4 ms·

I used to think Dropbox was such a simple company -- how could they need hundreds (or are they at thousands?) of software engineers? There are some opportuniti

by lend000 10y ago

I used to think Dropbox was such a simple company -- how could they need hundreds (or are they at thousands?) of software engineers? There are some opportunities for real innovation, though. An easy one is de-duplication of identical files to save space (which I have tested that they do). However, I suspect it can be taken much further to gain a competitive advantage against other storage providers, such as de-duping blocks, advanced compression algorithms, etc. And of course, there's always room for creativity in the hardware and data-centers, and UX.

pgbovine 10y ago
how could they need hundreds (or are they at thousands?) of software engineers? supporting hundreds of millions of users (and probably tens of millions of paid users) is non-trivial
- biot 10y ago
  Famously, WhatsApp supported 900M users with only 50 engineers: https://www.wired.com/2015/09/whatsapp-serves-900-million-users-50-engineers/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/whatsapp-serves-900-million-us... While support staff definitely increases with users (paid or not), beyond a certain size the number of engineering staff should be largely independent of user count. As long as you are able to run 24/7 ops, manage outages and incidents, scale appropriately, etc. the only variable should be how rapidly you need to build and maintain your software. The rest of the complexity is all handled via automation.
  - supster 10y ago
    Since Dropbox is making a big push into enterprise, they are hiring a ton of high touch enterprise sales people - who can't scale in the same way an engineer can.
  - Lordarminius 10y ago
    >Famously, WhatsApp supported 900M users... I am not an expert but I agree with you. Follow up question: why is this not more common? why don't other companies emulate WhatsApp?
  - dasil003 10y ago
    The big difference between WhatsApp and Dropbox is mass storage of customer data. Scaling that data for random access is orders of magnitude harder to scale than simple message throughput without storage. The fact that WhatsApp is end-to-end with no syncing also makes it's feature-set easier to implement. Not to take anything away from WhatsApp, I'm sure they have a few lessons Dropbox could have learned from (Erlang more robust than Python at scale?), but it's really not a fair comparison.
    - biot 10y ago
      Yep, agreed. This means that Dropbox's minimum engineering count will be larger than WhatsApp's, but I still maintain that once you have sufficient engineers to tackle the problem, it's still largely independent of user count. Or, put another way, the number of engineers you need is O(problem complexity), not O(user count).
      - dasil003 10y ago
        Yes, although I would submit that in a case like Dropbox you get the VC demand for growth which means that if your product is not a natural homerun you are forced to start adding incidental complexity to try to keep the growth engine going. Then before you know it you are O(Investment Money) like Dropbox or Twitter.
jacobsimon 10y ago
Check out https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/07/lepton-image-compression-saving-22-losslessly-from-images-at-15mbs/ https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/07/lepton-image-compress...

by lend000 10y ago

pgbovine 10y ago

how could they need hundreds (or are they at thousands?) of software engineers? supporting hundreds of millions of users (and probably tens of millions of paid users) is non-trivial

biot 10y ago
Famously, WhatsApp supported 900M users with only 50 engineers: https://www.wired.com/2015/09/whatsapp-serves-900-million-users-50-engineers/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/whatsapp-serves-900-million-us... While support staff definitely increases with users (paid or not), beyond a certain size the number of engineering staff should be largely independent of user count. As long as you are able to run 24/7 ops, manage outages and incidents, scale appropriately, etc. the only variable should be how rapidly you need to build and maintain your software. The rest of the complexity is all handled via automation.
- supster 10y ago
  Since Dropbox is making a big push into enterprise, they are hiring a ton of high touch enterprise sales people - who can't scale in the same way an engineer can.
- Lordarminius 10y ago
  >Famously, WhatsApp supported 900M users... I am not an expert but I agree with you. Follow up question: why is this not more common? why don't other companies emulate WhatsApp?
- dasil003 10y ago
  The big difference between WhatsApp and Dropbox is mass storage of customer data. Scaling that data for random access is orders of magnitude harder to scale than simple message throughput without storage. The fact that WhatsApp is end-to-end with no syncing also makes it's feature-set easier to implement. Not to take anything away from WhatsApp, I'm sure they have a few lessons Dropbox could have learned from (Erlang more robust than Python at scale?), but it's really not a fair comparison.
  - biot 10y ago
    Yep, agreed. This means that Dropbox's minimum engineering count will be larger than WhatsApp's, but I still maintain that once you have sufficient engineers to tackle the problem, it's still largely independent of user count. Or, put another way, the number of engineers you need is O(problem complexity), not O(user count).
    - dasil003 10y ago
      Yes, although I would submit that in a case like Dropbox you get the VC demand for growth which means that if your product is not a natural homerun you are forced to start adding incidental complexity to try to keep the growth engine going. Then before you know it you are O(Investment Money) like Dropbox or Twitter.

jacobsimon 10y ago

Check out https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/07/lepton-image-compression-saving-22-losslessly-from-images-at-15mbs/ https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/07/lepton-image-compress...