Dropbox Caught Between Warring Giants Amazon and Google

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dropbox Caught Between Warring Giants Amazon and Google

Posted by Soulskill on Sunday August 24, 2014 @02:05PM from the rsync-is-still-pretty-cheap dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Google and Amazon are both aggressively pursuing the cloud storage market, constantly increasing available storage space and constantly dropping prices. On its face, this looks great for the consumer — competition is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, many smaller companies like Box, Dropbox, and Hightail simply aren't able to run their services at a loss like the giants can. Dropbox's Aaron Levie said, "These guys will drive prices to zero. You do not want to wait for Google or Amazon to keep cutting prices on you. 'Free' is not a business model."

The result is that the smaller companies are pivoting to win market share, relying on specific submarkets or stronger feature sets rather than available space or price. "Box is trying to cater to special data storage needs, like digital versions of X-rays for health care companies and other tasks specific to different kinds of customers. Hightail is trying to do something similar for customers like law firms. And Dropbox? It is trying to make sure that its consumer-minded service stays easier to use than what the big guys provide." It's going to be tough for them to hold out, and even tougher for new storage startups to break in. But that might be the only thing keeping us from choosing between the Wal-Mart-A and Wal-Mart-B of online storage.

275 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I seem to remember... by sd4f · 2014-08-24 14:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

A while ago some big company offered to buy out dropbox and they declined. Surely it was a sign of the times that the big guns were going to enter the market, and when they get in, they don't muck around. Fair competition isn't something the big companies enjoy doing, as their whole business model tends to revolve around destroying competition then bleeding the market for what it's worth.
I used dropbox for cloud storage, I liked it for collaborative work. Would be a shame to see it get destroyed through aggressive anti-competitive practices.
1. Re:I seem to remember... by geek · 2014-08-24 14:17 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Would be a shame to see it get destroyed through aggressive anti-competitive practices.
  Fuck off. Everything you posted IS COMPETITION. Dropbox refuses to compete. They offer 2 tiers and ridiculous prices. If they had offered me a 30GB plan I would have jumped at it but my money is no good to them. Instead I would have to beg for "extra" space and game the system. So FUCK dropbox. They wont offer what I want so I've gone elsewhere. Thats called competition.
2. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  through aggressive anti-competitive practices.
  Agressive yes, anti-competitive NO, people want free stuff, they offer it, but their problem is with their paid plan, nothing reasonable, I backup my whole server (60GB) to amazon for about a third the dropbox price...
3. Re:I seem to remember... by ShanghaiBill · 2014-08-24 14:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  aggressive anti-competitive practices.
  Cut the crap. There is nothing "anti-competive" about lower prices or free services. There are very few barriers to entry in this market, so if they later try to raise prices or cut services, someone else will step in and take their customers.
4. Re:I seem to remember... by sribe · 2014-08-24 14:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There is nothing "anti-competive" about lower prices or free services.
  Using profits from one sector to support selling at a loss in another sector in order to drive competition out of business is ACTUALLY THE DEFINITION OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE.
5. Re:I seem to remember... by exomondo · 2014-08-24 15:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Using profits from one sector to support selling at a loss in another sector in order to drive competition out of business is ACTUALLY THE DEFINITION OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE.
  How are you separating gmail and drive profits? They are both just methods of accessing the same block of storage. Should they be making you pay more if you want to access that same storage in a different manner?
6. Re:I seem to remember... by Rick+in+China · 2014-08-24 15:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What do you consider fair competition, bigger players keeping prices high (like Dropbox, way overpriced limited offerings.) so they DON'T capture more market share? Is that considered fair competition? It sounds more like no competition, more like price-fixing agreements between similar service offerings, no?
  When companies compete, prices often drop - in this case drop significantly.. a company is willing to operate at a loss in order to own more of the market share and other companies simply can't compete, is that unfair? Or simply winning the competition? If you manufacture something in the US for $5 and sell it for $10, and I manufacture the same in China for $1 and sell it for $5, you may complain that you can't compete because to match my price you'd have to operate at a loss....well, sorry to say, but sad day for you. Sad day for dropbox. Improve the offerings and make the prices more reasonable or suffer the consequences that most every company has to deal with in their given industry.
7. Re:I seem to remember... by ShanghaiBill · 2014-08-24 15:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Using profits from one sector to support selling at a loss in another sector in order to drive competition out of business is ACTUALLY THE DEFINITION OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE.
  This is only true if they later use that market dominance to hurt consumers. Anti-trust law does not exist to protect competitors, it exists to protect the public interest in a competitive market. If they offer on-line storage for free permanently, that is not detrimental to the public. Plenty of companies offer free services to attract customers, while other companies may charge for the same services. That is not illegal.
8. Re:I seem to remember... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-08-24 15:24 · Score: 2
  
  There is at least an argument to be made if one looks at how much...encouragement...the platform vendors, especially on the mobile side, provide to use their own blessed and proprietary 'cloud' service; depending on how closely controlled the OS is the advantage of being the platform-blessed option can be fairly substantial.
  
  However, TFS seems to be worked up about the fact that the price/GB of deeply undistinguished storage has cratered over time. Yes, yes it has. Advances in disk density and datacenter operations have sharply reduced the absolute cost, and unless your service offers something really cool, or an airtight SLA, or some other nice feature, why wouldn't your margins reflect the fact that you provide a commodity?
9. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:29 · Score: 0
  
  Using free service to drive the competition out of business is illegal in some cases. People like free, but if it's below cost to harm competitors that would be lllegal.
10. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  No. It is one element of Anti-competitive practices and is referred to as "Dumping" but given the advertising revenue they make from that storage space I am not entirely sure you can call this "Dumping". If I were concerned about "Dumping" from Google I would be more concerned about their free Google Apps rather than Google Drive. Or perhaps using their advertising network business to support developing Android and then dumping that to OEMs.
11. Re:I seem to remember... by NotQuiteReal · 2014-08-24 15:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "for free for life"
  
  LOL
  
  --
  This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
12. Re:I seem to remember... by exomondo · 2014-08-24 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Would be a shame to see it get destroyed through aggressive anti-competitive practices.
  Google Drive makes money not just with the subscription price but with advertising revenue, does DropBox do the same thing? You can hardly say it is anti-competitive just because Google monetizes the same service in a different way.
13. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Umm, giving away stuff at a loss while you support the losses with another part of your business is very much anti-competitive.
14. Re:I seem to remember... by Pausanias · 2014-08-24 16:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What happened to all the penguins---are they no longer on Slashdot anymore? How about these reasons to like Dropbox over MS, Google, and the others:
  - Linux client
  - Follows symlinks
  - Automatic infinite version history (for a fee)
  - LAN syncing for faster speed
  - Bandwidth controls
  - Automatic full resolution photo uploading from mobile
  - Sync that just works
  It's not all about the price ya know. Some of us like quality too. I currently have 24GB of free storage through Dropbox which I got through a special promotion. It has always worked flawlessly and never let me down.
15. Re:I seem to remember... by tehlinux · 2014-08-24 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  Just like the dog island.
  
  --
  Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
16. Re:I seem to remember... by aviators99 · 2014-08-24 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  "Dumping" as an economic term refers to protectionist rules that disallow foreign companies to "dump" products into the US. It wouldn't apply here because Google is a US company.
17. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 16:07 · Score: 0
  
  Dang, that's free "forever"
18. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 16:11 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  Yes, but what happens when all the competitors have been run out of business and suddenly the company does start abusing its market share? You can't just put those businesses back in business because things changed.
19. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 16:16 · Score: 0
  
  who says amazon and google are doing this at a loss? only the author who hasn't provided any data to back that up. perhaps they just have lower costs because they are, ya know, operating at 100x the scale and that much more efficient!?
20. Re:I seem to remember... by Noah+Haders · 2014-08-24 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  when they're giving something away at zero, presumably that's a at a loss. but I'm not a MBA, so who's to say?
21. Re: I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 16:26 · Score: 0
  
  how to play monopoly. First you gain a significant capital advantage, then you beat your competition into the ground with it. If you are nice you make an offer to buy them out before you do so. If they are smart, they take you up on your offer, if not they die a miserable death full of regret.
  Who is to blame, Plato?
22. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 16:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is incorrect. The only reason it seems this way is because it takes so long to gather evidence, and the ensuing court cases take so long to eventuate.
  Anti-competive practice may be as simple as lowering your price below cost (using any type of funding) for the purpose of driving out competition. Once that competition is gone, you can then raise your prices back to normal (or higher), and have a larger slice of the pie.
  The above act itself is subject to anti-trust laws, and not just the fact that prices may have been raised to a higher value after the fact.
  Take a look at the Microsoft anti-trust suits. They were not purely about the consumer, as Microsoft was all about expanding market share to boost profit, rather than increasing prices. It was about leveraging one market segment to gain market share in another at the expense of the competition.
23. Re:I seem to remember... by rtb61 · 2014-08-24 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  In that case ISPs should offer the far cheapest versions of storage to keep traffic on their network but they always get greedy. Of course a smart storage vendor could just run around from ISP to ISP acting as the middle man and organising those ISP to provide storage and reduced traffic costs with the storage vendor managing mirroring etc to minimise bandwidth costs.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
24. Re:I seem to remember... by exomondo · 2014-08-24 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  Using free service to drive the competition out of business is illegal in some cases. People like free, but if it's below cost to harm competitors that would be lllegal.
  But it isn't free, they don't charge you, they charge advertisers and they make money by scanning your stuff then advertising to you. The fact that most people prefer that model to an upfront cost model doesn't make it illegal.
25. Re:I seem to remember... by scsirob · 2014-08-24 16:47 · Score: 2
  
  You seem to have missed that they didn't specifies *who's* life.. Yours? Theirs? Their dog?
  
  --
  To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
26. Re:I seem to remember... by BlueStrat · 2014-08-24 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  when they're giving something away at zero, presumably that's a at a loss. but I'm not a MBA, so who's to say?
  Who's to say??
  Why, that would obviously be Billy Preston, of course!
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  "Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'. Ya gotta have somethin', if ya wanna be with me!"
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
27. Re:I seem to remember... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-08-24 17:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, it's not. This goes by many names, e.g. the freebie model, the razor and blade model, etc. It is actually infinitely sustainable. It's also very much not anti-competitive.
  Google (and I'm wagering Microsoft and Amazon are similar) makes their money on advertising. They get that by attracting more users. They get and keep these users by building a complete ecosystem, and make their products work more efficiently with one another. Google's current cash cows (AFAIK) are search, email, and android. By making these products work more seamless with one another, they complement one another.
  In the case of storage: If Google offers a ton of storage, that might be something that attracts them to their Office suite (which they also make money on, just not as much as the other three.)
  Why would a user, for example, stick with Google Docs if it offered basically no storage (or the storage was expensive) when Office 365 offers 15GB (or whatever the amount is) for free? Amazon I imagine wants to attract people to its service so that they might buy AWS, EC2, or shop at Amazon. Either way, it works out in the end where you get stuff for cheap.
  Also note that ALL of these companies are in the storage business for their own internal purposes. It likewise makes sense that they would lease out their own internal service to external customers at a cheap rate to help offset a cost that they ALREADY have to bear anyways.
  And finally, I wish the hippies would make up their damn mind: They complain about how evil corporations are when something is too expensive, and then they make the same complaint when it is too inexpensive.
28. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  Dropbox could just disappear tomorrow, being the fly-by-night dinky outfit that they are
  What the fuck are you going on about? Dropbox has been around for nearly 6 years; doesn't sound fly-by-night or a dinky outfit to me. It also has good mind-share - my wife for example has a social group which uses Dropbox shares for correspondence.
  I got nothing personally against Box.com or the competition but the way you formulated your posts seems to show some vested interest against Dropbox, and you'll use hyperbole to make your point.
29. Re:I seem to remember... by sd4f · 2014-08-24 17:27 · Score: 2
  
  No, operating something at a loss so that it kills the competition is anti-competitive. If a company finds a different way to make money from it, that's one thing, but subsidising losses through other completely separate profitable parts of a business is purely there to destroy competition through attrition rather than actually having a better product able to sustain itself on its own merits.
  Mind you, I have taken the comments from Dropbox person at face value. I do agree that others are doing a better job, but my main point, as others have stated, it was so obvious that blind Freddy could see it, and the money was on the table; they made their bed, they now have to sleep in it.
30. Re:I seem to remember... by the_B0fh · 2014-08-24 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  I thought Android was a loss leader (and really, only making a pittance, compared to their web/non-mobile search)?
31. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 17:45 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  GP said:
  
  giving away stuff at a loss while you support the losses with another part of your business is very much anti-competitive
  and you kindly supported this argument with hypotheticals. Thank you!
  BTW:
  You may wish to check the first example at this link. Namely, dumping.
  Toodles!
32. Re:I seem to remember... by Cyberax · 2014-08-24 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I've heard that they are hiring ISIS to make sure of that. I've also heard that they are terminating the service next year.
33. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 18:34 · Score: 0
  
  "Using profits from one sector to support selling at a loss"
  We have no idea if that is true. We only have one competitor claiming that they are selling at a loss. Perhaps one has less overheads?
34. Re:I seem to remember... by Vlado · 2014-08-24 19:05 · Score: 2
  
  It's difficult to say that's what they're doing.
  Google offers its storage space in return for serving you ads when you use their services. And they also have access to all your data, which makes it possible for them to learn about your lifestyle and, in turn, again serve you (better targeted) ads. So they probably make some money on it. They also give you opportunity to purchase additional quantities of capacity.
  Microsoft, on the other hand, bundles their One Drive with Windows purchase. So you could say that you bought the capacity when you purchased your Windows license. You could also say that this is one way for MS to keep you tied to their products, which will make you purchase another license in a few years. And, again, you can buy extra space if and when you need it.
  Dropbox is a standalone product. They have in the past (I don't see those offers anymore) partnered with phone vendors, to lure you in. The idea was that the convenience of having 20 or 30 GB of space (or whatever amount they "gave" you), would force you in paying them, after the honeymoon was over.
  So far I haven't met a single person who did this. So they are probably doing something a bit wrong here.
35. Re:I seem to remember... by sFurbo · 2014-08-24 19:16 · Score: 2
  
  The barriers for entry into the online storage market are low to the point of being non-existent. It is much less of a problem in this area than with e.g. OSes or oil production. And we are, presumably, not ending up with one player, but two: Amazon and Google, which should also limit foul play (but not eliminate it).
36. Re:I seem to remember... by LordLucless · 2014-08-24 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  Plenty of companies offer free services to attract customers, while other companies may charge for the same services. That is not illegal.
  
