Wow. I don't mean this as negative towards Dropbox at all but I never thought I'd see that level of decadence again. I mean, the Phelan Building (where they're located) is massively expensive (its a 105 year old historic landmark). Custom art on the wall, band rooms, arcade games, free food and all the amenities.
Again no slight intended. If they have the money they might as well enjoy it (I did when I was young and in the same situation). But for a company that had its first release what about 2 years ago they're living large.
What? Company that generates a metric shit-ton of revenue is spending some of it on employee perks, and this is somehow indicative of a bubble?
I was under the impression that the 90s were all about lavish spending without revenue. Although I guess people will see any trend they want to see if they try hard enough...
I'd be interested to know exactly how much revenue Dropbox has at the moment. I know they have plenty of paying customers, including many of us here, but there's an order of magnitude more customers with free accounts. Does anyone know how Dropbox' revenue stands right now? Are they actually profitable yet?
You're not going to find accurate answers to questions about bottom-line numbers of a privately held company by asking in a public forum.
What is publicly known is that Dropbox passed 4 million users a year ago (http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=339), and that according to Crunchbase they have not raised any outside funding since 2008. Infer from that what you will.
Typical conversion rate is 1-2%. That's at least 40,000 paying customers. At $10/mo (that's the maximum revenue per subscriber) that's $400,000 a month, or $4.8M a year. The key here is they are a growing, revenue-generating company.
Considering that Facebook has like 500m users, yet doesn't charge any of them, and they're valued at $50B or whatever, and yet DropBox has 4m users and does bring in $10+/month from a good percentage of them, I'm going to guestimate that DropBox is profitable in at least the millions of dollars annually range. And that's a very conservative guestimate.
I really don't think people understand the implications of Dropbox's model. I think I stumbled upon it - http://marcgayle.com/how-dropbox-is-printing-money - so I am not surprised with this level of decadence.
At the rate at which they are going, I can almost guarantee you that their public filings - or the first public confirmation of their financials - will be bombshellish (if it is anything like I suspect, and I am seeing no evidence to suggest that it is not - in fact, this video further confirmed my impressions).
Btw, I don't mean it as a bash against Dropbox. I just feel like they have discovered a pot of gold, and are being shy about it - heck, that makes total sense. If I were them, I would probably do the same thing until it was too late for anybody to clue in and catch up. So that might be what they are doing. Can't say I blame them, just wish I got confirmation - for my own curiosity's sake.
If that is the case, it's a HUGE deal. No hyperbole can do it justice.
The article you quoted is confusing for me. It says they store only one copy of each file and serves it to all requests originating from different users. Sounds good!
But how can it be viable? Like most files in my account are personal. Only few are such that others too might have them. Isn't it same for everyone? I think most people have mostly unique files in their account.
So how can dropbox rely on the model mentioned in the link?
Great question Andrew. That's why I think most people underestimate the power of what Dropbox has done, because most don't understand it.
Well, this is what I think happens. For some people, the majority of their files will be unique - but for many people, they won't be. The more people they get using dropbox (with the free account) is the more files they can get, which means the more things they have access to that they can charge for.
In other words, as their network of files grows and their user base grows, their costs shrink and their margins get wider - because the higher the likelihood that they are to be able to charge for files that are already there.
So to put some numbers to it.
Say when they had 100 users, 5% share the same files. That means, essentially they are charging 5 people for access to the same files. However, when they reach 10,000 users more people upload similar files I suspect that 5% increases to say 7%. That means that they can now charge 700 people for access to the same files.
Imagine when they reach 1,000,000 users and 10% have the same files - that's 100,000 users they can charge for access to the same files.
I don't know what the true percentage breakdowns are, but I suspect they will be much higher than many people expect. Double digits.
In any case, even if it is not higher than people expect, network effects work for their model - like nothing I have ever seen before. The more people join, is the more files they have which increases the % of their userbase that they can charge for. So not only is the absolute numbers of users growing, but the portion of the userbase they can charge to the same files are growing too.
Thanks. This makes sense. Numbers of similar files will surely increase with the increase in the number of users.
Also, there could be several users who do not consume the allocated space completely all the time. Using your argument, this too will have positive effect on their revenue model.
Exactly...see the thing is, in my model - I never even accounted for that case (the users that don't use up all their space), because technically that is like a current liability. In that at any time, those users can lay claim to their free space - so Dropbox has to be able to give them that free space.
