable? I'm fairly sure about the former (having seen some private numbers that I'm not allowed to share) -- although you can think through it yourself. What other kind of data is as easily and commonly produced as photos/videos and takes up so much space? The latter is definitely true since it's a hard research problem that I've spent some time thinking about myself. There are approaches to lossy-de-duplication of photos that can achieve some significant savings, but the quality loss is too great to be useful at the moment.

SODaniel 14y ago

Of course Google Drive is not a surprise to DropBox but I still feel that a 'One does not simply counter Google' Meme could be appropriate here.

thpoul 14y ago
Drew Houston has an amazing sense of humor. https://twitter.com/#!/drewhouston/status/194837482490179584 https://twitter.com/#!/drewhouston/status/194837482490179584
- redthrowaway 14y ago
  Some of the responses are downright depressing: Vijay Vasu ‏ @gunshotdigital @drewhouston @Dropbox huh what? will people be able to search my files!!! #NOTCOOL
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- EREFUNDO 14y ago
  haha.....love that guy!
kruipen 14y ago
dropbox presumably pays for s3 slightly less or slightly more (depending on redundancy level) than goog end user price: Over 5000 TB / month $0.055 per GB $0.037 per GB
- sakai 14y ago
  Well, they're doing pretty heavy de-duping, but point well taken.
  - rdl 14y ago
    The de-duping is certainly more than the discount off list price, too -- I suspect they de-dupe 10-100x. I really doubt their discount off the lowest public S3 volume price is more than 50%.
    - tlb 14y ago
      Personal photos take up a large fraction of people's cloud storage, and they are completely non-de-dupable. I doubt it's possible to get more than 3x on average.
      - josscrowcroft 14y ago
        [citation needed]
        apu 14y ago
        For which part? That photos take most of the space? Or that they're virtually un-de-dupable? I'm fairly sure about the former (having seen some private numbers that I'm not allowed to share) -- although you can think through it yourself. What other kind of data is as easily and commonly produced as photos/videos and takes up so much space? The latter is definitely true since it's a hard research problem that I've spent some time thinking about myself. There are approaches to lossy-de-duplication of photos that can achieve some significant savings, but the quality loss is too great to be useful at the moment.