  This is incorrect. The only reason it seems this way is because it takes so long to gather evidence, and the ensuing court cases take so long to eventuate.
  So, what you're saying is that there are pending court cases against, say RedHat, because they offer their OS free of charge, undercutting Microsoft's offering?
  Or maybe against Google, or OpenStreetMaps, for uncompetitively providing free services that conflict with other services who do not charge?
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
37. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 20:33 · Score: 0
  
  I sorta like dropbox, but price is 10E/month for 100Gb, which is crazy expensive. Also 500Gb is 50E/month, so they make you pay lineary for storage, not bandwidth (ie: I doubt that someone with 500Gb is using more, he is just storing more).
  Their storage technical model should be based on dedup -- ie: when two users have the same file, they only pay for storage once, but get money twice (also means no encryption -- but with condo at the board, one should not expect any privacy from them). This implies that a) their storage costs are lower than the pure size they give, and b) the bigger they grow, the smaller their cost/Gb becomes.
  I would be ready to pay say 400E/year to get my storage issues taken care of. But that would mean multi-terabytes + annual growth.
38. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 21:01 · Score: 0
  
  Why would a penguin need dropbox?
  If you have a linux machine on the net, file transfer/sharing is not a problem. scp transfer files between your own machines without passing through third parties like dropbox or google. If you need to distribute files to "others", you run a webserver. Send them an URL, anyone can download from a webserver. If you also need to receive, you either run a ftp server or a webpage with a upload link. Dropbox - no need!
39. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  In this case, there is a way around. If dropbox finds storage too expensive to provide - then they can use free providers (like their competitor google) as backing. When competition lower the price to "free", take advantage of it instead of complaining. An easy way to make them stop . . .
40. Re:I seem to remember... by queazocotal · 2014-08-24 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  "If you have a linux machine on the net, file transfer/sharing is not a problem"
  Well - yes.
  And no.
  Having a linux machine (or any OS of course) on the net has issues.
  You need to admin it, even if you're in the hospital for 6 months, make sure it's not broken into and used to do malicious stuff, ...
  And either you are running this machine at home, or you are paying for a server somewhere, which is considerably more than dropbox.
  (admittedly with a lot more features).
41. Re:I seem to remember... by hairyfeet · 2014-08-24 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck off yourself because what they are doing is NOT competing, what they are doing is called Predatory pricing which if the DoJ hadn't been bought and sold years ago they would be dropping the hammer on them. this is NO different than Walmart coming into an area and pricing products below cost to wipe out competition and then fucking the consumer when they are the only game in town. its pure evil corporatism at its fucking worse and it fucks everyone but the corp in the end.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
42. Re:I seem to remember... by MMC+Monster · 2014-08-24 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  - Automatic full resolution photo uploading from mobile
  - Sync that just works
  These are the reasons I use DropBox for my family. It's great to have it installed on their smart phones and not have to worry about them losing their phone photos. (That's about the only thing of value not synced to an otherwise easy-to-get-to-cloud.)
  Now if they could only offer reasonable pricing alternatives. How about $5/month for every doubling over whatever amount you have in free?
  
  --
  Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
43. Re:I seem to remember... by danknight48 · 2014-08-24 22:23 · Score: 2
  
  It's not all about the price ya know. Some of us like quality too.
  
  Same reasons why i've stuck with dropbox for years.
  I installed Google drive Windows client the other day to try it:
  - 1 process and 1 service, using over 160mb working set
  - Dropbox is only 1 process and 80mb working set.
  No doubt Google drive is written in Java + HTML and being emulated with Python.
  So i uninstalled google drive and i'll stick with dropbox.
44. Re:I seem to remember... by tao · 2014-08-24 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'm fairly certain that the terms of service explicitly forbids that kind of use.
45. Re:I seem to remember... by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2014-08-24 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  "for free for life" LOL
  They just didn't say whose life ...
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
46. Re:I seem to remember... by geekmux · 2014-08-24 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  A while ago some big company offered to buy out dropbox and they declined. Surely it was a sign of the times that the big guns were going to enter the market, and when they get in, they don't muck around. Fair competition isn't something the big companies enjoy doing, as their whole business model tends to revolve around destroying competition then bleeding the market for what it's worth.
  Well, "bleed" is a rather short-sighted mentality for the giants then. That's like saying we're going to "bleed" the internet for all it's worth. The internet isn't going anywhere, and neither is cloud storage, regardless of what fluffy name we give it now or later. Providers should see that, but they don't. They're too busy trying to cut the other guys head off in any way possible (lawsuit, anyone? fresh-baked, every morning).
  And of course, monopolies can afford to do this every single day.
  
  I used dropbox for cloud storage, I liked it for collaborative work. Would be a shame to see it get destroyed through aggressive anti-competitive practices.
  Couldn't agree with you more.
47. Re:I seem to remember... by geekmux · 2014-08-24 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  Would be a shame to see it get destroyed through aggressive anti-competitive practices.
  Fuck off. Everything you posted IS COMPETITION. Dropbox refuses to compete. They offer 2 tiers and ridiculous prices. If they had offered me a 30GB plan I would have jumped at it but my money is no good to them. Instead I would have to beg for "extra" space and game the system. So FUCK dropbox. They wont offer what I want so I've gone elsewhere. Thats called competition.
  Compete? Fine. Then enjoy the race to ZERO, because that's what every other price tag eventually gets to in this "market". Monopolies can afford to do this all damn day long. They also enjoy selling every single bit of your privacy while they do it too.
  Enjoy your future. Oh, and don't forget to ask for a refund when they fuck you.
48. Re: I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 23:12 · Score: 0
  
  There is a Linux client for Google Drive called Grive.
49. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 23:14 · Score: 0
  
  And either you are running this machine at home, or you are paying for a server somewhere, which is considerably more than dropbox.
  (admittedly with a lot more features).
  Then your hosting provider sucks. There are hundreds of companies offering dirt cheap VPS plans that could easily be made into a DropBox-like service with SeaFile or OwnCloud. As an added bonus you an set up front/backend encryption if you don't trust your hosting provider or the government in the country in which they operate.
  I'm paying $10/mo USD for a VPS with 60GB storage, 1GB RAM and 1TB transfer (with native v6, I might add). Why the hell would I pay some third party like DropBox to host my files when I can do it better and cheaper?
50. Re: I seem to remember... by ccjx · 2014-08-24 23:38 · Score: 2
  
  Erm, google drive provides 1TB of data storage for $10/month. How is yours cheaper?
51. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 23:56 · Score: 0
  
  Google's current cash cows (AFAIK) are search, email, and android.
  Close. Google's current cash cows are search. That's it. Just search. As of their FY-2013 statements, search was still 91% of their total revenue. Android is a loss leader to keep people tied into their app ecosystem, which keeps the data & advertising machine fed. Paid email (a la google apps) is a mere drop in the bucket.
52. Re:I seem to remember... by Crosshair84 · 2014-08-25 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  this is NO different than Walmart coming into an area and pricing products below cost to wipe out competition and then fucking the consumer when they are the only game in town
  Which is why the net is full of documented examples of that happening........Oh wait, you can't because that's not what happens. Sure businesses get driven out because a competitor has lower prices, but you can't find substantive examples of them then raising their prices again. Because other businesses will simply move in again to compete.
  
  http://youtu.be/-q1fSNzYNhg?t=...
  
  The only time you could in theory have such a situation is if there are government regulations that make it difficult or impossible for smaller firms to start up and compete, which is what we have today in the banking industry.
  
  I respect your insight into the world of computers, but your knowledge of economics is stuck quite firmly in the 19th century.
53. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  They don't necesserily do it at a loss, but they already have loads of servers for many things, their operational costs are shared among many services, so it costs them much less overall. It's like trying to compete with amazon when you are only selling a small subset of amazon's products.
54. Re:I seem to remember... by StripedCow · 2014-08-25 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like gmail and youtube, which were initially built and operated almost entirely with money obtained from Google's search service?
  I'm still wondering why nobody filed a complaint for that.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
55. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 00:51 · Score: 0
  
  >> What happened to all the penguins---are they no longer on Slashdot anymore?
  I use sftp (es file explorer) and rsync (rsync for android and lamma) with my Android Smart phone for file syncing/sharing/backingup. No rooted device needed.
56. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 00:54 · Score: 0
  
  >> Using profits from one sector to support selling at a loss in another sector in order to drive competition out of business is ACTUALLY THE DEFINITION OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE.
  So giving away software and charging for documentation or support services is anti-competitive? This is how a lot of OSS works.
57. Re:I seem to remember... by dittaeva · 2014-08-25 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  What happened to all the penguins---are they no longer on Slashdot anymore? How about these reasons to like Dropbox over MS, Google, and the others:
  - Linux client
  That's what I thought also when deciding on Dropbox over Google Drive for my employer. However, pairing business and personal accounts isn't supported on Linux, nor have Dropbox committed to supporting it. So while they do provide a native Linux client, and you didn't write "linux support", I wouldn't be too surprised if that support deteriorated even more in the time ahead.
58. Re:I seem to remember... by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-08-25 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Your reasoning sounds very similar to what Microsoft said about internet explorer vs Netscape in the 90s. Maybe what makes such giving the service for free anti-competitive is the market share of the the one giving it away. Obviously Google and Amazon are huge players in the market. If giving their stuff for free eliminates the other competition, then it can be anti-competitive.
  Walmart did this in its early expansion days. They would come into a small town sell products much cheaper than any other store and once those stores closed, WMs prices were raised. What's to keep Google or Amazon from doing the same thing?
  When you are the little guy, it is permissible to undersell to gain market share. When you have the majority of the market, and you decide to do so usually means there are other motives.
59. Re:I seem to remember... by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-08-25 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Google's current cash cows (AFAIK) are search, email, and android.
  Close. Google's current cash cows are search. That's it. Just search. As of their FY-2013 statements, search was still 91% of their total revenue. Android is a loss leader to keep people tied into their app ecosystem, which keeps the data & advertising machine fed. Paid email (a la google apps) is a mere drop in the bucket.
  Actually, their cash cow is selling information. Search is just how the primary way they obtain it.
60. Re:I seem to remember... by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-08-25 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like gmail and youtube, which were initially built and operated almost entirely with money obtained from Google's search service?
  I'm still wondering why nobody filed a complaint for that.
  Because when gmail came out, Google wasn't a major player and there were already other free mail services. As for Youtube, didn't they buy them out?
61. Re:I seem to remember... by dave420 · 2014-08-25 01:58 · Score: 2
  
  YouTube was bought by Google - it was not developed there.
62. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  or you are paying for a server somewhere, which is considerably more than dropbox.
  Depends. I bought a server which has 14TB of storage (after RAID6). Upfront cost was 3000 euros. Co-locating it costs about 60 euros a month (+5 USD for Crashplan). Price for 100GB Dropbox is 8.25 euros/month. 14TB Dropbox would be 1155 euros/month (when playing yearly). ROI is pretty impressive.
63. Re:I seem to remember... by sribe · 2014-08-25 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  So, what you're saying is that there are pending court cases against, say RedHat, because they offer their OS free of charge, undercutting Microsoft's offering?
  Is RedHat using profits in one market to support selling below cost in a different market? No.
64. Re:I seem to remember... by Zappy · 2014-08-25 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  Copy startsout at 25G has Linux support, and syncs a lot faster with less systemload than Dropbox.
  https://copy.com?r=3SiBYd
65. Re:I seem to remember... by Jawnn · 2014-08-25 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  You need to study your history, son. Using a dominant position, as in "I have enough cash to crush you 10 times over in a price war..." to drive out competition is the very essence of anti-competitive behavior. The U.S. chip makers screamed bloody murder when foreign chip makers were "dumping" memory here. The railroads engaged in similar things in the early twentieth century. The energy industry is doing it today. Back to school with you.
66. Re:I seem to remember... by Jawnn · 2014-08-25 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. You too, need to go back to history class. Using a dominant position to crush competition is pretty much the definition of anti-competitive behavior.
  Jeezuz, where do they come up with such patently incorrect notions like this?
67. Re:I seem to remember... by godefroi · 2014-08-25 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well, hey, when you add the $0.75 worth of RAM that Google uses, I'm sure Dropbox is now cheaper.
  