So technically, it wouldn't make much sense for them to really consider that against their profit margins. Although, over time I am sure they have realized that X% of their users never use up more than say 1GB (and various levels) of their storage - so you may be right. But I didn't want to get into all of that because of the questions surrounding it.
It's really the structure of the way they charge for storage and the way they pay for it.
I can't think of any other company that can do what they are doing.
Amazon with their web services can't. A car rental company can't. Neither can a restaurant, retail store, manufacturer of anything, nor a hotel or anything of that nature.
I can't think of any other business model (in history) that is as lucrative of what they are doing.
I would love for someone to provide a counter example, because I think I am going crazy - because it is very rare that you find something 'too good to be true'. But this might be one case, for the founders and investors, that truly is.
When I left SF all those old buildings off Market were the cheapest options in The City. Also, you could usually take over the lease for cheap from some other startup wipeout.
I guess expensive is relative but last I checked it was about $1,100 for a 300sq ft office (and they clearly have a lot more than 300sq ft). That was a few years ago when I had a friend who moved his offices out of there because the location wasn't worth the cost to him.
This is exactly the logic that our mteam used in the '99 bubble when we built out offices on 2nd. I'm not saying Dropbox is extravagant, but this isn't a compelling argument to me.
Is Dropbox overspending on employee perks? I highly doubt it.
Does that make every expense that can be rationalized in comparison to headcount, revenue, or (worst of all) potential pull-through revenue valid? No! Some are valid, some aren't.
All I am saying is, this notion of "we need the very best talent, and we need to make it is as happy as can be" is a platitude that was used by execs to justify a lot of excess.
When you are big enough, you can buy anything and that's considered natural. It's only when you are young and can enjoy such thing. I think for a startup, what matters is doing what you want to do and they are doing it.
Comments
Wow. I don't mean this as negative towards Dropbox at all but I never thought I'd see that level of decadence again. I mean, the Phelan Building (where they're located) is massively expensive (its a 105 year old historic landmark). Custom art on the wall, band rooms, arcade games, free food and all the amenities.
Again no slight intended. If they have the money they might as well enjoy it (I did when I was young and in the same situation). But for a company that had its first release what about 2 years ago they're living large.
The 90s are back after all.
> The 90s are back after all.
What? Company that generates a metric shit-ton of revenue is spending some of it on employee perks, and this is somehow indicative of a bubble?
I was under the impression that the 90s were all about lavish spending without revenue. Although I guess people will see any trend they want to see if they try hard enough...
I'd be interested to know exactly how much revenue Dropbox has at the moment. I know they have plenty of paying customers, including many of us here, but there's an order of magnitude more customers with free accounts. Does anyone know how Dropbox' revenue stands right now? Are they actually profitable yet?
You're not going to find accurate answers to questions about bottom-line numbers of a privately held company by asking in a public forum.
What is publicly known is that Dropbox passed 4 million users a year ago (http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=339), and that according to Crunchbase they have not raised any outside funding since 2008. Infer from that what you will.
Typical conversion rate is 1-2%. That's at least 40,000 paying customers. At $10/mo (that's the maximum revenue per subscriber) that's $400,000 a month, or $4.8M a year. The key here is they are a growing, revenue-generating company.
Considering that Facebook has like 500m users, yet doesn't charge any of them, and they're valued at $50B or whatever, and yet DropBox has 4m users and does bring in $10+/month from a good percentage of them, I'm going to guestimate that DropBox is profitable in at least the millions of dollars annually range. And that's a very conservative guestimate.
I really don't think people understand the implications of Dropbox's model. I think I stumbled upon it - http://marcgayle.com/how-dropbox-is-printing-money - so I am not surprised with this level of decadence.
At the rate at which they are going, I can almost guarantee you that their public filings - or the first public confirmation of their financials - will be bombshellish (if it is anything like I suspect, and I am seeing no evidence to suggest that it is not - in fact, this video further confirmed my impressions).
Btw, I don't mean it as a bash against Dropbox. I just feel like they have discovered a pot of gold, and are being shy about it - heck, that makes total sense. If I were them, I would probably do the same thing until it was too late for anybody to clue in and catch up. So that might be what they are doing. Can't say I blame them, just wish I got confirmation - for my own curiosity's sake.
If that is the case, it's a HUGE deal. No hyperbole can do it justice.
The article you quoted is confusing for me. It says they store only one copy of each file and serves it to all requests originating from different users. Sounds good!
But how can it be viable? Like most files in my account are personal. Only few are such that others too might have them. Isn't it same for everyone? I think most people have mostly unique files in their account.
