3 ms·

There's certainly cheaper places to house servers. They were probably a big cramped already, and expecting to need that space as they hire more (they aren't lim

There's certainly cheaper places to house servers. They were probably a big cramped already, and expecting to need that space as they hire more (they aren't limited to their current job listings).

handedness 9y ago
Not to say that's Dropbox's reason, but in my experience many, many large companies host servers in places that are far from being the most cost-effective option.
- jdavis703 9y ago
  Bloomberg used to have (maybe they still have it) a data center at 525 Market Street, a skyscraper in the heart of the Financial District. Sometimes cost effectiveness isn't the sole option companies use, maybe it made sense for Bloomberg to have servers close to their customers.
  - solatic 9y ago
    The financial sector isn't the best counter-example. Every little bit of latency matters in HFT, so there's probably a competitive advantage to running servers there compared with the countryside.