  --
  Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
68. Re:I seem to remember... by unrtst · 2014-08-25 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  How are you separating gmail and drive profits? They are both just methods of accessing the same block of storage. Should they be making you pay more if you want to access that same storage in a different manner?
  Easy. Gmail is ad supported and data mined so they can better target you with ads. Drive is just storage (AFAICT). If Drive is mined, the value per gb is going to be substantially less (email being mostly text, and it's stuff the user often categorizes well and deletes stuff they don't want giving further marketing clues; vs files on drive are going to be random assortments of files: photos, mp3s, videos, office docs, backups, etc).
  So yes, they should make you pay more if you want to access storage through Drive vs Gmail, assuming you are not abusing gmail as a drive (which has been done for ages, but is not commonly done by users and likely violates the TOS).
69. Re:I seem to remember... by godefroi · 2014-08-25 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Furthermore, Dropbox has NEVER been cost-competitive. Even before Amazon dropped S3's price by 2/3, it was orders of magnitude cheaper than Dropbox.
  
  --
  Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
70. Re:I seem to remember... by godefroi · 2014-08-25 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  What we need is an anti-dog-eat-dog rule.
  
  --
  Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
71. Re:I seem to remember... by godefroi · 2014-08-25 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft keeps Azure blob storage's price pretty closely aligned with S3's price. I don't know how big a player it is in terms of customer count, but it's still there, and it's cost-competitive.
  Now, if only the API provided more metadata, it would make syncing much easier. S3 gives you each item's hash when you list items in a bucket; Azure's API doesn't.
  
  --
  Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
72. Re: I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  I would be happy to buy information from Google. Where do I sign up?
73. Re:I seem to remember... by Imazalil · 2014-08-25 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, you mean the one that used to have 'stupid' limitations like 200Mb max individual file-size? It might have even been 50.
74. Re:I seem to remember... by nabsltd · 2014-08-25 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  Google offers its storage space in return for serving you ads when you use their services.
  I haven't ever seen an ad when accessing Google Drive.
  I don't see how they can ever serve me an ad on my phone since I use a third-party file manager app that uses the Google Drive API to seamlessly integrate GDrive to my phone file system. On the PC I use a web browser, which can be protected by AdBlock if they ever do start serving ads on the Google Drive page.
75. Re:I seem to remember... by sglewis100 · 2014-08-25 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Dropbox has always sucked and the only reason people use it is because they are stupid. My Box.com account gives me 50GB WebDAV storage for free for life and OneDrive gives me 27GB free and is integrated into my OS.
  Are you SURE that's the only reason anyone uses it? I use it, because within the free tier, especially with the referral bonuses I've received, I have enough space to use Dropbox with a myriad of apps that support it for syncing.
76. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  no he will not talk about those because that destroys his logic
77. Re:I seem to remember... by danknight48 · 2014-08-25 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's not all about the price ya know. Some of us like quality too.
  
  Clearly, you missed that part.
  And just to bring myself down to your level: Every MB adds up, every thread and process adds up. No doubt, your PC runs like shit and you havnt a clue why.
  Google are great at making things work in a webbrowser. Outside of that, it would be more efficient writing their program in QBasic.
  Not to mention Google employees have an attention span of a fish, with a inability to support anything "out of fashion".
  I'am also sick to death of seeing Google's merging existing products to make them more "cool", "Product X is now Product Y".
  I'll stick with Dropbox thanks. I know it will be supported and their sole focus, unless their bankrupt.
78. Re:I seem to remember... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-08-25 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck off. Everything you posted IS COMPETITION. Dropbox refuses to compete. They offer 2 tiers and ridiculous prices. If they had offered me a 30GB plan I would have jumped at it but my money is no good to them. Instead I would have to beg for "extra" space and game the system. So FUCK dropbox. They wont offer what I want so I've gone elsewhere. Thats called competition.
  It is NOT "competition" if the big boys are "dumping" their services at below cost in order to gain market share. Dumping is an anti-competitive practice which is illegal for very good reasons.
  
  I don't know if technically dumping a service at below cost is illegal the same way as product dumping is, but if it isn't it should be. It is not competition, it is the exact OPPOSITE.
79. Re:I seem to remember... by TangoMargarine · 2014-08-25 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it's a good idea to argue with anybody who is Life Incarnate. They might get mad and take away yours.
  *whose life
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
80. Re:I seem to remember... by TangoMargarine · 2014-08-25 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  You missed the best part!
  - It isn't Microsoft and thus there's a chance it's not evil
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
81. Re:I seem to remember... by TangoMargarine · 2014-08-25 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Windows, Mac, and Linux are not "every single OS out there."
  Come on, guys--who's been letting in people without checking for geek cards?
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
82. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  And indeed, your usage is typical of any Google Drive user, right? ... Right?
  
  Posting anon because I just modded you down. I wish there was a -1 Uninformative, but I'll settle for Offtopic.
83. Re:I seem to remember... by TangoMargarine · 2014-08-25 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  "Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'. Ya gotta have somethin', if ya wanna be with me!"
  Ads.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
84. Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  No, it's not. This goes by many names, e.g. the freebie model, the razor and blade model, etc. It is actually infinitely sustainable. It's also very much not anti-competitive.
  While you are correct that "the razor and blade" model is not anti-competitive, I don't think you actually understand what "the razor and blade" model is.
  
  If I give you X for free, but it is useless without purchasing Y, that is the razor and blade model. Because the razor handle is useless without attaching a blade to it.
  
  But if I give you storage space for free, you can most certainly use that storage space without purchasing any other services from me.
85. Re: I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  Very good. I know two large companies (one a household name in the UK, one owned by a major Japanese company), both of which are very unhappy with Office365. YMMV.
86. Re:I seem to remember... by exomondo · 2014-08-25 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Easy. Gmail is ad supported and data mined so they can better target you with ads. Drive is just storage (AFAICT).
  No it's the same thing, both are ad supported and both data mine the same data because Gmail and Drive share the same block of storage.
  
  So yes, they should make you pay more if you want to access storage through Drive vs Gmail, assuming you are not abusing gmail as a drive (which has been done for ages, but is not commonly done by users and likely violates the TOS).
  By that logic you should be paying extra for email attachments too. But that's irrelevant anyway because Gmail and Drive are the same storage supported by the same ad network.
87. Re:I seem to remember... by LordLucless · 2014-08-25 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. They're using their profits from selling their support product to fund development of their free operating system.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
88. Re:I seem to remember... by sribe · 2014-08-25 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. They're using their profits from selling their support product to fund development of their free operating system.
  No. Those are not anywhere close to being different markets.
89. Re:I seem to remember... by LordLucless · 2014-08-25 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  Give me an objective definition of "market" that makes the doesn't make the distinction between software products and support services, yet does distinguish between, say, operating systems and web browsers.
  I doubt you have one. You just draw the line on a case-by-case basis wherever it supports your argument.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
90. Re:I seem to remember... by Pieroxy · 2014-08-25 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  You realize that Dropbox is way more than just any imaginable combination of sftp and rsync right?
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
91. Re:I seem to remember... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-08-26 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  Given the work they've put into having clients for most things, and broad 3rd party integration, they probably have some room to overcharge for small amounts of space (sure, you could just go shove S3 buckets yourself; but we've already done the integration work for you...); but they seem strangely overconfident about their ability to set prices for larger blocks of storage that just emphasize the discrepancy in per GB price.
  
  That may actually be part of how Google and Amazon and Apple are hitting them hard now: DropBox offers a reasonably compelling deal if you don't need too much space. Sure, it costs too much per GB; but it's all nicely wrapped up and integrated with the programs you use, and life is just too short to go tinkering or comparison shopping to save a small amount. However, Google, Amazon, and Apple will all give you a modest amount of storage for nothing, as part of their respective plans to sell stuff, achieve platform dominance, or whatever. That obviously cuts the knees out from under DropBox's formerly cushy margins on small accounts; and, as you say, their price/GB has always been sufficiently high that they really start to look bad if you need nontrivial amounts of storage(which nobody will give you for free; but which players like Amazon will sell impressively close to cost).
92. Re:I seem to remember... by godefroi · 2014-08-26 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  All my machines run beautifully; I spent the money for 16GB of RAM when I built them so that I wouldn't have to obsess over each MB a process uses.
  I also don't use the Google disk-space-thingy- whatever-its-called. I use S3, and I wrote the sync client myself, because I couldn't find one I liked.
  
  --
  Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
93. Re:I seem to remember... by lsatenstein · 2014-08-26 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  A while ago some big company offered to buy out dropbox and they declined. Surely it was a sign of the times that the big guns were going to enter the market, and when they get in, they don't muck around. Fair competition isn't something the big companies enjoy doing, as their whole business model tends to revolve around destroying competition then bleeding the market for what it's worth.
  I used dropbox for cloud storage, I liked it for collaborative work. Would be a shame to see it get destroyed through aggressive anti-competitive practices.
  I second your like of Dropbox. I am now retired, and I only use 1 gig of the 2 that I am allotted. When my business was active, we were delighted at the $10/mo rate. Dropbox was and is very easy to use, and support is very good.
  I keep the corner store alive by buying my groceries there. He gives me personal service and special deals that the Big Supermarkets are unable to do. Maybe I don't want to always deal with a Walmart type of business. My local independent Dollar store puts Walmart to shame for everything. I recently bought a 5 megapixal webcam ($3.00), 6foot length of hdmi cable($3.00) and a cord mouse ($3.00). Of course they have other stuff that I do not need, but one begins to question what happens to prices once you kill the small business person. Why are laptops selling at between $700 to $1000. when in the boom years (2010), they offered more and were usually priced around $400.00 for a dual core system. The small guy was forced out of business, and now the Big Box stores have no competition.
  Yes, I will support Dropbox. Their software is reliable, easy to use, has excellent features and I am loyal to them.
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
94. Re:I seem to remember... by hobarrera · 2014-08-26 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Linux client: Still propietary, something many *nix users actually care about.
  Follows symlinks: So does almost any application out there. That's not a good thing, it's just a lack of a bug.
  Automatic full resolution photo uploading from mobile: "full resolution photo" is another way of saying "large files". How does the content of a file make a difference?
95. Re:I seem to remember... by the_B0fh · 2014-08-26 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  Selling under your manufacturing cost and someone else selling their shit cheaper because their manufacturing cost is lower than yours are two completely different situations.
  Why are you confusing the two?
96. Re:I seem to remember... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-08-26 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  A difference in this case is that Microsoft didn't already need to build a web browser solely for its own internal purposes anyways. In the case of storage services, notice how all three of these companies ALREADY have massive storage arrays for their own internal purposes, in addition to using them for other products (tell me, how long do you think gmail would remain inexpensive if Google just went on borrowing its storage resources?)
  Once you already have that infrastructure in place and it already is a profit center for another portion of your business, then offering that same service to external customers doesn't have much of a cost involved. That savings is then passed to the customer.
  In the case of dropbox, they weren't already using the storage for another business function.
  Besides, mega.co.nz already offers vastly higher amounts of storage than dropbox for free, in addition to offering full end-to-end encryption...and like dropbox, they too are ONLY in the storage business...yet I haven't heard any complaints out of them. And in light of mega.co.nz, don't you think it's possible that dropbox could just be lamenting the fact that their services aren't more profitable than they already are?
97. Re:I seem to remember... by danknight48 · 2014-08-26 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  All my machines run beautifully; I spent the money for 16GB of RAM when I built them so that I wouldn't have to obsess over each MB a process uses
  Enlighten me:
  - CTRL+SHIFT+ESC
  - Click show all processes
  - How many?
  Also:
  - goto performance tab
  - How many threads/handles?
  Each thread and handle uses up resources, not just your excessive 16gb of memory. Unless you have X thread capable cores to match the current thread number, your programs are having to compete and share CPU resources.
  
  and I wrote the sync client myself, because I couldn't find one I liked.
  Is it "coded" in Java?
98. Re:I seem to remember... by godefroi · 2014-08-27 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  All my machines run beautifully; I spent the money for 16GB of RAM when I built them so that I wouldn't have to obsess over each MB a process uses
  Enlighten me:
  - CTRL+SHIFT+ESC
  - Click show all processes
  - How many?
  Also:
  - goto performance tab
  - How many threads/handles?
  Each thread and handle uses up resources, not just your excessive 16gb of memory. Unless you have X thread capable cores to match the current thread number, your programs are having to compete and share CPU resources.
  
  and I wrote the sync client myself, because I couldn't find one I liked.
  Is it "coded" in Java?
  # get-process | measure -property handles -sum
  Count : 119
  Average :
  Sum : 55134
  Maximum :
  Minimum :
  Property : Handles
  So, that's 119 processes, and 55,134 handles.
  # Get-CimInstance win32_thread | measure-object
  Count : 1623
  Average :
  Sum :
  Maximum :
  Minimum :
  Property :
  Looks like 1623 threads.
  I wrote my S3 sync client in C#.
  