So how can dropbox rely on the model mentioned in the link?
Great question Andrew. That's why I think most people underestimate the power of what Dropbox has done, because most don't understand it.
Well, this is what I think happens. For some people, the majority of their files will be unique - but for many people, they won't be. The more people they get using dropbox (with the free account) is the more files they can get, which means the more things they have access to that they can charge for.
In other words, as their network of files grows and their user base grows, their costs shrink and their margins get wider - because the higher the likelihood that they are to be able to charge for files that are already there.
So to put some numbers to it.
Say when they had 100 users, 5% share the same files. That means, essentially they are charging 5 people for access to the same files. However, when they reach 10,000 users more people upload similar files I suspect that 5% increases to say 7%. That means that they can now charge 700 people for access to the same files.
Imagine when they reach 1,000,000 users and 10% have the same files - that's 100,000 users they can charge for access to the same files.
I don't know what the true percentage breakdowns are, but I suspect they will be much higher than many people expect. Double digits.
In any case, even if it is not higher than people expect, network effects work for their model - like nothing I have ever seen before. The more people join, is the more files they have which increases the % of their userbase that they can charge for. So not only is the absolute numbers of users growing, but the portion of the userbase they can charge to the same files are growing too.
It's FRIKKIN BRILLIANT!!!!!
Thanks. This makes sense. Numbers of similar files will surely increase with the increase in the number of users.
Also, there could be several users who do not consume the allocated space completely all the time. Using your argument, this too will have positive effect on their revenue model.
It IS brilliant!
Exactly...see the thing is, in my model - I never even accounted for that case (the users that don't use up all their space), because technically that is like a current liability. In that at any time, those users can lay claim to their free space - so Dropbox has to be able to give them that free space.
So technically, it wouldn't make much sense for them to really consider that against their profit margins. Although, over time I am sure they have realized that X% of their users never use up more than say 1GB (and various levels) of their storage - so you may be right. But I didn't want to get into all of that because of the questions surrounding it.
It's really the structure of the way they charge for storage and the way they pay for it.
I can't think of any other company that can do what they are doing.
Amazon with their web services can't. A car rental company can't. Neither can a restaurant, retail store, manufacturer of anything, nor a hotel or anything of that nature.
I can't think of any other business model (in history) that is as lucrative of what they are doing.
I would love for someone to provide a counter example, because I think I am going crazy - because it is very rare that you find something 'too good to be true'. But this might be one case, for the founders and investors, that truly is.
Unless they mess it up.
Is it really massively expensive?
When I left SF all those old buildings off Market were the cheapest options in The City. Also, you could usually take over the lease for cheap from some other startup wipeout.
I guess expensive is relative but last I checked it was about $1,100 for a 300sq ft office (and they clearly have a lot more than 300sq ft). That was a few years ago when I had a friend who moved his offices out of there because the location wasn't worth the cost to him.
What does it cost in terms of talent and time for every block away from BART and the Underground you decide to locate your office?
It's a more expensive than an extra $5K or $10K a month in rent, that's for sure.
This is exactly the logic that our mteam used in the '99 bubble when we built out offices on 2nd. I'm not saying Dropbox is extravagant, but this isn't a compelling argument to me.
That's not the logic that sank the company.
Seriously, $5 or $10K increase in monthly rent is a pittance. There are a lot more wasteful things I could bitch about than that, and I'm a cheap-ass.
Is Dropbox overspending on employee perks? I highly doubt it.
Does that make every expense that can be rationalized in comparison to headcount, revenue, or (worst of all) potential pull-through revenue valid? No! Some are valid, some aren't.
All I am saying is, this notion of "we need the very best talent, and we need to make it is as happy as can be" is a platitude that was used by execs to justify a lot of excess.
Thats extremely cheap (about $3/sq foot). From what I've seen, $20/sq foot is closer to normal.
I'm at a startup in SF - we saw nice places for about $2.5/sqft
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/off/2202446793.html
Around $3/sf
> its a 105 year old historic landmark
As a Brit, this made me laugh.
All your buildings were hewn out of raw granite by neolithic cavemen, amirite?
Obligatory 'An Englishman thinks 100 miles is a long way, an American thinks 100 years is a long time'.
When you are big enough, you can buy anything and that's considered natural. It's only when you are young and can enjoy such thing. I think for a startup, what matters is doing what you want to do and they are doing it.
You are factually incorrect in almost everything you say. There's really no place to start.
I'd agree with you about watching out for dotcom excess if it wasn't so inaccurate in this case. :-)