  --
  Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
99. Re:I seem to remember... by nabsltd · 2014-08-30 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  And indeed, your usage is typical of any Google Drive user, right?
  For phone access, yes, since there are no ads even on the Google-supplied app. The same applies to the custom app for Windows, Mac, etc.
  For web access, there aren't currently any ads on the Google Drive page, so, yes, for now. And, if Google changes this, there is always AdBlock.
Neither Google or Amazon want customers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 14:17 · Score: 0

They want corporate clients. As long as Dropbox keeps working for the average joe they're not going anywhere.
Caught between two marketing guy... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 14:20 · Score: 1

A few year ago, I got an HTC storage bonus, when it expired I checked with dropbox what plan I could get, the only plan that was available was a 100GB at $10 + per month, why can't they offer a $2.50 per month 25 gig, if they had they would have a customer... I didn't study as much as their marketing guru but I can tell you that they will have hard time to get me to this pricing page again in the same mood as I was at that point...
There's plenty of option available and with object storage becoming the norm they will have hard time bringing back customer they ignore with their greedy plan...
Dropbox use AWS by a.koepke · 2014-08-24 14:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

Amazon have never chased the consumer business, they don't want that. Their focus is fixed on supplying IT services which companies can then build their solutions on. Dropbox is powered by AWS, they are the wholesale provider.

Amazon reducing their prices should only be a good thing for them as that will reduce the operating costs of Dropbox.

--

(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread
1. Re:Dropbox use AWS by Solandri · 2014-08-24 14:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I was going to post that too. But while googling to make sure Dropbox still used Amazon S3, I came across this article. Apparently the problem for Dropbox is the price volatility. Amazon can lower or raise its prices on a whim because they don't have much competition. Dropbox doesn't have that luxury.
2. Re:Dropbox use AWS by SJ · 2014-08-24 14:50 · Score: 2
  
  DropBox is an over-the-top provider. Yes, they use AWS. But they are competing with Google Drive and MS OneDrive, both of whom are pushing the price down hard, and willing to lose money.
  DropBox still has to pay AWS.
  That said, perhaps DropBox could sell a self-hosted version of their software and bring over their ease-of-use.
3. Re:Dropbox use AWS by Amouth · 2014-08-24 15:33 · Score: 2
  
  That said, perhaps DropBox could sell a self-hosted version of their software and bring over their ease-of-use.
  If they ever do that they will make a lot more headway in the enterprise. The ease of use is excellent from the end-user perspective. But the file retainment is a nightmare for IT organizations, and many block it because they have zero real control over the documents or ability to backup/preserve them with out massive workarounds.
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
4. Re:Dropbox use AWS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:34 · Score: 2
  
  Unless you're buying spot instances of EC2, there's no price volatility in AWS. S3/Glacier prices dont fluctuate.
5. Re:Dropbox use AWS by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-08-24 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  Even if MS and Google aren't willing to lose money on storage(they certainly are in the short term; but as a long game that strategy will not sell well), it isn't terribly obvious why repackaging AWS should be a particularly sustainable niche.
  
  There is room(and dropbox exploited it) for the outfit that makes using AWS trivial and bodges together clients for OSes that allow fairly low level integration and 'app' integration for those that don't; but that's a goal where reaching 'adequate' is not a terribly high barrier to entry and where it isn't obvious what novel features one can add to continue justifying one's profit.
  
  Once there are multiple players who have adequate client integration available what remains but to sell on price?
6. Re:Dropbox use AWS by Trogre · 2014-08-24 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  I use OwnCloud for that sort of thing. It's a little slower, but it's a hell of a lot more secure than Dropbox and no silly limits on storage, other than what size hard drives my company can afford :)
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
7. Re:Dropbox use AWS by Voyager529 · 2014-08-24 16:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That said, perhaps DropBox could sell a self-hosted version of their software and bring over their ease-of-use.
  That's already been done.
  The challenge DropBox faces with a self-hosted iteration of its software is that it stops being 'simple'. Existing Dropbox clients would have to be completely rewritten to go from asking "username and password, please" to "username, password, server address, and port, please". Even if we hand-wave away that problem by assuming that users can either correctly type a server name and port number, or that Dropbox will still have 'accounts' but essentially become a DynDNS clone and simply handle network traversal and matching users to their data repositories, we then have to deal with the Dropbox Server software. There may be a market for Dropbox to sell drives like these, but I don't see Western Digital wanting to partner with Dropbox to provide redundant functionality to their existing apps, and I don't see consumers paying more for a Dropbox branded drive if they're already in the "self-contained NAS" market - a handful might, but now Dropbox, for all intents and purposes, finds itself with all the challenges of being an external hard drive vendor...with the added bonus of directly competing with the vendors from whom they're sourcing their parts.
  The obvious alternative to this would be for them to sell their software and let it run on a LAMP/WAMP stack, on whatever hardware is on hand, and market it to the enthusiast/enterprise market, like UnRAID or Nexenta. That might be a short term win, especially if they do some fancy stuff with LDAP/Active Directory integration. Conversely, I see it potentially being a support nightmare based on how it deals with storage. Will it install on an Ubuntu desktop containing a hodgepodge of hard disks? Would it be more like FreeNAS where it makes its own software RAID, but requires hardware to be dedicated (or its own VM)? Even at that, how do they bill for the software? One-time use seems like it wouldn't be a good long-term plan, but I don't see too many users being okay with Dropbox charging them an annual fee to use their own hard drives. CALs could be a useful method (arguably the most workable one), but they'd have a hard time managing their consumer-friendly image on one hand with Oracle-style licensing on the other.
  Levie is right; 'free' isn't a business model. Dropbox's 2GB number is only sustainable because they're betting that a certain number of those users will go for a paid tier. Either every Dropbox customer will pay, or they start advertising, or they data mine. To my knowledge, those are the three business models that have sustained themselves on the internet. 'Everyone Pays' may be a viable model if Dropbox can do things like sell gift cards for their service (for users unable/unwilling to fork over their Mastercard) and come up with the right formula of how much customers are really willing to pay for storage+ubiquity+simplicity. Although Levie must certainly be feeling the pinch from Microsoft's 1TB of OneDrive for $60/year, the one client we attempted to migrate to that service went back to dropbox VERY quickly because the desktop client was utter crap; I'm left to believe that Dropbox's simplicity still has an edge just yet. Conversely, I don't think that $50/month for 500GB is worthwhile, either - That's only slightly less than it'd cost to buy a 500GB hard disk outright from Newegg every month.
  Dropbox is still a well-recognized brand that I'm certain many consumers are still willing to pay a premium for, and Microsoft and Google are competing not only with more storage for less money, but with integration as well - editing a spreadsheet in Sheets or Excel and seamless saving of attachments is not the kind of thing that Dropbox can effectively compete with.
8. Re:Dropbox use AWS by exomondo · 2014-08-24 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  they are competing with Google Drive and MS OneDrive, both of whom are pushing the price down hard, and willing to lose money.
  Really? I haven't seen any evidence that they are losing money, they may offer a lower price but that doesn't mean they are losing money.
9. Re:Dropbox use AWS by XaXXon · 2014-08-24 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  while they could, amazon has never raised prices on AWS.
10. Re:Dropbox use AWS by Amouth · 2014-08-24 17:30 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  We tried ownCloud first, ended up with a complete mess of files as the client is very dump and only works if there is a perfect clock sync between all clients and everyone is on a low latency high bandwidth client.
  Considering we are working with multiple people on the road in spotty net connection areas with laptops from different companies whose clocks differ a small bit we ended up with a gigantic mess of conflicts and 0 byte files which lovingly got propagated.
  Needless to say our testing of ownCloud showed it to be far from ready for production use.
  Also their documentation and reliance on community forums was very sad to say the least.
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
11. Re:Dropbox use AWS by Splab · 2014-08-24 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  The "could" will kill a lot of investor interest.
12. Re:Dropbox use AWS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-26 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  seafile is the dropbox replacement, owncloud is more like a groupware.
AntiTrust by mbone · 2014-08-24 14:26 · Score: 0

Anyone who doesn't think we need stronger antitrust enforcement is crazy.
1. Re:AntiTrust by ShanghaiBill · 2014-08-24 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who doesn't think we need stronger antitrust enforcement is crazy.
  We need better antitrust enforcement in many areas. But on-line storage isn't one of them.
2. Re:AntiTrust by cdrudge · 2014-08-24 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  What's antitrust about this?
3. Re:AntiTrust by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  You sound like atlas shrugged
4. Re:AntiTrust by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Anyone who thinks we need stronger government meddling is crazy.
Sneaky by Tokolosh · 2014-08-24 14:27 · Score: 4, Informative

A drive-by Dropbox installation turned me off.

--
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Box is horrible by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 14:27 · Score: 0, Troll

"Here's a ton of free space that's really hard to use!"
Fighting for all of our stuff by Trogre · 2014-08-24 14:28 · Score: 2

It's nice that all these huge companies are so interested in control of everyone's data.
I think I'll stick with my OwnCloud server for syncing files across devices for the time being, thanks.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
1. Re:Fighting for all of our stuff by ShanghaiBill · 2014-08-24 17:12 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It's nice that all these huge companies are so interested in control of everyone's data.
  Just encrypt your files before you put them in your shared folder. Or just set the folder to automatically encrypt. There are dozens of "how to" webpages that explain how to do this with DropBox and TrueCrypt, and it isn't hard to do it with other services.
2. Re:Fighting for all of our stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  True Crypt is obsolete ...
  http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/05/true-goodbye-using-truecrypt-is-not-secure/
And Microsoft. And Apple. And Adobe. And... by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2014-08-24 14:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Having worked in this "file sharing" industry, this result is no surprise to me. The platformers, especially those with heavy investments in content suites (Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop/PDF, Google Docs, etc.) are tired of letting the middlemen make money off of cloud storage and collaboration. Furthermore, they understand the danger of allowing their customers to congregate around "platform independent" technologies too long. Worse, companies with just a dozen or two people can crank out everything Box, etc. can do in less than a year and sell it as either an on-premise or cloud solution. (There are dozens of clones now.) The result is that companies like DropBox aren't worth anything for their technology anymore - instead, it's a race to see if they can "run out the clock" and sell their customer base to one of the platformers before they dwindle down to nothing.
Just because you can't do it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 14:37 · Score: 0

doesn't mean someone else can't.
Just because amazon and google can undercut you doesn't mean they're doing it at a loss.
Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by s1d3track3D · 2014-08-24 14:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

'Free' is not a business model." - Aaron Levie (Dropbox)
Yes, something music artists know all to well...
It's a bummer when your on the wrong side of supply and demand aint it?!
1. Re:Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  "I enjoy playing music, I don't care who it's for."
  Real musicians don't play for the money. Fake musicians sing about money because it's all they care about.
2. Re:Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by TubeSteak · 2014-08-24 15:41 · Score: 2
  
  'Free' is not a business model." - Aaron Levie (Dropbox)
  Yes, something music artists know all to well...
  Even the biggest artists make most of their money from touring, merchandising, and product endorsements,
  In Asia, where large scale commercial piracy is a fact of life, music artists only make money from non-album sales.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
3. Re:Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:46 · Score: 0
  
  Oh. Oh. I've got this one.
  Maybe Dropbox should go on tour and start doing concert venues? :D
4. Re:Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:47 · Score: 0
  
  Asia is doing it right. Pay performers to perform, not record.
5. Re:Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  Which is nice if you don't need a roof over your head, food to eat and clothes to wear. Or if you don't mind the fact that you'll never be as good as you could be.
  It takes a ton of time and practice to get to a professional level and realistically it's not likely to happen if you're also having to work a 40 hour a week job in a field that pays well. It's just not going to happen.
  So, you can talk about how real artists don't make money, but realistically, if they don't have a patron or some means of support you get a really short career that ends when they realize that they're going to be evicted.
6. Re:Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 16:32 · Score: 0
  
  It takes a ton of time and practice to get to a professional level
  So how exactly do you explain all those supposedly professional musicians who produce the latest low-quality odes to "gettin paid and hangin wit my niggas"? They were too busy selling out to bother practicing? Or maybe they just don't give a shit about being musicians, because the music industry doesn't pay for quality?
7. Re:Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by westlake · 2014-08-24 16:37 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, something music artists know all to well...
  It's a bummer when your on the wrong side of supply and demand aint it?!
  If the demand for music isn't there, why is the geek spending his time cruising Pirate Bay?
  Contributing nothing in exchange for content others have been willing to pay for --- which is the only reason it continues to be produced.
8. Re: Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by corychristison · 2014-08-24 16:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I am not artistic in any way. So I may be biased here.
  The problem is expecting to get paid every time someone wants to hear the recording you made 3 months ago (or three years ago, or thirty years ago). I understand it is a means to produce more content, but rarely actually happens.
  The waitress at the last restaraunt you ate at has to keep doing the same thing (with minor adjustments) over and over again to keep making a wage. I highly doubt she has delusions of serving one table and making a living for the rest of her "career".
  I have a brother who enjoys making music. He subs in his friends bands from time to time because he enjoys playing. During the day he works a normal job, has no ambitions or delusions of "making it" and playing an instrument as a career.
  I'll be blunt here: if your music really is as fantastic as you think, you'd already be sleeping on a bed made of money. Maybe you should go and reflect on that.
9. Re:Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by Camael · 2014-08-24 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  Even the biggest artists make most of their money from touring, merchandising, and product endorsements,
  In Asia, where large scale commercial piracy is a fact of life, music artists only make money from non-album sales.
  This, so much. Unless he is a big name with a sweet record deal, the average musician doesn't really earn much from his record sales.
  
  Every contract is different, but the average high-end royalty deal with a record company will pay musicians $1 for every $10 retail album sale. And it can be a lot worse than that; a low-end royalty deal only pays 30 cents per album sale -- amazingly small for a CD purchase, especially considering that bands may have to divide that among several members.
  Some musicians have already adapted with the times to seek income alternatives. And apparently some if not most of these income streams are far more lucrative than royalties.
10. Re: Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by matbury · 2014-08-25 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  Re: "you'd already be sleeping on a bed made of money" -- Simply not true. Having worked in the music business, I can tell you that it's anything but meritocratic. I have friends and colleagues who were signed up, promoted, had moderate success, and some had hits (Top tip: Getting a distribution deal is the only thing worth having. It means that they have to invest substantial funds into promoting you so that they don't make a loss on all that distribution. This stops them from signing you up simply to shut you up and to stop you from competing with another band/artist they've already signed and are planning to promote). They all ended up owing their record labels money. It's a sad fact that even a successful recording band/artist doesn't see any money until their 3rd successful album. It's a nest of vipers, a tank of sharks, whatever metaphor you want to use. Nobody survives for very long by playing fair and keeping things ethical and above board. With a few rare exceptions, i.e. the longer-term stars that we see on TV, the only people who make decent money out of music are the ones who don't play instruments. If you're wondering why more bands and artists don't go public with this, read a recording contract.
11. Re:Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  I find it really funny that the summary said Levie worked at Dropbox and everyone on the thread is repeating this.
12. Re: Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by dave420 · 2014-08-25 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Or they could use the recorded music as advertising, as was originally the idea, and make their money by performing live and selling merchandise... Controversial, I know...
13. Re: Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by Jawnn · 2014-08-25 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  The entire recording industry's business model was built on artificial scarcity. Until viable digital technologies came along, it was complicated and expensive to mass-produce and distribute recorded music. That model is dying, slowly, but dying just the same. There will not be the mountains of money that the record companies (and to some extent, their artists) enjoyed for many decades. Oh, they're fighting tooth-and-nail to hang onto it, but keeping that model propped up through litigation will ultimately fail. As you say, if the music is that fantastic, people will pay to own it, just not as much as almost everyone things they should.
14. Re: Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by MobyDisk · 2014-08-25 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just playing devil's advocate here:
  Suppose we had a technology that allowed us to record the waitress movements, and then play them back. Perhaps a learning robot of some kind. In what ways would that change the scenario? Would the best waitresses be able to demand a royalty on their waitress-bot recordings?
15. Re: Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by AntEater · 2014-08-25 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Would the best waitresses be able to demand a royalty on their waitress-bot recordings?
  No, the waitress is screwed. On the other hand, the manager who filed for a patent on this robo-waitress business method will be able to retire early.
  
  --
  Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
16. Re: Yeah, as music artists know, not so fun is it? by david_thornley · 2014-08-26 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  In music, the usual practice is to make money on live appearances, and benefit from music sales primarily as advertising. The RIAA really distorts things, so music isn't the best example here.
  Consider writing. Authors don't make significant money on public performances. The main revenue stream comes directly or indirectly from sales of individual copies. How do you propose to keep authors writing? (Personally, there are a good many authors that I'd like to see writing full-time, rather than evenings and weekends, and who I'd like to see financially rewarded for writing.)
  I'm not saying that copyright is the only right answer, I do realize it has inherent problems nowadays, and I'm not at all fond of current copyright laws. However, I haven't seen a better idea than a twenty- or thirty-year copyright.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How the world turns by Gothmolly · 2014-08-24 14:45 · Score: 0

One day Slashdot is fellating Amazon and Google for their Cloudiness, the next they're accused of corporate evil for being Walmart-A or Walmart-B.
The only thing I see is a consistent bias towards and demand for free crap. Are there any adults on Slashdot anymore?

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
1. Re:How the world turns by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 14:59 · Score: 0
  
  The only thing I see is a consistent bias towards and demand for free crap.
  
  Linux is free crap, ain't it? We love to cunnilinguate Linux round here.
Too expensive by cdwiegand · 2014-08-24 14:56 · Score: 2

My wife and I just left Dropbox, because paying $20/month for 200 GB of storage (which she just exceeded with our photos from before kids as well as our kids) is crazier than paying $10 for 1 TB of storage. The only feature I miss is the ability to auto-backup our photos to our online storage - Google does some kind of backup to Google+, but that's worthless to me. Dropbox would auto-upload my pictures to a folder, which I really liked. Oh, and IFTTT doesn't seem to work well for us for backing up the photos, seems to take forever and requires tweaking, Dropbox's system Just Worked.
I understand Dropbox is coming out with some email client, ok, yay, Yet Another Email Client. That is so old and tired. Do something innovative. Now, all this said, if there was an EASY way for me to have Dropbox-like functionality against an S3 endpoint where *I*/AWS runs the box, I'd be game. The options out there suck for users and honestly aren't great for power users either.

--
. Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
1. Re: Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  Bt sync will eat a bunch of Dropbox's business. Check them out.
2. Re:Too expensive by bakes · 2014-08-24 16:52 · Score: 2
  
  Now, all this said, if there was an EASY way for me to have Dropbox-like functionality against an S3 endpoint where *I*/AWS runs the box, I'd be game
  Have a look at owncloud.
  
  --
  Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
3. Re:Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 23:10 · Score: 0
  
  WebDAV is not a solution. There are literally hundreds of service providers offering WebDAV access to storage. None of them work as well as DropBox.
4. Re:Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  My wife and I just left Dropbox, because paying $20/month for 200 GB of storage (which she just exceeded with our photos from before kids as well as our kids) is crazier than paying $10 for 1 TB of storage. The only feature I miss is the ability to auto-backup our photos to our online storage - Google does some kind of backup to Google+, but that's worthless to me. Dropbox would auto-upload my pictures to a folder, which I really liked. Oh, and IFTTT doesn't seem to work well for us for backing up the photos, seems to take forever and requires tweaking, Dropbox's system Just Worked.
  I understand Dropbox is coming out with some email client, ok, yay, Yet Another Email Client. That is so old and tired. Do something innovative. Now, all this said, if there was an EASY way for me to have Dropbox-like functionality against an S3 endpoint where *I*/AWS runs the box, I'd be game. The options out there suck for users and honestly aren't great for power users either.
  Ironically the innovation you're asking Dropbox to do is staring you in the face. It's called Just Worked. You refuse to pay for Just Worked, so enjoy your race to the bottom where all the price tags are free. It'll only cost you your privacy. Don't worry. Enjoy the ads.
5. Re:Too expensive by creepynut · 2014-08-25 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  WebDAV is only one way to access the files. You can download an OwnCloud client which syncs the files locally in the same way Dropbox does.
Dropbox sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 14:58 · Score: 0

Last year I tried to use dropbox to transfer one of my college textbooks (PDF) from my computer to my iPad for portability. The file was immediately locked on copyright grounds by dropbox. Even though I owned the book, I was unable to transfer it due to Dropbox's proactive copyright scanning.
That was the last time I used their service. Fuck Dropbox.
oh and for the record - I'm not a coward, I just don't have or want a slashdot account
1. Re:Dropbox sucks by onproton · 2014-08-24 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Came here to comment about dropbox + condoleezza rice being the worst possible combination imaginable, and looks like your comment wraps that up pretty nicely.
2. Re:Dropbox sucks by spire3661 · 2014-08-24 15:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is why i run my own 'cloud' service using Synology NAS boxes. I cant stand how much file manipulation all the big consumer cloud vendors do. I want my cloud files to feel EXACTLY like a folder in a share over a slow link. Stop scanning, interpolating, deduplicating etc, jsut store my files.
  
  --
  Good-bye
3. Re:Dropbox sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  Surprised this is the only comment mentioning this.. Is she still on the board?
4. Re:Dropbox sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  I know, I run my Bitcoin operation on your system. Thanks, btw!
  http://storageservers.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/synology-nas-systems-hacked-and-being-used-for-crypto-currency-mining-schemes/"
5. Re:Dropbox sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  The file was immediately locked on copyright grounds by dropbox. Even though I owned the book, I was unable to transfer it due to Dropbox's proactive copyright scanning.
  The people running these companies are idiots. The copyright cartels don't pay them a cent, but they've convinced all these companies to go against the interests of their paying customers.
6. Re:Dropbox sucks by spire3661 · 2014-08-25 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  LOL. Good luck getting any coins out of that ARM CPU. Also it was DogeCoins, not BitCoin
  
  --
  Good-bye
Hardware by Curunir_wolf · 2014-08-24 15:03 · Score: 1

Why is this posted under "Hardware"?

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
1. Re:Hardware by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  Dropbox uses hardware
DropBox is terrible by goruka · 2014-08-24 15:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

Unlike Google which uses ownership to determine size used, you can run out of space in DropBox by someone sharing you a large folder. DropBox also make is impossible from the web interface to see the sizes or usage of files to make room or clean up. I ended up paying Google for 100gb because their service is simply better.
1. Re:DropBox is terrible by jimbolauski · 2014-08-25 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  I did not have a good experience with Google Drive, every time I restarted my computer it would re-sync the whole folder. I abandoned it after I noticed it was trying to upload 50GB which would have taken about a day to do.
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
DropBox is hopelessly overpriced by popo · 2014-08-24 15:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's one thing to blame Amazon and Google for a price war. But DropBox's pricing scheme was always overpriced. (And the same goes for Evernote -- even though theirs is a slightly different offering). What should cost a couple bucks a month is priced multiples higher.
Besides, DropBox has entertained MULTIPLE exit opportunities and rejected them all.
If they disappear now, they will have only themselves to blame for not choosing any one of the multiple exits that were on the table.
The landscape changed rapidly around the early leaders. And yet, those leaders did not change their models rapidly to match the changing landscape. Knowing when to quit, and how best to exit are essential parts of management. While we may applaud unbounded grit and unshakeable tenacity -- those qualities in a CEO are more frequently disastrous than beneficial.

--
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
1. Re:DropBox is hopelessly overpriced by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-08-24 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  Dropbox is for storing small quantities of apples that you want to share with friends without having to attach them to a UPS shipment and spend bucks. Evernote allows you to save an inventory list of your oranges, attach article clips describing your oranges and attach a few pictures of them.
2. Re:DropBox is hopelessly overpriced by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 17:47 · Score: 0
  
  i just use for free, i don't think i need more, i can you another cloud storage and make it is enough. http://www.vapbulous.com
3. Re:DropBox is hopelessly overpriced by stalky14 · 2014-08-24 19:00 · Score: 2
  
  I use Dropbox's free service but they've never made a dime from me because they have no middle tier. I'd happily pay $5/mo for 35-50GB, but $10 for 100GB is too much for too much.
4. Re: DropBox is hopelessly overpriced by Threni · 2014-08-25 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure with double token, torture apologist Rice on board they'll keep going for weeks yet.
5. Re:DropBox is hopelessly overpriced by Vastad · 2014-08-26 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  always overpriced. (And the same goes for Evernote
  Really? If you pay off the full year in advance at US$45, that works out to US$3.75/month. Which seems reasonable to me. Even better with the exchange rate to GBP where it becomes £2.25/month.
um what? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:14 · Score: 0

"Dropbox's Aaron Levie said" ... Dropbox != Box.net
Cloud storage in US? LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:27 · Score: 0

Not putting up my files where Obama can take a peek.
1. Re:Cloud storage in US? LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Why? What's in those files that you don't want to share, comrade?
Wacky Alternative by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:33 · Score: 0

... or you could, you know, buy two hard drives. (Make one of them your backup.)
No linux client from google by Bram+Stolk · 2014-08-24 15:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is dropbox for me:
There is no linux client for Google Drive.
I think years ago it was supposed to be 'soon'.

--
Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
1. Re:No linux client from google by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 19:04 · Score: 0
  
  oh, I use two
  try sudo apt-get install grive
  also, there is a FUSE connector
2. Re:No linux client from google by Zappy · 2014-08-25 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Copy.com has a nice native Linux sync client like Dropbox, only faster. More free space than Google drive or Dropbox
  https://copy.com?r=3SiBYd
3. Re:No linux client from google by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  Exact same reason I keep using Dropbox. Until other services provide a complete, easy to use, client for Linux, I won't switch. I pay Google for 150GB just because it is CHEAP, but I'm not using it. Dropbox needs to get rid of that MailwhateverstupidAppleonlything they're trying to put on me and FSCKING DROP the prices, if not they'll die maybe next year.
4. Re:No linux client from google by Niels · 2014-08-30 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  There is a client voor Google Drive made by Insync: https://www.insynchq.com/
  It is commercial, but not really expensive. And so far my experience with it has been very positive.
Dropbox - cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:39 · Score: 0

I cannot believe the bitching and complaining from Dropbox. They have never had competitive prices or services. I pay TWO dollars a month for a whole 100gb for Onedrive. Google Drive is the same cost a month.
Even the free, basic offering from Dropbox is laughable. They may have been innovators in the beginning but they are not anymore. You have to compete or die. Microsoft and google get my money.
How about storage that cannot be read by the NSA? by Squidlips · 2014-08-24 15:40 · Score: 1

So DropBox, that's a way to differentiate yourself...hint hint...something that we all want...and will never get.
After Reading This by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:41 · Score: 0

I cancelled my 100GB account and will likely roll my own with OwnCloud or maybe a VPS. I learned a few things reading through this thread.
It IS possible to compete against "free" by Tony+Isaac · 2014-08-24 15:46 · Score: 2

This article actually points it out: When the big players drop the prices to below cost, it is possible to still compete, by offering add-ons specific to certain types of customers, or better customer service, or in some other way differentiating yourselves from the big players. This applies both when the big guys are Amazon and Google, or when they are Walmart and Home Depot.
Self hosted cloud for me by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:47 · Score: 0

Owncloud and its ilk beat all these guys. Six months now and no regrets. I guess it costs me the electricity of my servers (as I also run an off site backup for it) and its not for the average Joe blow, but whatevs.
Break them up. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 15:50 · Score: 0

Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle, Walmart, Media Companies, et al have to be broken up into itty bitty little pieces.
how about by offering to not screw you... by Archfeld · 2014-08-24 16:06 · Score: 1

If they promised not to 'steal' your contents and sell them to someone else or use them to market 'partner' services, or actually have and supply a real secure site. You know at some point Google will alter their ToS to allow them to use anything in their never-ending quest to track everything and everyone that ever touches the web in any manner.

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
BTSync by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 16:16 · Score: 0

Avoid them all and get free dropbox capability albeit synced only. No cloud - Bit torrent Sync, and Syncthing.
1. Re:BTSync by Noah+Haders · 2014-08-24 16:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  i was super jazzed about bittorrent sync because I learned about it around the time Dropbox bent over for NSA and welcomed Condi on board. I don't support companies like that. but my work started blocking bittorrent ports and I'm afraid I'll hit some automated logging system becuase I'm running on a bittorrent client on my computer.
  
  so I'm still looking for a good alternative that's not dropbox. I'm trying out sync.com, it's based in CA so it's immune from normal stupid warrants. but I might go to spideroak and get the full encryption. if it's good enough for snowden it's good enough for me.
2. Re:BTSync by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 21:15 · Score: 0
  
  http://syncthing.net/
3. Re:BTSync by RubberDogBone · 2014-08-24 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  Dropbox gave me 50GB free because I bought a certain cell phone, but I left the moment it became clear they let the NSA do anything they wanted.
  Hell no.
  That has actually burned me on cloud for anything that isn't PGPd already, but honestly I should have been doing that from the start. Lesson learned.
  
  --
  Sig for hire.
4. Re:BTSync by CreatureComfort · 2014-08-25 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  I love SpiderOak. The only thing I still use my dropbox account for is sharing files too big to fit through people's email systems. Sharing a file in SpiderOak is still a bit of a pain. As long as I don't care about the security or privacy of it (which is most of the files I'm transferring) dropping it in my dropbox folder and right clicking to get the HTML share link is about the fastest way to move a couple hundred Mb to five or six people.
  
  --
  "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
  Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
5. Re:BTSync by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 01:08 · Score: 0
  
  i was super jazzed about bittorrent sync because I learned about it around the time Dropbox bent over for NSA and welcomed Condi on board. I don't support companies like that. but my work started blocking bittorrent ports and I'm afraid I'll hit some automated logging system becuase I'm running on a bittorrent client on my computer.
  so I'm still looking for a good alternative that's not dropbox. I'm trying out sync.com, it's based in CA so it's immune from normal stupid warrants. but I might go to spideroak and get the full encryption. if it's good enough for snowden it's good enough for me.
  I use and like Tresorit, a fully encrypted cloud service which is based in Switzerland. I know a Switzerland exposes me (as a US citizen and US corporation) to the NSA justifiably being able to snoop on my accounts, but recent events have shown that being based in the US is no longer a defense against NSA snooping. And, sadly, I now trust the Swiss courts more than the US courts on privacy issues.
6. Re:BTSync by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  that 50G was also only good for a single year, then it vanishes.
7. Re:BTSync by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  Dropbox gave me 50GB free because I bought a certain cell phone, but I left the moment it became clear they let the NSA do anything they wanted.
  Hell no.
  Please provide the evidence necessary to back your claim that every other major provider of cloud service does not do this, or is forced to do this.
  FYI, you might have a hard time proving that due to those (now legal) things called FISA gag orders. Yet another reason to safely assume ALL of them do.
  
  That has actually burned me on cloud for anything that isn't PGPd already, but honestly I should have been doing that from the start. Lesson learned.
  Rule #1: Encrypt it before it hits the cloud, and keep that encryption control with you as much as possible.
  Rule #2: See rule #1.
8. Re:BTSync by ndavis · 2014-08-25 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Have you looked into tresorit? I signed up with them when they first came out and have 50GB of storage and found that it works pretty well and they have an application for android (not sure about apple) and can backup photos automatically.
9. Re:BTSync by Noah+Haders · 2014-08-25 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking about owncloud but the company says macs are not supported. Unix is supported, but not macs. how weird is that?????
10. Re:BTSync by Just+Some+Guy · 2014-08-25 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  I bought a Synology NAS and it comes with something called Cloud Station, which is basically Dropbox. You install the client on your machines and it keeps your ~/CloudStation folder in sync with your own NAS. Your data never leaves your personal control. I currently have about 4TB of open storage, which is a little more than the 8GB or so of Dropbox I've accumulated over the years.
  I'm sure other NASes offer similar arrangements. Pick one you like, install it, then forget the whole idea of paying some company $$$ per month and praying they care about your privacy.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
11. Re:BTSync by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-26 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  around the time Dropbox bent over for NSA and welcomed Condi on board.
  Best reason not to use them even if they are free.
12. Re:BTSync by WuphonsReach · 2014-08-26 07:28 · Score: 2
  
  Owncloud or Seafile.
  
  Both run on your own hardware and use SSL for transport encryption. I think Owncloud supports server-side encryption (data sits encrypted on disk) but can't remember of Seafile does too.
  
  --
  Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
13. Re:BTSync by hobarrera · 2014-08-26 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Spideroak refuses to release the source for their client (though they claim they will, some day). As it is, it's just an unproven claim that it's encrypted and secure. For all we know there might be a huge security hole making it all worthless (possible an accidental one, btw).
14. Re:BTSync by Noah+Haders · 2014-08-26 14:24 · Score: 2
  
  Encrypt it before it hits the cloud, and keep that encryption control with you as much as possible.
  Rule #2: See rule #1.
  actually, the lesson I take from this is not to use a cloud provider at all. Instead, self host storage with some sort of syncing option, everybody keeps talking about owncloud. If your information isn't stored on someone's server, then they can't NSL a copy of it. they could still intercept info in transit, but this is a different beast of overall internet data slurping.
Re:How about storage that cannot be read by the NS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 16:17 · Score: 0

Kind of like https://Mega.co.nz? Or https://Sync.com ?
Can't compete by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 16:37 · Score: 0

I have 8 terabytes on 115 and it's free.
1. Re:Can't compete by TangoMargarine · 2014-08-25 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  So what's the catch
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Its all about privacy protection and nothing else by mlwmohawk · 2014-08-24 16:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

Dropbox had a great claim, originally, that your data was secure not even "dropbox" could see it. Well, it turned out that was a lie.
The bigger issue is privacy protection. If I upload non-public information to one of these services, which one can I trust to keep that private? If there is no clear answer, then price is the only differentiator. Who's going to protect your privacy when presented with an NSL? Answer: no one. After that, who cares?
I believe that if a storage company wants to stand out and charge a premium, it needs to hire lawyers, a lot of them, to defend the rights of its customers. When you store your data on your property, you are protected by the 4th amendment, the warrant requirement, and the legal right to a defense, when you store your data in the cloud, you have little, if any, protection, and the service provider has no duty to protect your data from government requests.
Criminals, lawyers, and the general public have the same needs. If you can't protect criminals, you can't protect the general public. Data storage has never been about the bits. It has always been about the meta requirements: security, longevity, recoverability, and yes, cost. The google/amazon threat is about cost, what about the other requirements?
You're not the customer, you're the product by taustin · 2014-08-24 16:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Free is, indeed, a fine business model when the real purpose of providing cloud storage is to data mine it for targeted advertising, which has always been Google's business model, and is increasingly Amazon's, as well. 95% of Google's revenue is from advertising, and getting you, and me and everyone else, to store all their documents in Google Drive is well worth the cost to increase ad rates. Amazon's business model is a little different, but is getting more and more like Google's lately, with their announcement that they're working on their own ad network to replace Google's.
Everything that both companies have done lately - and that Google has ever done, has been to stuff that profile database as full as possible on everyone human being on the planet.
Flying first class is not a business model by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 17:02 · Score: 0

Never comes up in the discussion of value pricing
Re:How about storage that cannot be read by the NS by David+Jao · 2014-08-24 17:17 · Score: 1

Tarsnap offers NSA-proof cloud storage and provides all the source code for all the client programs to back up their claims (in fact the installation is only available in source code form). But it costs way more than the competition.
Self host by Karmashock · 2014-08-24 17:18 · Score: 0

there is no reason we can't self host these services... we like drop box mostly for the software, not the servers. We can provide the servers ourselves.
And why is it that all these companies are moving to cloud based software? Piracy. Which really underscores the need for more open source software because not only do people not want to pay for this stuff, we really can't. Its too much. If you bought a paid version of everything that you typically just get for free... we're talking thousands of dollars a year. We can't afford it.
So we need an open source, self hosted, appified storage solution.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. Re:Self host by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  Right. Like a Western Digital McCloud or something.
2. Re:Self host by Karmashock · 2014-08-25 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  the problem with MyCloud is that it uses WD servers to handle an internet connection to your personal cloud and it is not capable of either being configured with a static IP, hostname, or a private routing system.
  We just need these things to be entirely private without any corporate interlocutor.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Assron Levie runs Box, not Dropbox by cornelius1729 · 2014-08-24 17:50 · Score: 1

Does nobody check the blurb anymore? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
1729 = 9^3 + 10^3 = 1^3 + 12^3
Wow, Muphry's law in action by cornelius1729 · 2014-08-24 17:52 · Score: 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
1729 = 9^3 + 10^3 = 1^3 + 12^3
1. Re:Wow, Muphry's law in action by TangoMargarine · 2014-08-25 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Whoosh
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
No waiting necessary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 17:58 · Score: 0

Bittorrent Sync is already free for unlimited storage and only YOU hold the keys.
Tried Google Drive 1TB... by hsthompson69 · 2014-08-24 17:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

...but man, it sucks. Messed up git repositories. Requiring a complete download of all content if you restore to another disk (yes, boys and girls, gdrive actually decided to track files by what fucking inode they were on, instead of doing something rational like checksumming). Self-DOS attack on large uploads, literally sucking up all the bandwidth you have going up, causing all other traffic to stall.
I'm waiting for Yosemite and iCloud Drive - hopefully they'll do a better job with reasonable rates.
FYI, for those using OSX and gdrive, you can stop it from self-DOSing on large uploads by using ipfw to limit https up bandwidth:
sudo ipfw pipe 1 config bw 400KByte/s
sudo ipfw add 1 pipe 1 ip from me to any dat-port 443
I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 18:31 · Score: 0

Doesn't dropbox use amazon as it's backend? or did they switch? cause if they are still using s3 under the hood, then what the hell is their complaint? Amazon lowers prices, their costs drop? They will be entirely unaffected still maintain the exact same profit if they are actually value-adding and then only charging for the value-add... me thinks their complaint is they still want a piece of amazon's pie, which they've been getting a taste of essentially as a reward for wholesaling for amazon.
*plays world's smallest violin*
"Free" was never a business model by drolli · 2014-08-24 19:27 · Score: 1

And i never will store data on anybody who tells me that he does it for free. Either he looses money, or he has something else in mind.
anyone tried *infinite* photo storage of Picasa? by bingoUV · 2014-08-24 19:32 · Score: 1

I see in Google image storage terms that photos smaller than a certain resolution do not count towards your storage limit. So has anyone stored tons of photos for free there? How much? I tried storing some, but 2000 photos limit per album made it very inconvenient. Appears too good to be true, is it?
I remember seeing Flickr also allows 1 TB photo + video storage. This too sounds unsustainable if people really use this.

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
How do you tell when competition is fair? by Camael · 2014-08-24 20:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

While I broadly agree with your ideal that fair competition is good for customers and specifically with the example you gave, there is more to cheap prices than meets the eye. For example, not that long ago Walmart got into trouble for predatory pricing.

The complaint accused Wal-Mart of selling butter, milk, laundry detergent, and other staple goods below cost at stores in Beloit, Oshkosh, Racine, Tomah, and West Bend. A bottle of laundry detergent that cost Wal-Mart $6.51, for example, was sold for less than $5 at several stores> . The company’s intention, according to the complaint, was to force competitors out of business, gain a monopoly in local markets, and ultimately recoup its losses through higher prices.
I think most people will agree this kind of competition is bad from the consumer's point of view. The problem is, it is very hard to prove intention. That very same marketing tactic, i.e. selling products at or below their cost price, is also a popular marketing tactic known as loss leading.

It’s a classic retail technique: Attract shoppers by lowering prices on certain items, with the idea that once customers are in the store, they’ll buy full-priced items as well.
From the merchant's point of view, he is willing to take a loss on some items to earn traffic for his other goods. To his competitors selling the same loss leader items however, this is unfair competition. My point is, it is a very thorny issue deciding when certain competitive strategies are fair or unfair and much depends on the facts of each case.
1. Re:How do you tell when competition is fair? by Rick+in+China · 2014-08-24 20:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah - good points, both of them. I think one difference here is it isn't for example, Walmart vs. the little guys. It's several giants competing with each-other as well, we've got the biggest players in the industry with strong interest in this market. I don't think Google is thinking Amazon and MS will be "forced out of business" and then later they can "ultimately recoup its losses through higher prices", or anything like that.. but it is good to pay closer attention to the nuance in these cases than I perhaps indicated in my post.
Aaron Levie doesn't work for Dropbox. by darrenfulton · 2014-08-24 21:07 · Score: 1

Aaron Levie doesn't work for Dropbox.
Re:How about storage that cannot be read by the NS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 21:07 · Score: 1

SpiderOak was supposed to enforce client-side encryption prior to uploading-- to the point they said that if you lost your key(s), tough shit, they never had them to begin with (which is how it's supposed to work!).
Wake up call by StripedCow · 2014-08-24 21:11 · Score: 2

Storage is a commodity.
Now we only need to wake up the telcos and make them realize their product is a commodity too.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 21:12 · Score: 0

Dropbox's Aaron Levie said, "These guys will drive prices to zero. You do not want to wait for Google or Amazon to keep cutting prices on you. 'Free' is not a business model."

Poor baby. Want a lollipop?
Spideroak by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 22:36 · Score: 0

I think spideroak is the only one that really gets it. Storage is either a race to the cheapest or a race to the most secure. Want to make money in this game? Go secure.
Re:Its all about privacy protection and nothing el by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-24 22:37 · Score: 0

> which one can I trust to keep that private?
They're all US companies. Even if you could trust the company in question, they are simply not able to keep your data private thanks to their government.
Really? by Overzeetop · 2014-08-24 23:01 · Score: 1

Never had that happen on any copyrighted books I've loaded into dropbox.
Now, I have had PDFs which were locked by the owner in a way that was unencryptable on the iPad, but that isn't Dropbox's fault.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:How about storage that cannot be read by the NS by Overzeetop · 2014-08-24 23:03 · Score: 1

SpiderOak makes Dropbox look bargain basement in pricing.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Grandfather Clauses vs Hostage Negotiations by retroworks · 2014-08-24 23:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have a non-profit association which uploaded dozens of videos of repair geeks in several countries on Viddler.com, a "free" video storage back in 2007, 2008. Viddler, like Youtube and Vimeo, was in the video storage space, and had trouble making any money vs. Youtube. First thing they had to do was to drop "source files" in 2010, when all the original quality was lost to make space. Then last April they gave members about a month to either pay up monthly or lose all their videos.
This was really disturbing and it's my main concern about dropbox. If they suddenly change the price, and we have years of space stored, how realistic is it to download? Viddler did not offer any mass-download, we had to do it file by file. They cut us a break in the end but it would have been very appreciated if the EULA agreements allowed for something other than retroactive storage negotiations. At this point we choose where to put files not just based on monthly price, but the future monthly price and the ease of moving out. The latter is the most important, I'd never put material on the cloud again which took 2 minutes per file to get back off.

--
Gently reply
1. Re:Grandfather Clauses vs Hostage Negotiations by Shados · 2014-08-25 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  They may advertise that way sometimes, but IMO these services do not replace backup solutions. That can also be done in the cloud, but not with Dropbox or Google Drive. So even if you use them for your file storage/access needs, you'd still want either conventional backups (tape or otherwise), or use a service like Glacier or Carbonite or whatever for actual backups.
  That way, if one service craps out on you, you have your files on the other. If both crap out on you on the same day....well, just think of it as if your tape backup vendor's locations caught on fire or something :)
2. Re:Grandfather Clauses vs Hostage Negotiations by david_thornley · 2014-08-26 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  The way I use Dropbox, it's for syncing and backup. I have all the files stored locally in at least two places. If they go away, I need to get a new backup plan, but my files already live on two different disks in my house.
  (My definition of a "backup" is a copy that's unlikely to go away for the same reason as the original. My laptop and desktop are backups in a way, because both disks are unlikely to get trashed simultaneously, but they're usually both vulnerable to anything that affects my whole house. Dropbox may go away for legal or business reasons, but not for anything that affects my house short of nuclear war or other major disaster.)
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
3. Re:Grandfather Clauses vs Hostage Negotiations by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  This was really disturbing and it's my main concern about dropbox. If they suddenly change the price, and we have years of space stored, how realistic is it to download?
  The typical Dropbox user has his folder completely synced on at least one computer. If Dropbox went away tomorrow, I'd still have the latest version of my shared folder in my computer.
  If you're not using Dropbox in this way, then it's quite easy to install the client on your PC and tell it to "sync everything".
  On a related note, I would discourage anyone from having their only copy of any important data on the Dropbox folder. It may be on your machine, but the Dropbox client can delete any file at any moment inside that folder without notice.
  I've had files disappear in the past due to:
  - Friends uploading huge files to shared folders where I was participating making me go over my quota
  - Friends deleting shared files by mistake (i.e. moving pictures to their local libraries instead of copying)
  - What I believe to have been Dropbox client bugs possibly related to the above problems
By-products are not unfair by sjbe · 2014-08-24 23:50 · Score: 1

Fair competition isn't something the big companies enjoy doing, as their whole business model tends to revolve around destroying competition then bleeding the market for what it's worth.
Please define "unfair" in this context. Exactly what do you think is "unfair" about what Amazon and Google are doing? You think they should have to replicate Dropbox's (probably flawed) business model to be "fair" to Dropbox? Amazon and Google can afford to offer storage space very cheaply because for them it is a by-product of their primary business. By-products can be sold very cheaply because they would otherwise be considered waste. Dropbox is selling a mostly undifferentiated commodity product - specifically data storage capacity. While they've made their product friendly and easy to use, that doesn't change what it is and if someone is willing to offer a similar product for less profit then I think Dropbox and Box and the rest are probably doomed.

I used dropbox for cloud storage, I liked it for collaborative work. Would be a shame to see it get destroyed through aggressive anti-competitive practices.
I use dropbox as well but if they go out of business it isn't terribly hard to replace them. I use Google Drive at work and it is quite easy to use as well. Frankly if I were the owner of Dropbox I would be looking for a deep pocketed company to sell to because unless they can expand beyond their current offerings they are almost certain to go out of business eventually.
1. Re:By-products are not unfair by sd4f · 2014-08-25 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm speaking in a more broader sense. But to answer your query, Microsoft have definitely built themselves a reputation in the 90's to spend money to kill competition. They're not the first, and definitely not the last. I've already written what I think is fair competition in other posts here, can follow it up if you're really that interested. I'm not explicitly saying that it's the competitors of dropbox doing it, but the point to be taken is that they were offered to be bought out, and they declined. The writing was on the wall, so to speak.
2. Re:By-products are not unfair by sjbe · 2014-08-25 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft have definitely built themselves a reputation in the 90's to spend money to kill competition.
  Their well deserved reputation isn't relevant for once I think. Microsoft doesn't need to sell at a loss here to gain market share at Dropbox's expense because they almost certainly have a huge cost advantage. Like for Google, storage space for Microsoft is a by-product of their other product offerings such as search or Office in the cloud. I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft's (and have 20 years of postings to prove it) but I really don't think there is a credible case for predatory pricing to be made here. Dropbox has a flawed business model and as you point out they should have sold the company when they had the chance. Now they will get crushed by any large firm that has storage space to spare (specifically Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, etc) and a desire to slap a friendly interface on it because by-products are by definition cheap.
Android is a defensive play by sjbe · 2014-08-24 23:56 · Score: 1

I thought Android was a loss leader (and really, only making a pittance, compared to their web/non-mobile search)?
It is sort of but the real purpose of Android is so that Google doesn't get shut out of mobile advertising by Apple, Microsoft or others who own their own mobile platforms. It's not really intended to be a profit center to Google but rather to keep others from shutting off Google from future revenue streams as mobile becomes increasingly important. Don't think for a moment that if Google had to go through Apple or Microsoft or Blackberry that those companies wouldn't take their pound of flesh or even simply keep Google out altogether if they could.
1. Re:Android is a defensive play by the_B0fh · 2014-08-26 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Not debating the point. Only debating OP's original contention that one of Google's cash cows is Android.
By-Products are very very cheap by sjbe · 2014-08-25 00:02 · Score: 1

No, operating something at a loss so that it kills the competition is anti-competitive.
Who says they are selling at a loss? Storage space is a by-product for Google, Amazon and Microsoft. They have a lot of storage space that would otherwise go to waste from their primary businesses. They can afford to sell it very cheaply because otherwise it would be nothing but an expense (waste) for them. Also bear in mind that just because they offer it to end consumers (sometimes) for free sometimes doesn't mean it is actually free. As a user of Google Drive I'm not their customer unless I actually pay them - I'm their product. The customer is the one who buys the advertising. Their product is (theoretically) my attention for advertisers and storage space (like email and search) is just another way to get me in front of them.
1. Re:By-Products are very very cheap by sd4f · 2014-08-25 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  You clearly didn't read my second paragraph.
2. Re:By-Products are very very cheap by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  Who says they are selling at a loss? Storage space is a by-product for Google, Amazon and Microsoft. They have a lot of storage space that would otherwise go to waste from their primary businesses.
  Yes, thank you for linking to the definition of what a by-product is. Now how about an actual citation?
Storage no longer a business by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 00:08 · Score: 0

Dropbox's problem is that when they started being able to store your data in an easy to use cloud service was "a thing." It was novel, sort of unique and they could charge a reasonable price for it.
Now storing stuff in the cloud is worse than a commodity, it's something that others Almost give away for free to get you to use their "thing". Storage in the cloud isn't a business anymore. Unless Dropbox comes up with an actual business then they're toast.
By-Products are not predatory by sjbe · 2014-08-25 00:10 · Score: 1

what they are doing is NOT competing, what they are doing is called Predatory pricing which if the DoJ hadn't been bought and sold years ago they would be dropping the hammer on them.
It's not illegal when the company pricing lower has a genuine cost advantage. Google and Amazon and Microsoft have VAST amounts of surplus storage space due to their other businesses and data storage to end users for them is a by-product. By-products are almost by definition extremely cheap because if they don't have any marketable value then they are waste. Google and the others are simply selling something cheaply that would otherwise be nothing but a cost to them. That's not predatory, that's simply smart business.
I use Dropbox but its business model is dumb and they should have sold the company when they had the chance. At the end of the day they are selling megabytes of storage which is an undifferentiated product. Putting an easy to use interface on that isn't all that hard to do and any sufficiently well funded competitor can easily replicate what they've done. Why you think companies like Google should try to replicate a flawed business model like that is a mystery to me.
1. Re:By-Products are not predatory by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  The very fact that you are linking to the definitions of by-product and undifferentiated product proves that you are just spouting nonsense.
  
  Try providing a real citation.
Google has a cost advantage by sjbe · 2014-08-25 00:17 · Score: 1

Using profits from one sector to support selling at a loss in another sector in order to drive competition out of business is ACTUALLY THE DEFINITION OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE.
You are almost certainly mistaken in your presumption that they are selling at a loss. Storage space for a company like Google or Amazon is a by-product. It would otherwise be waste to them so they can sell it profitable very very cheaply. They aren't dumping here because they have a genuine cost advantage.
Frankly, Dropbox has a rather dumb business model that I really don't think has a bright future. I say this as someone who actually uses Dropbox and generally likes the product. But I really don't see them being successful as a stand alone business. They have the same problem Microsoft does when competing against Linux. The costs for the competing products are just genuinely lower.
By-products are not loss leaders by sjbe · 2014-08-25 00:26 · Score: 1

I think most people will agree this kind of competition is bad from the consumer's point of view. The problem is, it is very hard to prove intention. That very same marketing tactic, i.e. selling products at or below their cost price, is also a popular marketing tactic known as loss leading.
Probably not applicable here because storage space to Google is a by-product, not a loss leader. By-products by definition are generally very very cheap which means that Google's cost for the service is pretty close to zero - at least far closer to zero than it is for Dropbox. Otherwise the unused storage space would be a cost (waste) rather than a revenue stream. Google doesn't have to sell it for a loss because they have a huge cost advantage over Dropbox. They can sell it far below Dropbox's cost and still make money doing so because storage is not their primary business. Storage to Google is a by-product.
This is very similar to the problem Microsoft has in trying to compete with Linux. Companies that develop for linux have their primary line of business elsewhere -services, hardware, etc. For example IBM sells services so they don't actually have to make money on linux. Microsoft on the other hand currently has to make money selling the software so they can't just give it away. This puts certain constraints on Microsoft's business model.
1. Re:By-products are not loss leaders by david_thornley · 2014-08-26 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Probably not applicable here because storage space to Google is a by-product [wikipedia.org], not a loss leader.
  
  I keep seeing this claim in these comments, and I'd like to know if you really know what you're saying.
  A by-product is something that you produce while making something else. What do Amazon and Google make that produces storage?
  Do you mean to say that they need massive amounts of storage in the first place? That doesn't mean it's free. If they need Y petabytes for their normal operation, and X for Dropbox-type activities, then they need X+Y petabytes for combined operation. If an industrial operation needs vast amounts of water, that doesn't mean water is a by-product.
  It may well be that Google and Amazon can maintain storage cheaper than most people, because they do have a lot of it. Google, for example, has put a great deal of research into how to have tremendous amounts of mass storage as inexpensively as possible. That takes advantage of economies of scale, and has nothing to do with by-products.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
2. Re:By-products are not loss leaders by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-26 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  Probably not applicable here because storage space to Google is a by-product [wikipedia.org], not a loss leader.
  I keep seeing this claim in these comments, and I'd like to know if you really know what you're saying.
  
  Since they keep linking to the Wikipedia page about by-products, instead of something that explains how storage space is a by-product of Google's/Amazon's/Microsoft's primary offerings, I'm fairly certain they don't know what they are saying.
3. Re:By-products are not loss leaders by sjbe · 2014-08-27 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  A by-product is something that you produce while making something else. What do Amazon and Google make that produces storage?
  
  A by-product is formally defined as "'output from a joint production process that is minor in quantity and/or net realizable value when compared to the main products". The search and retail services that Google and Amazon respectively provide require a lot of computers and these computers invariably have an excess of hard drive capacity even if they are using storage area networks or similar. (storage is purchased as a step function so there always is some amount of excess capacity even if very small) This means that their primary product (search and retail) generates storage as a by-product. Offering storage related services is a way to recapture some of the value of this excess storage which would otherwise merely be a cost.
  
  Do you mean to say that they need massive amounts of storage in the first place? That doesn't mean it's free.
  Nobody said it was free and by-products aren't free either though they can be very very cheap sometimes. They simply aren't as valuable in the marketplace as the primary product. From an accounting standpoint it is a sunk cost - the money has already been spent for a separate purpose and any (rational) decision making about what to do with the asset going forward should not factor into the equation.
  Excess capacity for any company on any product can be normally be sold very cheaply. This is how foreign companies can sometimes sell products for what seems like ludicrously low prices even without government subsidies and why accusations of dumping are hard to prove. Once the fixed costs of the product have been recovered, anything the company can sell it for after that is pure profit. They basically can sell it for as low as their variable cost without losing money. Google's variable cost on a unit of data storage is extremely low - probably no more than a few cents per megabyte if not less. It's not free but it's pretty close. A great example of excess capacity with a low cost is text messaging for cell phones. The cost to AT&T to send you a text message is very very very low because the mechanism to send the message simply rides on some gear that has to be there anyway for a separate purpose. Once the decision to put the cell tower in is made, text messages are almost pure profit even though technically they could be considered a by-product. (now their market value is high enough that by-product might not be an accurate description anymore though...)
  
  It may well be that Google and Amazon can maintain storage cheaper than most people, because they do have a lot of it. Google, for example, has put a great deal of research into how to have tremendous amounts of mass storage as inexpensively as possible.
  
  I'm a cost accountant and what you said here is 100% correct. They are able to achieve economies of scale that few others can match.
  
  That takes advantage of economies of scale, and has nothing to do with by-products.
  You are conflating two accounting issues that are properly separate. Google gets storage very cheaply on a per-megabyte basis because they buy huge amounts of it and have cost effective infrastructure to make use of it. They end up with large excess amounts of it because of the nature of their primary business (not data storage) which effectively makes it a by-product to Google. From an accounting standpoint this is no different than how oil refineries generate natural gas as a by-product when refining oil into gasoline. They would have to have the storage whether or not they went into the data storage business. By going into the data storage business they are attempting to get market value for that by-product rather than simply writing it down as waste. Either way that excess capacity is a by-product. Calling Google's excess data storage capacity a by-product is logically correct.
Major improvements w/ newer OwnCloud versions by RanceJustice · 2014-08-25 00:48 · Score: 2

I don't know how long ago you used OwnCloud, but it may be worth another look. OwnCloud has come onto the scene relatively recently and there have been major quality improvements as the version number increased. What may have been lacking a given feature or feeling kludgy in 4.x, could be replaced by a smooth implementation when 5.x rolls around. The latest OwnCloud 7.x highlights many of its most recent improvements here, for instance - https://owncloud.org/seven/ , some of which seem like they may be beneficial to you use cases. Likewise, improvements to the client apps seem to come almost as swiftly.
It may also be worthwhile to consider using other means to connect aside from the official clients - there are many applications that have integrated support for OwnCloud, and if the clients aren't working out to your liking, enabling say.. WebDAV/CardDAV/CalDAV etc.. and then connecting to these services with whatever best suits your users, can also be a worthwhile endeavor.
For enterprise production use, it doesn't seem like you should be reliant on community forums and documentation, as they have what appears to be subscription enterprise variants and support services, similar to many other high-end FOSS projects.
Now admittedly I've never worked with OwnCloud in a business environment as you describe and it may not be for your needs, but these are just a few things to consider as the software matures.
You have to provide some value add by gelfling · 2014-08-25 00:51 · Score: 1

Free services provide almost no additional value. They don't 'do' much of anything. And honestly Googledrive is VERY clunky if you use it for >1 device on a single account. But it free (or nearly free e.g I pay $5/year for an old 40GB account). Dropbox has to do something on top of that if they expect to charge money.
Storage without sync. by CronoCloud · 2014-08-25 00:55 · Score: 1

What I want is online storage I can just mount to my filesystem, and move files over without the service wanting to keep the files locally because it want's to sync a local and online directory. Heck, I might even want to un-mount it sometime. Most of the time I don't need syncing or versioning, I don't mind if that exists as long as I can turn it off.
wow by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 00:59 · Score: 0

Of course free is a business model! I doubt you're paying Google to use its search engine. I doubt you are paying Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo!, etc.
1. Re:wow by jsepeta · 2014-08-25 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  I've never paid to access Slashdot, except when using my mobile phone on an airplane. CROOKS!
  
  --
  Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Re:Its all about privacy protection and nothing el by pantaril · 2014-08-25 01:18 · Score: 2

Cloud services which use client-side encryption can store your private data securely. Mega.co.nz for example offers 50GB of storage space for free and they have support for linux, windows, mac nad android.
Dropbox and Rice by ilsaloving · 2014-08-25 02:33 · Score: 2

Considering that Dropbox has Condi Rice on their Board of Directors, they're in a prime position to target the warmongers market.
Buy 'em out, boys! Re:I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 02:38 · Score: 0

Obligatory Bill Gates/Simpsons reference... http://vimeo.com/70498601
Boxcryptor Anyone? by fuzznutz · 2014-08-25 02:41 · Score: 2

I have all my private files in a Boxcryptor folder on Dropbox. It is compatible with EncFS on Linux and there is a compatible client on Android. Sure, it might break file deduplication and search on Dropbox, but isn't that the point. The price was right too: free.
Just like retail by Skynyrd · 2014-08-25 03:08 · Score: 1

WalMart can offer goods for less money than my local mom & pop store. If mom & pop want to stay in business, they need to offer something WalMart doesn't.
Dropbox, Box and the rest need to offer something the others don't, go under, or get purchased. Just like in the real world.
I use Dropbox for personal things, and it's fine. It's also free, which may not be a permanent business model.
I use Box for work, and I have found their customer service to be slightly better than Comcast. If it was my choice, we'd drop them and find a company that is capable of supporting its paying corporate customers.
Memories of walmart by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 03:24 · Score: 0

Same thing they said about walmart. They can afford to enter a market & sell at a loss for months, years, on end. Then when the competition is gone they do whatever they want more or less because most market share has been controlled.
Free market capitalism!
Corporations are people too, friend.
Aaron Levie is the CEO of Box, not Dropbox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-25 04:59 · Score: 0

Box focuses on business users, while dropbox is targeted to home users.
The small players always lose out by Barlo_Mung_42 · 2014-08-25 05:30 · Score: 1

I get 5TB of storage with my Office 365 accounts which is way more than I really need. There's just no point in paying for another service like Dropbox anymore.
SAY NO TO TORTURE by LF11 · 2014-08-25 05:44 · Score: 1

It would certainly help if Dropbox didn't hire Condoleezza Rice. I ceased recommending Dropbox as a solution to anyone when they pulled that stunt, and have helped many people migrate away. Yes, I know every (most?) cloud services have an open-door policy for the NSA. Nevertheless, that was a slap in the face.

Seriously? You're going to hire Ms. Torture USA? Please. I'll vote with my wallet...elsewhere.
I seem to remember... by Samizdata · 2014-08-26 04:32 · Score: 1

It was Apple, BTW. They loved how it was integrated into the OS.

--
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
Sneaky by Samizdata · 2014-08-26 04:36 · Score: 1

A little more detail please? That's the first I have heard of such a thing.

--
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
Re:Its all about privacy protection and nothing el by david_thornley · 2014-08-26 05:03 · Score: 1

If you really want privacy, do your own encryption and decryption. If it is theoretically possible for a company to get your data out of its storage, it's one court decision or law away from handing it to whatever government has jurisdiction (which can be several governments in practice). Having the company lawyer up and defend its customers is far from complete protection.
IIRC, what Dropbox said is that no employee has access to the customer's files, which was presumably a matter of internal organization and access. Like most accusations on the net, this has been kicked around so much that it's hard to find the truth without a primary source. Heck, I've seen plenty of /. comments that oversimplified from TFS just to hurl an unfounded accusation.
Privacy and price are also not the only criteria somebody might use to evaluate a Dropbox-type service. Dropbox offers other services, like being able to get to previous versions, and very convenient use over multiple OSes. You may not care, but others may well.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Dropbox brought it on themselves by Guspaz · 2014-08-26 06:19 · Score: 1

Unless I'm mistaken, Dropbox has never invested in infrastructure. They rely on S3 for storage, which is extremely expensive. If they had invested in their own infrastructure, they wouldn't be in this mess... or at least they wouldn't be quite so deep in it.
BackBlaze faced a similar challenge, and decided to build their own infrastructure, going so far as to build their own custom server chassis. They rely on consumer drives with redundancy to reduce costs. The result? Their one-time up-front storage cost is $0.05 per gigabyte, meaning that it's economically feasible for them to offer their customers unlimited storage for five bucks a month. Amazon, for their part, charges $0.33 per gigabyte per year (in bulk).
Their infrastructure isn't quite exactly what Dropbox would need, but it's not that far off, and their costs drop based on ever-decreasing storage prices, rather than when a cloud provider feels like lowering sky-high storage costs.
Predatory Pricing by Grega711 · 2014-08-26 23:22 · Score: 1

Actually, I think what Amazon and Google are doing now is called "Predatory Pricing" -- selling something below cost for the purpose of destroying competitors. It's a monopoly kind of violation of federal law, AFAIK, and it's what the US is constantly accusing China of doing. Any country that subsidizes local products gets complaints from other countries to the WTC and threats of trade sanctions. The other countries don't want to have to match prices with subsidized products, or have their producers compete against producers in other countries that receive govt subsidies. It's called "unfair trade". Heck, the Thai government (and other govts) are even getting heat for subsidizing the crops of their own rice farmers. The govts are buying the crops above market cost, and are being blocked (by some countries) from reselling it on the open market because their internal subsidies are deemed anti-competitive. But who's going to launch an antitrust suit against Amazon or Google. Look how successful the US was last time they tried one against Microsoft. Hope this is helpful.
Or stay offline. by RockDoctor · 2014-08-27 00:17 · Score: 1

But that might be the only thing keeping us from choosing between the Wal-Mart-A and Wal-Mart-B of online storage.
I carry 2x1TB drives around with me, and synchronise between them. No online storage for me.
Then again, with 1MBPS of public network link shared between 180 people, no online storage for anyone on this job either.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Levie runs Box not Dropbox by RadioheadKid · 2014-08-27 06:16 · Score: 1

Aaron Levie is co-founder and CEO of Box not Dropbox..

--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson